1972-03-07 27 2 5 SENATE 461 0 1972-03-07 The Senate met at 3 p.m. 461 absence of the president 461 10000 0 0 CLERK, The The Clerk - Honourable senators, I have to announce that the President, Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack, is unable to attend the sitting of the Senate this day. In accordance with standing order 29 the Chairman of Committees, Senator Prowse, will take the Chair as Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) thereupon took the Chair, and read prayers. 461 petition Communications Tower on Black Mountain 461 KVK NEW SOUTH WALES 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator MULVIHILL - I present the following petition: To the Honourable the President and Members of the Sena le in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Thai the Australian Post Office proposes to construct a 640ft high solid concrete tower, housing radiotelephony-television transmission facilities, on Black Mountain in Canberra. That in the opinion of many responsible citizens such a tower would seriously impair the beauty of this city and is likely to lessen the value of the Black Mountain Flora and Fauna Reserve. That requests from residents of Canberra, and their Parliamentary representative, for information on the technical considerations supposedly favouring a solid tower have been refused by the Australian Post Office. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should, through its Standing Committee on the Social Environment, examine whether construction of a tower of this nature on Black Mountain is in the public interest, having particular regard to the need to preserve the beauty and environmental quality of the National Capital. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Petition received and read. 461 461 KPG QUEENSLAND 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - I present the following petition: To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth: That they have no objection to the Aboriginal Embassy being on the lawns outside Parliament House. That they believe that the Aborigines in common with all other Australian citizens, have a right to assemble in any peaceful manner of their own choice. And that they would object to any law that would make their being there illegal. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not enact any law that would detract from or hinder the rights of the Aborigines to be there outside Parliament House. And further that the Government instructs its officers not to interfere with the Aborigines who are peacefully assembled outside Parliament House. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Petition received and read. 461 Questions 461 461 1L5 NEW SOUTH WALES 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. A few minutes ago the Prime Minister stated that the Minister for Health would announce shortly the terms of a reference of doctors' fees to arbitration. Will the Minister tell us when he expects to be able to announce the name of the arbitrator and the terms of reference? Can he tell us also how the Government proposes to ensure that the doctors abide by any award which may be made by the arbitrator? Is it intended thai there be legislation on the matter? If not, what other means has the Government in mind to ensure observance of the decision? 461 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON It is true that this morning the Government took a decision to put to arbitration the question of fees for items 1 and 4 in the medical benefit, schedule, that is for surgery consultations and home visits - by general practitioners in New South Wales. The decision follows the widespread non-observance of common fees for those items by general practitioners in that State. During the luncheon period I informed the Federal President of the Australian Medical Association, as was proper, of the Government's decision taken late this morning. The details and the form and structure of the arbitration procedures are being examined urgently. I can assure the Senate that I will make a public announcement as quickly as possible. Senator Murphyrather suggested that I should announce quickly who the arbitrator will be and what the terms of reference will be. I know he will appreciate that the decision about the broad principle was taken only this morning and I have the responsibility put upon me to implement it. 1 give an assurance that as quickly as possible I will make a public statement about the terms of reference and who the arbitrator will be. J think everybody would agree that it would be improper for me to make comments before the decisions and announcements are made. As for the matter of enforcement, I think it is rather too early to ask such a question before even the judge, or whoever it may be, is appointed. No doubt I will be asked by the Press and radio stations to make statements or to go on the air in advance of the decisions being made. Honourable senators may rest assured that I will not be making statements until these matters are resolved. All I can say is that I will be dealing with these matters today and possibly into tomorrow - J do not know yet. As soon as they are resolved I would hope to make a statement in the Senate. 462 Questions 462 462 JTT SOUTH AUSTRALIA 0 0 DAVIDSON, Gordon Senator DAVIDSON - My question also is directed to the Minister for Health. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to reports that the amoeba responsible for amoebic meningitis has been found in piped water supplies in Adelaide as well as in northern and other parts of South Australia? Has his Department received any official reports on this development? If so, will his Department confer with other related Commonwealth and State establishments in an investigation of all phases of the movement and management of River Murray water? Has the Minister noted also that the South Australian Director-General of Health has said that the amoeba was quite widespread? Will he, not only as the Minister for Health but also as the representative of the Prime Minister in this place, note again the conclusions and recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution and press for some national approach to this serious matter? 462 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON I have seen the newspaper reports referred to by the honourable senator, although no official communication has been sent to me about the amoebic meningitis which was detected. A long time ago I was familiar with amoebic conditions and learnt during the war what effect they can have. The South Australian authorities have responsibility in this matter. Should they be of the opinion that the medical implications need to be considered at national level, 1 would expect them lo raise the matter with the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is a special body in which (he States and the Commonwealth have direct communication and through which they have direct links. My Department has no responsibility for water supplies from the River Murray. I understand that the report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution is at present under consideration by my colleague the Minister for National Development. To that extent it is currently under examination. However, I repeat that if the South Australian Government feels that the matter referred to by the honourable senator is a national matter; as distinct from one which comes within its own sovereignty, ti has access to the National Health and Medical Research Council, of which it is virtually a constituent member, or it may follow the traditional form of making representations through the Premier to the Prime Minister. 462 Questions 462 462 KBC WESTERN AUSTRALIA 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I address a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it proposed to provide new airport facilities at Eagle Farm Airport in Brisbane? Will these facilities be on the site of the present facilities or are they to be relocated? 462 JQR NEW SOUTH WALES LP Minister for Civil Aviation 1 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - Previously I referred to the fact that the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland had made a joint statement about development proposals and plans for Eagle Farm airport in Brisbane. The statement indicated quite clearly that the runway system should move into the north east, which inevitably will mean in due course a relocation of the facilities in which the honourable senator is interested. I shall obtain a copy of the statement for the honourable senator and make it available to him. 462 Questions 462 462 C7D VICTORIA 0 0 GUILFOYLE, Margaret Senator GUILFOYLE - I address a question to the Minister for Health. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the published allegation that a former Governor-General of Australia, Lord De L'Isle, transported a dog from Australia to Papua New Guinea and back to Australia? ls there any truth in this allegation and, if so, what were the circumstances? 463 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - I have seen the report and information has been sought in relation to it. I am able to inform the Senate that, to the best of my knowledge based on information that I have been able to acquire, there is no truth whatever in the story which relates to an incident which was alleged to have occurred in 1963. As a result of inquiries made by my Department we have been informed that there is no truth in the story. 463 Questions 463 463 JYA TASMANIA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE - My question also is addressed to the Minister for Health. Now that the Department of Health has taken belated action on the drug imipramine by sending telegrams to doctors, can the Minister explain to the Senate whether Dr McBride is the only doctor in Australia who is keeping an effective surveillance over drugs such as imipramine and thalidomide? What system is used by the Federal Department of Health to prevent such drugs being prescribed? If research in Great Britain 10 years ago showed that imipramine was harmful to a foetus, why were warnings nol prominently displayed on containers instead of on loose pamphlets? Finally, is the Minister satisfied with the present, system and, if not, what steps are being taken to make it effective? 463 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - This matter is tremendously important. I do not want to say anything which would detract in any way from the world renown and recognition of Dr McBride. I want to be seen and heard to say that at the outset. T may take a little longer than I normally lake answering questions in replying on this matter because it is of tremendous importance. 1 should like to state the history of this matter as I have seen it and as I have become involved with it since 1 left here late last week, lt is trite that a letter dated 17th February 1972 was sent by Dr McBride to the Director-General of the Department of Health. My information is that -the letter arrived on 21st or 22nd February. The letter indicated that he was concerned that, what is known as Tofranil, that is imipramine.. could cause limb deformation if ingested in early pregnancy. The letter did not contain any reference to knowledge by Dr McBride of any actual cases where there may have been a link between imipramine and limb deformation. lt was not written in the context of urgency in that sense at all. The letter was drawn to the attention of the Australian Drug Reaction Advisory Committee at its meeting on Friday, 25th February. On Saturday, 26th February, a Dr Winton, editor of the "Medical Journal of Australia" mentioned informally to Dr Walsche, who is an officer of my Department and Secretary of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee that a short statement by Dr McBride implicating imipramine as a possible cause of congenital abnormalities would be published in the 4th March issue of the Journal. I would like to repeat that the information would be published in the 4th March issue of the Journal. In view of the concern arising out of the Press statement by Dr McBride on Thursday, 2nd March - which was las/ Thursday - I requested the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee to consider the matter at its meeting on Friday, 3rd March, which was Kie next day. After that meeting, the Chairman of the Committee. Sir William Morrow, issued a statement to the Press. Sir William Morrow also was interviewed by radio and television news media after the meeting which, as .1 have said, was held on 3rd March, last Friday. On the morning of Saturday, 4th March - 1 was at a conference of Health Ministers on the earlier days - following the conclusion of the Health Ministers conference on Friday night, I had discussions with the Director-General of Health. Following upon that, 1 personally spoke by telephone to Dr T. I. Robertson, Chairman of the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Sub-committee of the Drug Evaluation Committee and told him of my desire that the Sub-committee meeting should be held as soon as possible to consider imipramine. 1 had further discussions with the Director-General on Sunday, again, last week - by which time it had emerged that the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Subcommittee could not consider this matter before Wednesday, that is, tomorrow, 8th March, mainly because Dr McBride had indicated that he was not in a position to provide the necessary information on imipramine before that date. That was the earliest date on which Dr McBride said he was able to meet the Committee. When it become clear that the meeting could not be held until tomorrow, I conferred with the Director-General on what immediate steps could be taken. The Director-General arranged an urgent meeting on Sunday night last between the Chairman of the Drug Evaluation Committee, Sir William Morrow, the Chairman of the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Subcommittee, Dr Robertson, and himself. When the Director-General reported to me the discussion which had taken place at that meeting, I decided that a telegram should be forwarded by the Director-General to every medical practitioner in Australia. On Monday - yesterday - such telegrams were forwarded. The telegrams read as follows: Pending Australian Drug Evaluation Committee's clarification of current issue associating imipramine with foetal abnormalities it is strongly recommended that imipramine not be prescribed for females in child-bearing age. lt will be seen that, far from being dilatory in dealing with this matter, my Department and I obviously acted with the greatest possible speed in dealing with the imipramine question. When it became clear that Dr McBride had some relevant facts to offer on this matter, rather than what might be described as a general indication of doubt as contained in his letter of 17th February, every step that could have been taken in this respect was taken. Incidentally, 1 should mention that Australia is ahead of the whole world in taking action concerning this drug. For example, although the United States has some excellent systems for dealing with adverse drug reactions, the health authorities in that country are seeking information from Australia on (he imipramine question. It is a matter that we must treat very seriously. I assure the Senate that everything possible is being done. The Committee will meet tomorrow. Naturally I will be given a report immediately it concludes its deliberations. Any action it recommends should be taken or it is necessary to take after that meeting will be taken. 464 Questions 464 464 K8Y TASMANIA IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970 0 0 TURNBULL, Reginald Senator TURNBULL - I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Health. 1 was very interested to hear that an arbitrator is to be appointed in regard to the determination of doctors' fees, but what assurance does the Australian Medical Association have that the Government will abide by the decision of the arbitrator if he finds that fees should be increased? I ask that question because when an arbitrator found that chemists should receive a higher payment the Commonwealth Government immediately said that it did not agree with the arbitrator's decision. I point out that although, I think, 5 years have elapsed the dispute with the chemists still has not been settled. That is why I have asked what will happen when the decision of the arbitrator is given in relation to fees charged by the medical profession? 464 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - I have no worries or doubts in my mind as to what the Government will do as a consequence of what an arbitrator may decide. I do not want to link 'his matter with what happened in relation to the pharmaceutical industry because that is another question altogether. In fairness to all concerned I think I should repeat the point I made to Senator Murphy that whilst we are in the critical situation of setting up this arbitration procedure, 1 do not think (hat I can in all conscience answer questions on this matter. 464 Questions 464 464 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. 1 preface, it by reminding him that on 22nd February, at question time, he invited me to produce the name of a manufacturer who is using the changeover to the metric system of measuring to reduce the quantities and increase the prices of his product. I also remind the Minister that he promised to conduct an investigation if I produced the name of the manufacturer and the product. I now produce for the Minister a 2-litre container of orange juice manufactured by Sunburst Foods Pty Ltd which lakes the place of a half-gallon container - -the one I hold in my hand was not produced by the same manufacturer but it is almost identical with the container previously used by that manufacturer - and which is sold at the same price although it contains 10 fluid ounces less. I ask: What action will the Minister lake to prevent profiteering by this company and other manufacturers in the changeover to the metric system of measuring? 465 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - 1 did make a promise that 1 would investigate any such matter if I were given the particulars. However, J am rather disappointed thai they have been given in the Senate. If they had been given to me in the normal way 1 could have dealt with them, but il is a rather dangerous practice to be unilaterally declaring situations to exist before they are proven to exist. But I will adhere to the promise I made to have this matter investigated. I would ask the honourable senator whether, after this matter has been dealt with, he will agree to sharing the contents of these containers with those honourable senators who wish to have a sip. 465 Questions 465 465 KBY SOUTH AUSTRALIA 0 0 YOUNG, Harold Senator YOUNG - 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Following the transport workers strike last Friday and the banning of refuelling services at Tullamarine Airport, which resulted in the disruption of domestic air services throughout Australia, I ask: Has the Minister any estimate of the cost to the airlines, industry and commerce - which would not take account, of course, of the inconvenience caused to so many people - of this strike? ls the Minister able to say whether this strike was due to demarcation issues between the 2 trade unions involved? If it was, what steps will the Minister take to prevent this type of guerilla strike over domestic issues between trade unions through jealousies and attempted domination by trade union leaders over others? 465 KBW TASMANIA LP Minister for Works 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - 1 regret thai I cannot give the honourable senator an estimate of the cost of this dispute, although to date it has caused a delay of some 3 hours in aircraft operations. It does represent a demarcation dispute between the transport and engineering unions. The matter has been before a Conciliation Commissioner this morning and certain discus sions have taken place which I feel it inappropriate to detail. Elements of the dispute still exist inasmuch as engineers refuse to train the transport workers to do the work that the transport workers wish to take over. Suggestions have been made that the Australian Council of Trade Unions should determine this demarcation dispute. The threat by the Transport Workers Union remains that if settlement is not reached by I think, next Friday another 3-days disruption will occur. 465 Questions 465 465 K1F VICTORIA 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator POYSER - ls the Minister for Health aware that the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. J. G. Gorton, gave an undertaking during the general election campaign of 1969 and again during the Senate election campaign of 1970 that increased payments would be made to regular contributors to health insurance organisations who were inmates of nursing homes and who were receiving intensive care. If this is so, can the Minister advise the Senate when these promises will be honoured? 465 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON I do not know that 1 am completely conversant with the implications of the question. The Government has made a decision to make increased payments in respect of nursing home care. When I became Minister for Health, I was asked in relation to the problems of nursing homes- 465 K1F 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator Poyser - We are talking about health. 465 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - The honourable senator asked about nursing homes. The situation now in nursing homes is that intensive care patients receive $6.50 a day, provided they are classified as intensive care cases, and for ordinary cases receive $3.50. This represents a significant increase. 465 K1F 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator Poyser - Do not forget that nursing home costs have increased also. 465 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - Do not try to move away from the question. The honourable senator can reframe his question if he wishes. In the case of nursing homes, the Government has acted as I have stated and has received high praise from all over Australia for its action. 466 K1F 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator Poyser - The Minister obviously did not hear my question. 466 Questions 466 466 KAS VICTORIA 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether he is concerned about the possible effect on established primary industries of the manufacture and sale of synthetic products which are sold under false labelling as being food which is regularly and confidently consumed by the Australian public. I refer in particular to meat and to milk. As no statement of value has been made either by the Department of Primary Industry or other interested departments as to a possible method of controlling such manufacture, will the Minister arrange for officers of the Department to confer with officers of the Attorney-General's Department as to the possible effect of the recent High Court decision in the case of SOS (Mowbray Heights) Pty Ltd v. Mead with a view to making a statement to the Senate as to the ability which now rests with State governments to control the sale of such substitute products? 466 JXR WESTERN AUSTRALIA CP Minister for Air 0 0 DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - A number of statements have been made by leading personnel in primary industry organisations pointing out the inroads that synthetic meat could make into the meat industry. I think a statement was made by the chairman of the Australian Meat Board early last year on this matter. He pointed out to the meat industry that it would have to deliver the goods and at the same time watch the inroads that synthetic meat could make into the industry. This matter has been raised on several occasions at meetings of the Australian Agricultural Council. The Minister for Primary Industry has written to each State government pointing out that the provisions of labelling come within their jurisdiction and asking each State government to examine its labelling legislation to ensure that synthetic meats are clearly labelled. I am not sure of the legal position but I shall certainly refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Primary Industry. If he has any further information, I will give it to the honourable senator. 466 Questions 466 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - I understand Senator Poyser is desirous of asking a supplementary question. 466 K1F 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator POYSER - I point out that I asked a question about increased payments to be made by health insurance organisations to certain contributors. The increase was promised by the former Prime Minister. Can the Minister for Health now enlighten me about the proposed increase? 466 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - The question is related to payments to certain contributors by health insurance organisations. 1 do not walk away from it. Senator Poyser has been gracious enough to Jet me have a copy of the question. I certainly will respond to it tomorrow. 466 Questions 466 466 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I ask a question of the Minister for Civil Aviation. As he has informed me that at the Eagle Farm Airport there will be a relocation of facilities, can he explain why Trans-Australia Airlines is reported to be spending Sim on rebuilding its terminal when, presumably, the rebuilt premises will soon be abandoned in the process of relocating aircraft terminals? 466 JQR LP 1 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - It will be some time before the facilities are fully relocated. As honourable senators are well aware the Trans-Australia Airlines terminal was burnt out. Arrangements are being made for the provision of a building adequate for the purpose for the time that it will be needed and one that can be used for another purpose in its present site or relocated where the new facilities will be erected. 466 Questions 466 466 K3R QUEENSLAND 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE - I direct to the Minister for Health a question which refers to the use of the drug imipramine. In view of the present concern following the disclosure of hazards associated with the use of imipramine, will the Minister make a statement to the Senate on the procedures operating in Australia for drug evaluation, including the Australian testing of drugs and the international exchange of information about drugs, with a view to reassuring the community that the maximum precautions are being taken? Is there any international arrangement in existence through the World Health Organisation regarding drug evaluation? Will the Australian Government, as a member of the United Nations, initiate action to create an international clearing house for drug acceptability so that world knowledge and experience may be pooled? 467 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON The question is a comprehensive one. .1 shall be happy to respond to it. The circumstances which prompted the asking of the question are sad. I shall be happy to give the background of the work of the Drug Evaluation Committee and its subcommittees. It is an interesting fact that Australia has felt obliged to send and has sent out signals on this issue, including one to the World Health Organisation. There are telephone conversations and communications passing between Australia and other nations about it. I would be perfectly willing to give a detailed reply. Drug evaluation is a world problem. I saw a Press release to the effect that approximately 2 million people in the United Kingdom have been users of the drug imipramine over a period of years. Primarily it is an anti-depressant drug. T will respond to the question and will get a broad outline of what is done in Australia and of our relations with other countries in this field. I have given a picture of what happened between last Thursday and today in relation to the drug as it concerns my Department. I have arranged with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia that women of child bearing age who bring to chemists prescriptions for imipramine written before 6th March be advised by the pharmacist to see their prescribing doctor. This is one further step that has been taken. The situation is a holding one. We do not want to put fear and distress into any more minds than we can because tomorrow is an important day in the examination of the drug. I feel bound to say that on Sunday night I had a conversation with Dr McBride, and he paid me the courtesy of talking to me in my office on Monday. He will get all the co-operation that is humanly possible to give to try to assess the problems. He is very careful about what he says. He is very fair about the concern he has. 467 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - He is a very dedicated man. 467 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON He is a very dedicated man. He is a world figure. He will be talking to the Adverse Drug Reactions Sub-committee tomorrow. Incidentally, the meeting tomorrow has been enlarged to bring in some other people, particularly in the field of clinical pharmacology. So, the Sub-committee meeting tomorrow will be a meeting of some of the best, if not the best, people in Australia to discuss this matter. 467 Questions 467 467 KRG TASMANIA 0 0 LILLICO, Alexander Senator LILLICO - Does the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry know whether any investigation has been made as to the suitability of Tasmania for the production of carpet wool? Is it not correct that Tasmania is suitable, from the standpoint of climate and in other respects, for such production? 467 JXR CP 0 0 DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - 1 have no doubt that Tasmania is suitable for strong wool production; but whether it produces enough wool of this type at the present time or would do so in the immediate future 1 do not know. 1 told Senator Poke the other day, in answer to a question, that I would have investigations made into this matter. I will do that. When I receive the answer, if Senator Poke does nol mind I will let Senator Lillico have a copy of it. 467 Questions 467 467 KTA NEW SOUTH WALES ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - My question, which is directed to the Minister for Health, follows the one asked of him by Senator Murphy and the answer given by him. Does he remember his predecessor Senator Greenwood stating as Minister for Health, in a ministerial statement in the Senate on 7th May 1971 announcing increases in medical and hospital insurance contribution rates, that the new most common fees for general practitioner surgery consultations and home visits will apply for a 2-year period from 1st July 1971 to 30th June 1973 and any increase in fees for other medical services before the end of that period will be based on a proper study of available information? Because the arbitration to which the Minister has made reference today will bo in respect of general practitioner services concerning consultations and home visitations, do I take it that the undertaking given to the Parliament and the Australian people on 7th May 1971 has now gone by the board so far as members of the Australian public generally are concerned, and that the Government is shown to be bending over backwards to help the genera! practitioners at the expense of the Australian public? 468 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - That is a quite erroneous assumption. The question impinges upon the terms of reference which have yet to be announced. To that extent I do not want to be drawn on something which I. am not yet in a position to announce. But what Senator Greenwood said was true and is still true. This is a reference in relation to New South Wales. lt is not suggested that as a result of it there will be a unilateral decision- 468 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - But New South Wales is part of Australia. 468 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - Yes, I know. The honourable senator has asked his question. He should not try to hedge the answer. I am giving it, not he. The fact of the matter is that the common fee concept is based on a 2-year cycle which is not due to end until 30th June 1973. So, what the honourable senator says is true and what Senator Greenwood said is true, lt certainly is not the intention that any reference in relation to items 1 and 4 of the schedule for general practitioners should create a situation in which New South Wales would have a different set of rules from any other State. 468 Questions 468 468 KSY QUEENSLAND 0 0 MCAULIFFE, Ronald Senator MCAULIFFE - My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that since March 1961 the only alteration to the chemists' professional fee for dispensing national health scheme prescriptions has been a 2c increase granted in 1970? ls he aware that pharmacists are considering withdrawing their services from the national health scheme unless the present system of fixing fees is altered? As the public would suffer the consequences of such action, will he consider establishing an independent tribunal to determine chemists' fees, and remove the increasing dissatisfaction and bitterness in pharmacy? 468 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - It is ironical that at a time when there are some problems in relation to increased medical fees a question is directed to me which has an implication of a sort of advocacy of increased pharmaceutical fees. But be that as it may. I issued a Press statement on this matter following a statement made by the President of the Pharmaceutical Guild of Australia. Also an anonymous document floated around which was a very naughty document. But I made a Press statement in response to the President's letter. I am sure that all honourable senators would have a copy of it in their boxes. I pointed out in that statement that following the last increase given to the pharmacists an offer was made of a survey of fees. Not only was the offer of a survey made but also - and this is in my Press release - an offer was made of retrospectivity in respect of any increase decided upon. In truth, that is as far as the situation has gone. The Commonwealth has offered to make a survey in relation to the cost of medicines and other things which are provided under the National Health Act. The members of the Guild are not prepared to accept the survey. They want another method. I feel bound to say that I am aware that a number of pharmacists have been interviewing honourable senators. I think that the Federal President, if he is not in the building now, will be here tonight to speak to other people. Also I think I am bound to say that I had a discussion with the Federal President in my office in this building last Wednesday. He and I sat around the table trying to find some formula for a solution to this matter. I do not want to prejudice any efforts being made by him, his Guild and myself as the Minister for Health representing the Commonwealth. I turn to the matter of arbitration. Originally at the invitation of the Guild a body was set up. It provides a membership of 8 people, 4 nominated by the Guild and 4 nominated by the Government. The Guild requested an independent chairman and the Government provided one in the person of Sir Walter Scott. There has been some criticism of that situation too. But if honourable senators have not already heard that no doubt they will today or tomorrow. I have to be completely fair and say that as late as last Wednesday morning I had a conference with the President of the Guild. In fact, in the last few hours we have sought the co-operation of the Guild in the other matter which has been raised. This has been quickly and readily given. I believe that it is still possible to find some solution which will ultimately resolve the deadlock which we have. I repeat that the deadlock arises from the fact that the Government has offered a survey under conditions which the Guild does not find acceptable and the Guild has offered an examination which is not acceptable to the Government. The sooner we can get that deadlock resolved the happier everybody will be. 469 Questions 469 469 KKD SOUTH AUSTRALIA 0 0 JESSOP, Donald Senator JESSOP - I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service whether he has read a reported statement by the South Australian Minister of Lands in which he alleges that the Commonwealth Department of Labour and National Service has failed to register Aborigines in remote areas in South Australia for unemployment benefit? Will the Minister ask his colleague to investigate this statement to see whether the remarks of the Minister in South Australia have been taken out of context? Can the Minister inform the Senate, firstly, whose responsibility it is to register Aborigines as unemployed; secondly, what facilities are available to Aborigines for this purpose in remote areas, and thirdly, whether provision is made or could bc made for welfare officers or social workers to act as agents for Aborigines to see that they are recorded with the Department as unemployed? 469 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - I am grateful to the honourable senator for drawing my attention to this matter. I have not seen the South Australian Minister's statement, nor am I aware of the other matters the honourable senator has raised. As the question relates to Aborigines it will necessitate reference to the Minister for Labour and National Service and the Minister whose special responsibility Aborigines are. I will refer the question to the appropriate Ministers and obtain a written answer for the honourable senator. 469 Questions 469 469 K6F SOUTH AUSTRALIA 0 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH - 1 ask the Minister for Health: Is the legal growing of opium poppies in Tasmania under the control of the Department of Customs and Excise? Docs the Department of Health have as the Deputy Director of Health resident in Tasmania a medical practitioner? Is the Deputy Director assisted by a qualified pharmacist? If the Department of Health has on its staff in Tasmania a qualified doctor and a pharmacist could not such personnel provide all necessary information on poppy growing? If so, why did 3 Second Division officers of the Department of Health in January this year journey to Tasmania to inspect poppy growing? What was the cost of the visit of the 3 officers? If the purpose of the visit was not to give the 3 Second Division officers a holiday at Commonwealth expense, what was the purpose? Sena;or Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - First of all 1 deprecate any suggestion of impropriety which this question carries, lt suggests impropriety against members of the Public Service who cannot defend themselves because the question is asked in this place, and 1 will not have a bar of it. As to the substance of the question, I recall from my own knowledge when T was Minister for Customs and Excise that the growing of opium poppies is under the control of the Department of Customs and Excise. I have not been briefed in relation to the link between this matter and my present department. I will obtain the information and supply it to the Senate tomorrow. I conclude on this note: Accepting that the 3 officers did go to Tasmania - I do not challenge it for a moment and 1 put aside the honourable senator's implications related to this aspect of the question - J would say that whatever was the cost of sending them to make certain that everything was being done to protect the nation against illegal use of poppy it would be a completely justified expenditure. 469 K6F 0 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator Cavanagh - But they have no control over it. 469 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON I was Minister for Customs and Excise from 1964 to 1967 and I am aware, contrary to what Senator Cavanagh indicated, that the Department has an all over control in relation to this matter. There would not be a department - and 1 think there are 27 ministries- 470 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator Gair - Too many. Senator Sir KENNETHANDERSON - That is another matter. Let us keep to the point. The fact is that there would not be a department which does not have some inter-relationship with another department. Some fields impinge not on one department but on 4 or 5 departments. Every day, or at any rate, every week, there are interdepartmental meetings associated with the administration of something which would involve the special interest of 4, 5 or even 6 departments. One only has to think of the Department of the Interior which, on a broad canvas, is responsible for the Northern Territory. Senator Cavanagh is interjecting, lt is all right to take a swing at people who cannot defend themselves but when 1 want to put things on the line he does not like it and wants to interrupt. If the honourable senator had come to me privately and said this, I could have understood it; but to suggest publicly, as he has done, that people in my department are deliberately cheating the taxpayers in order to go on joy rides around the country is a disgraceful comment to make. 470 Questions 470 470 KVK 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator MULVIHILL - I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. In view of the Fact that the Minister for Immigration has used his powers on past occasions - not always justly - to deny people entry to Australia for political reasons, can and will those self-same powers be used in the interests of Australian dog owners to ensure that Third Officer Klaus Wettan of the alumina carrier 'Helen', a selfconfessed canine murderer, is not allowed to become an animal Jack-the-Ripper when on shore leave in Australia? 470 KMX VICTORIA LP Attorney-General 1 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - The honourable senator's question obviously is based upon a mixture of fact and imagination. As to the first part of the question, there is no basis in fact for the inference that the power of the Minister for Immigration has been used improperly. As to the second part of the question, which concerns the alleged drowning of a dog at sea, that is not a matter for the Minister for Immigraion 470 Questions 470 470 KBY 0 0 YOUNG, Harold Senator YOUNG - My question, which is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, concerns the Canberra airport. Has any decision yet been reached about whether the runways of the present Canberra airport are to be extended or whether the airport is to be moved to a new site? 470 JQR LP 1 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - Yes, a decision has been made and announced. The present airport runway system is to be extended approximately 2,000 feet in a south easterly direction. This calls for the diversion of the road to the Bungendore area; I think it is called the Pialligo Highway. I cannot give the honourable senator the exact acreage involved but all the land is in Commonwealth territory. Associated taxiway adjustments will have to be made in due course, lt may well mean that the terminal facilities will need to be expanded but there is room for that to be done. 470 Questions 470 470 KPA NEW SOUTH WALES 0 0 KANE, John Senator KANE - 1 ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: Has the Department of Civil Aviation, in its investigation of the Somers by site as an international airport, ascertained whether the landings and takeoffs of aircraft would be on east to west flight paths and so avoid flight directly over the towns of Gosford and Woy Woy? Has the Department made any investigation to determine whether the main centres of these towns would be affected by fall-out or pollution? 470 JQR LP 1 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - The matters referred to by the honourable senator currently are under investigation by a joint Commonwealth-State committee. Nol only the Department of Civil Aviation is concerned. The committee embraces the Department of Civil Aviation, the Department of the Interior, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Works on the Commonwealth side, and the New South Wales State Planning Authority, and the departments associated with works, highways, local government and railways on the New South Wales side. All the matters mentioned by the honourable senator are under investigation. His comment about pollution ought to be viewed in a proper context. The information available indicates that gas emitted from aircraft in the sky over major airports contributes less than about one per cent of the total pollution that might affect any city underneath the aircrafts' passage. 471 Questions 471 471 RG4 NEW SOUTH WALES 0 0 GIETZELT, Arthur Senator GIETZELT - J ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is a fact that one of the accredited journalists who covered President Nixon's visit to China was the internationally known Australian, Wilfred Burchett. Is it true that President Nixon spoke personally to Burchett in Peking, noting that Burchett was an Australian, and that in high places in Washington he is valued for his top level contacts with Chinese leaders? If Mr Burchett is so clearly acceptable to the American Government will the Australian Government now act swiftly to give him similar recognition here by restoring his Australian passport? 471 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - The Government is aware that some interest has been shown about the case of Mr Wilfred Burchett. The Government's position has been stated on a number of occasions. For example, 1 refer to an answer given by Senator Dame Annabels Rankin and which appears in Hansard of 4th March 1970. I realise that the honourable senator was not here then. However, I would be happy to make a copy of <he answer available to him. The Government's position has remained unchanged since that statement was mads in March 1970. 471 Questions 471 471 KQV QUEENSLAND CP; NCP from May 1975 0 0 LAWRIE, Alexander Senator LAWRIE - Has the Minister representing the Postmaster-General seen a report in the Sunday Press that the Postmaster-General is examining the question of a standard charge for telephone calls throughout Australia or, alternatively, a standard charge for trunk line calls and another standard charge for local calls? Can the Minister inform the Senate when a report on this matter might be available? 471 KMX LP 1 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - I did notice in the Sunday Press the report to the effect which has been mentioned by the honour able senator and I understand that it is a fact that such an inquiry has been proceeding within the Postmaster-General's Department, lt has been stressed by the Postmaster-General that this inquiry is being undertaken for the purpose of ascertaining what is involved and what are the facts. I do not know when the report will be available, but I shall convey the honourable senators' interest to the Postmaster-General. If he is able to provide an answer 1 am sure that he will do so. 471 Questions 471 471 5U4 NEW SOUTH WALES ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Jim Senator James McClelland - My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Does the Government anticipate that there will be at least one more vacancy in the High Court before the next Federal election? Does the Government intend to appoint the Minister for External Affairs, Mr Nigel Bowen, to fill that vacancy? Does the Government intend also to wait until the eve of the election to make this appointment in order to avoid a byelection for the electorate of Parramatta? 471 KMX LP 1 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - I am unaware of any actual or projected vacancy on the High Court. I am surprised that the honourable senator should ask a question reeking of such impropriety. I do not think it deserves any further answer. 471 Questions 471 471 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - Earlier this afternoon I replied to a question by Senator Cavanagh about officers of the Department of Health in Tasmania. 1 now have further information which, in fairness, I think should be stated so that it may be considered in the context of the question. Senior officers of the Commonwealth Department of Health recently visited opium poppy growing and processing facilities in Tasmania. This visit took place as a matter incidental to their attendance at a scheduled meeting of the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence. Senior officers of the Department of Customs and Excise also attended. 471 Questions 471 471 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister inform the Parliament of the total amount of the allocation of Commonwealth funds which has been directed to Queensland to date to cover the damage caused by cyclone Althea' to Townsville and district on 24th December 1971? How have the funds been allocated? 472 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON I recall that recently by the use of the forms of the Senate we had a debate on this matter. At that time certain figures were mentioned to show the amount of money which had been paid to the State in relation to this disaster. 472 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - lt has not been paid. 472 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - 1 refer to the amount made available to the Stale. Obviously this question needs a detailed answer, which 1 shall be happy to obtain for the honourable senator without delay. 472 Questions 472 472 KVK 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator MULVIHILL - Will the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services provide the names of the countries with which Australia has commenced negotiations on the matter of reciprocal age pensions? Do such discussions entail Australian representatives visiting those countries or will they be conducted with the diplomatic representatives of those nations in Australia? 472 KMX LP 1 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - Preliminary approaches have been made to the following countries for the purposes which the honourable senator is inquiring about: The Netherlands, Denmark. Portugal, the Irish Republic, Austria, France, Spain Yugoslavia, Italy, the German Federal Republic, Greece, Malta and Turkey. At the present stage, negotiations are being conducted with the diplomatic representatives of those countries who are in Australia, lt is uncertain at present whether any contacts overseas will be necessary as these negotiations develop, lt is desired, however, to complete these negotiations with the least possible delay. 472 Questions 472 472 KTZ SOUTH AUSTRALIA 0 0 MCLAREN, Geoffrey Senator McLAREN - Has the Minister for Health seen a report in the Canberra Courier' of Thursday, 2nd March, in which it is claimed that at a seminar on Drugs and the Mass Media', held in Canberra on the previous weekend, the talks by experts did little but cause confusion and that discussion of responsible and irresponsible reporting of drug cases was so basic that it was irritating? In view of this report, does the Minister consider that the expense involved in staging this seminar was justified? 472 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON The answer to the last part of the question is that the expenditure was completely justified. To the extent that we can get the widest possible publicity of the terrible consequences of drug taking, with special reference to the young, the expenditure is justified. In asking his question the honourable senator has repeated what some person has chosen to write. That is fair enough, I suppose. 1 do nol suppose any of us has been to a seminar of which someone did not say that in his judgment nothing came out of it or not enough came out of it. It is a personal opinion. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. But it is a most unwise person who opens his mouth and swallows everything that he reads. I did not attend this seminar. The Minister assisting the Miniser for Health, who was the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse, was present and I am told that he did a magnificent job. I, as Minister, am proud of the report that I received on the way in which he de-fused certain things that happened there. It is not unique for people, to say that they did not get the lift that they sought from a certain activity. This is human nature, is it not? That situation arises here when somebody makes a magnificent speech and somebody else thinks that it was a horror. The truth of the matter is that even I, although I try to be most patient, get a bit excited, as honourable senators saw today. This is in the nature of human beings. But let us not move away from the cardinal factor in relation to this matter. The purpose of a seminar such as that which was held is to obtain the widest possible coverage through the media, and by other means, of drug addiction. Even if the percentage of success from that seminar was 1 per cent only, I would be holding up my hands and saying: 'Thank God for the 1 per cent; we have got something'. I believe that, as a result of this seminar, we will get the co-operation of the media in getting across the message that we must get across in the interests of humanity. 473 Questions 473 473 KTA NEW SOUTH WALES ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - My question, which I direct to the Minister for Health, relates to previous questions asked of him by Senator Murphy and me concerning the proposed arbitration on general practitioners' fees in New South Wales. Now that an arbitrator has been appointed to consider further increases in the fees charged by general practitioners in respect of consultations and home visits, will the Minister give an undertaking that, if as a result of such arbitration, fees are increased, the widening gap between the refunds payable by the Commonwealth and the health insurance funds on the one hand and the fee payable on the other will be bridged by the Commonwealth and the medical insurance funds without there being any consequential increase in contributions by contributors to medical insurance funds? 473 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - Almost the same question was asked of me last week by Senator Douglas McClelland. The only difference is that the honourable senator's question this afternoon has been dressed up to tie in with a decision that was taken today in relation to the appointment of an arbitrator. That arbitrator has not yet been appointed. We are pretty good but wc are not so good that we can appoint an arbitrator in one or two hours merely by pressing a button. Senator Douglas McClelland wants to destroy the whole basis of arbitration by getting me, of all people, to give assurances in advance. I think honourable senators opposite ought to be going around and saying: 'It is jolly good that we are going to have an arbitrator decide the matter' and be leaving it at that for the time being. The answer I gave last week to a similar question by the honourable senator still applies. 473 Questions 473 473 KBY 0 0 YOUNG, Harold Senator YOUNG - I direct a question to the Minister for Air. I ask: Has Australia been billed by the United States of America for the Phantom aircraft which was lost last year? If the Australian Gov ernment has not been billed is that because agreement cannot be reached on the replacement fund? 473 JXR CP 0 0 DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - It is true that the Australian Government has not been billed for the Phantom aircraft which was lost off the coast of New South Wales last year. The leasing agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the United States of America is very firm that in the event of the total loss of an aircraft the Commonwealth Government will pay to the United States Air Force a sum to the maximum of $3.97 1 m. However, that price will be reduced by the amount already paid in leasing that aircraft. 473 Questions 473 473 K3A VICTORIA 0 0 BROWN, William Senator BROWN - My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I ask: Is he aware that there is a growing opinion among doctors that the number of aged people in the community is increasing both relatively and absolutely and that, with the exception of the newborn, illness occurs more frequently in the elderly than in any other age group? In the light of those opinions, will the Commonwealth Government initiate projects designed to ascertain the future need for geriatric services? 473 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - Some of the preface to the honourable senator's question was based on statistics and part of it would, I think, be basically accepted. I should have thought it obvious that sickness is more likely to occur in the elderly than in the young. The geriatric side of health is to a considerable extent linked with the Department of Social Services. There is in the social services field a series of Acts relating to geriatrics. 1 think I should refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Social Services and then to the Department of Health in order to obtain a considered response from both sources. 473 Questions 473 473 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I preface it by reminding the Minister that during question time last week 1 asked about the possible dale of a Concorde aircraft coming to Australia and that the Minister replied that he had no knowledge of the matter, although the next day the Press carried stories of the arrival date. I now ask: Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether damage caused by the sonic boom of the Concorde to persons, property and livestock along the flight path of that aircraft, if and when it visits Australia will be paid for from Government funds? 474 JQR LP 1 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - No, I cannot so inform the Parliament. 474 Questions 474 474 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE - 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If it is the purpose of the Government to set up a diplomatic post in Hong Kong and open the door to normalising relations with China, how does he explain the extraordinary fact that, according to the Melbourne 'Age' of today, 7th March, the Department of Foreign Affairs has only one properly trained specialist on China working for it and has decided in its China section to dispense with persons who speak Chinese? 474 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - The matter to which the honourable senator has referred is nol a fact. The argument will be answered in writing. 474 Questions 474 (Question No. 1870) 474 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE asked the Minister for Works, upon notice: What is the total estimated cost to the Department of Works for repairs to buildings, equipment, etc., in Townsville damaged by the recent cyclone. 474 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The estimated cost of repairs covering damage to assets owned by the Commonwealth Department of Works in the Townsville area is S3 1.000. 474 Questions 474 (Question No. 1574) 474 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: What is the percentage of rebates to taxpayers disallowed since the introduction of computerisation in the Taxation Department in dealing with (a) medical claims, (b) dental claims, and (c) claims for chemists expenses. 474 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Since 1 July 1971 computers have been used In all States to assist in the assessment of the income tax returns of employees. By 19th November 1971 more than four million returns or approximately 95 per cent of the total number of. returns lodged by employees were assessed under the new system. The Commissioner of Taxation does not have any statistics of the percentage of cases In which refunds claimed have been disallowed but he has furnished the following figures as giving the percentage of assessments in which the deductions claimed for medical, dental and chemist expenses have been adjusted, either by increase or decrease - These percentages relate to the 95 per cent of assessments completed by 19th November 1971. Although similar statistics are not readily available in respect of the comparatively small number of employee assessments completed since that date the Commissioner has no reason to believe that their inclusion in the calculation would vary the above percentages to any significant degree. 474 Questions 474 474 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - On 2nd March 1972, Senator Murphy asked me the following question: ls it not correct that an efficiency expert was recently appointed to investigate the affairs of the Department of Works. I now have the following reply to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Works, which is responsible for the expenditure of approximately S400m annually, including the cost of its own administration, is continually reviewing its procedures and practices, as does any major organisation in Government or industry, in order to improve, wherever practicable, its operational and administrative efficiency and standards of service. Over the last two or three years several specific review studies have been undertaken and for the information of the Senate I would like to give some brief information. New South Wales - A special committee comprising departmental officers and a Management Consultant has examined the existing organisation of the New South Wales Region of the Department. In line with the development in leading similar organisations overseas and in Australia, the Department is developing a multi-disciplined approach to the design and construction of its more important works, lt is also increasing the extent of its planning efforts and co-ordination to ensure that works are produced economically, efficiently and as quickly, as practicable. Reference to this matter is made in the Public Service Boards report 1970, pp. 12- 13. Victoria - In the Victorian Region, the Department, utilising the services of its Assistant Director-General (Operations) and his staff, together with Management Consultants, has been engaged in developing and assisting with the introduction of a planning, control and a performance measurement system in relation to the operation of the day labour activities of the Department. South Australia - A Join I Departmental Public Service Board Team has examined the functions, operations, establishment and workload of the South Australian Region of the Department and has reported to the appropriate authorities on the nature, level and scope of existing functions and on an organisation appropriate in size for current workloads. Queensland - A Joint Departmental/Public Service Board Team has reviewed the appropriateness of the staffing levels in the Queensland Region of the Department, having regard lo both current and foreseeable workloads. The relevant report is nearing completion.. Pap/la New Guinea - A special committee comprising departmental officers and a former Slate Government Director of Public Works has, and is continuing to examine organisational changes and the type of professional assistance which can be rendered by the Department of Works when the responsibility for the whole of the Works function is taken over by the Papua New Guinea Administration. 475 Questions 475 475 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - On 7th December last Senator Davidson asked me a question without notice as follows: I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. I ask whether the Minister has noted the reported results of an independent survey conducted at the University of Sydney in which it was reported that most Arts graduates do not take the course for a career? Has lie noted also that 41 per cent of the people concerned have received no advice on the selection of subjects and 43 per cent of those who have received advice have regarded it as of no help? Because of the public funds involved and the importance of Australia's education programme at the tertiary level, will the Minister make enquiries as to the effectiveness of advisory services regarding careers and will he obtain information on Arts courses at Australian universities with a view to assisting with the channelling of student ability into successful vocations? As I explained at the time, I believe that the study of the Arts has a very wide and fundamental importance for our general student population and I therefore said that I thought it was a subject on which 1 should give the Minister an opportunity to make a considered statement. The Minister for Education and Science has now provided me with the following comments: Traditionally universities have provided many courses wilh a view to general education as well as lo the provision of vocational training. This is well known lo students and many choose to pursue an Arts course and sometimes a Science course for the benefit of their general education or because, on entering university, they have no firm idea of the occupation they wish to follow in life. I note that Senator Davidson's concern is related mainly to the provision of advice to students about the nature of Arts courses, (he subjects they might study and the career prospects at the end of such a course. All universities provide advisory services to students and these are constantly being improved and developed. However, many students do not seek advice, and many do nol fully appreciate advice when given. Moreover, the reason for the difficulty of those who sought advice but later claimed (hat it was of no assistance may well lie in the fact that they entered university without any real understanding of the career they wished to follow and enrolled for an Arts course in the belief that the acquisition of a degree would automatically qualify them for a career. But, as I have explained, training for a specific career is not the basic aim of many university courses although it is my feeling that universities do have some obligation, when designing courses, lo have some regard to the employment possibilities of graduates. I also believe thai secondary schools have an increasingly important role *o play in career guidance and counselling. However, I should say that, while Arts courses are often no* directed to particular vocations, nevertheless they provide a broad basis for education which, wilh experience on the job or postgraduate training at university or college ot advanced education, does in fact suit people for a wide variety of occupations. Moreover there is a number of disciplines taught within faculties of Arts which lead directly to professional work, for example, Economics and Psychology. I have also noted, that a considerable proportion of students enrolled at the Canberra College of Advanced Education are first degree graduates from the Australian National University who. after their general degree course, are entrolling for graduate courses in Librarianship, Teaching and Secretarial Studies. A number of overseas countries is also experiencing growing difficulties on the question of availability of suitable employment for certain types of graduates. Historically, graduates have been sought after for employment but with the increasing number of graduates, the certainty of their gaining employment of their first choice is diminishing. However, Senator Davidson will appreciate thai government, industry and commerce cannot be expected to create jobs to accommodate particular training or specialisations. Training in specialist areas does not create a right to a particular job. On the other hand, as I have said earlier,I do not believe that we can leave the question of job opportunity for the student alone to resolve. The student will need guidance and help and this is not possible without the close and continuing liaison between employing authorities and universities. As I am personally concerned about the employment prospects of certain types of university graduates I have asked the Chairman of the Australian Universities Commission to consult with the Department of Labour and National Service at the earliest opportunity with a view to ascertaining the extent of the problem and indicating, if necessary, possible remedies. 476 Questions 476 (Question No. 1348) 476 K19 TASMANIA 0 0 POKE, Albert Senator POKE asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: Have plans for the formation of a National Health Insurance Commission been abandoned, in view of a statement by the Minister on 8th September 1971 in which he intimated that the Government was reconsidering its promise to establish the Commission. 476 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government does not intend to implement the recommendation of the Nimmo Committee that a National Health Insurance Commission be established. 476 Questions 476 (Question No. 1662) 476 KTA NEW SOUTH WALES ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: Which publications receive financial assistance from the Commonwealth and what sums have been received by each such publication in each of the last 5 years. What is the estimated circulation of these publications, and who are the registered proprietors. 476 KMX LP 1 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question: Within my area of responsibilities the following publications receive assistance: 476 Questions 476 (Question No. 1693) 476 KVK 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator MULVIHILL asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: Is the Minister aware of a practice by the National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association whereby they seek to coerce members of the Rubber Workers' Union, who are contributorsto the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia, to claim for the cost of treatment for injuries sustained through industrial accidents from the Hospitals Contribution Fund rather than from the Association. Will the Minister give an assurance that this form of imposition on the Hospitals Contribution Fund will be prevented. 476 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I am not aware of any practices of the nature referred to and the rules of registered hospital benefits organisations are diesigned to protect contributors from such practices. For example, the rules of the Hospitals Contribution Fund preclude the payment of fund benefits to persons who are entitled to full coverage under Third Party insurance or Workers' Compensation. Also, the National Health Act precludes the payment of Commonwealth benefits in such cases. However, where the amount of compensation is insufficient to cover the medical or hospital expenses, Commonwealth and fund benefits may be payable in certain circumstances. Any person who deliberately sets out to obtain benefits fraudulently would have to falsify documents. The medical claim form used by registered organisations includes a direct question - which must be answered by the contributor either yes' or 'no' - as to whether he has an entitlement under workers' compensation or third party insurance in respect of the particular illness or disability for which benefits are claimed. The claim form must be signed by the contributor who thereby declares that the information is true and correct. Similar conditions apply to claims for hospital benefits in that the certificate of hospitalisation (Form H.B. 21) issued by hospitals requires the contributor to certify that the hospitalisation does not involve workers' compensation or third party. It is a usual prerequisite to the payment of hospital benefits that a Form H.B. 21 be produced. If the patient is entitled to workers' compensation, the hospital should not issue a Form H.B. 21. In so far as Commonwealth benefits are concerned, the National Health Act by virtue of sec- tions 30 and 62 provides for a penalty of $200 or imprisonment for six months for any false or misleading statement that involves the payment of Commonwealth benefits which otherwise would not he payable. Apart from the safeguards provided by these forms, both the Hospitals Contribution Fund and officers of my Department maintain a scrutiny of claims, and persons suspected to have falsified accounts, claims or receipts may be prosecuted. I would regard the type of practice described as a serious matter.I suggest that the honourable senator make any information regarding specific cases available to me so that I can have them fully investigated. 477 Questions 477 (Question No. 1847) 477 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: Did the Prime Minister of Fiji, Raw Sir Kamisese Mara, require a visa to visit Australia to attend the South Pacific Forum. Did the Cabinet Secretary for Fiji, Mr Sanders, who accompanied the Prime Minister, also require a visa to enter Australia. 477 KMX LP 1 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No, he did not require one. However the Australian High Commissioner in Suva agreed to a request from the Fijian Prime Minister's office, that a visa be issued and a multiple visa was authorised for any number of journeys to Australia until October 1975 (i.e. date of expiry of the Prime Minister's Passport). No. 477 miscellaneous The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - I inform the Senate that the President has received a letter from the Prime Minister appointing Mr Lloyd to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in place of Mr Katter. 477 miscellaneous 477 477 JQR New South Wales LP 1 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - I present the following report by the Tariff Board: industrial gamma ray equipment. 477 miscellaneous 477 477 KKD South Australia 0 0 JESSOP, Donald Senator JESSOP - In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work: Sewerage System at Tennant Creek, Northern Territory. 477 Questions 477 477 JUH Tasmania 0 0 DEVITT, Donald Senator DEVITT -I ask for leave to make a brief statement about Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 3 standing in my name. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. 477 JUH 0 0 DEVITT, Donald Senator DEVITT - When I gave notice of the motion on 7th December 1971I explained to the Senate that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee was concerned with certain aspects of the Australian Capital Territory Milk Authority Ordinance 1971. I said that the notice was being given to allow the Committee more time in which to pursue its inquiries. The Committee has had discussions with officers of the Department of the Interior and has now received from the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) an assurance that the Ordinance will be amended to overcome the concern of the Committee. Accordingly, I wish to withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 3 standing in my name. Notice of motion - by leave - withdrawn. 478 miscellaneous 478 478 K3R Queensland 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE - 1 move: That the Film Classification Ordinance 1971, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 25 of 1971, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1970, be disallowed. The object of moving the motion to disallow the Ordinance is not related to the whole content of the Ordinance nor to the substance of it but merely to sections 4 and 5, and to sections 6 and 7 which deal wilh the penalty prescribed for a breach of sections 4 and 5. Section 4 states: (1.) The exhibition of a film to persons on payment of a charge or on presentation of a ticket or other token is prohibited unless - the film has been registered under the State Act and it is exhibited under the name under which it is so registered and in the form, without alteration or addition, in which it is so registered; or the film is a Mim that has been exempted from registration under the State Act. Section 5 states: (1.) This section applies to a film that has been registered under the State Act after the prescribed date. The prescribed date is defined in section 3 as follows: the prescribed date' means the date of commencement of the Theatres and Public Halls and Cinematograph Films (Amendment) Act, 1971 of the State of New South Wales. Section 5 continues: (2.) The exhibition of a Rim to which this section applies to persons on payment of a charge or on presentation of a ticket or other token is prohibited unless, at the commencement of the exhibition of the film, there is exhibited an image that specifies - the classification that has been assigned to the film under the State Act; or the symbol that is the appropriate symbol for the classification assigned to the film under the State Act. (3.) The publication, by any, means whatsoever, of advertising matter relating to a film to which this section applies is prohibited unless the adver tising matter contains in a position in which it is clearly visible having regard to the size and nature of the advertising matter - a statement specifying the classification assigned to the film under the Stale Act; or the symbol that is the appropriate symbol for the classification assigned to the film under the State Act. The penalty section is section 6. lt states: Where a film is exhibited in contravention of section 4 or 5 of this Ordinance, the person who conducts the exhibition of the film and the person who has the management and control of the place at which the film is exhibited are each guilty of an offence against this Ordinance and are liable, on conviction, to a penalty not exceeding One hundred dollars. Section 7 states: Where advertising matter in relation lo a film is published in contravention of sub-section (3.) of section 5 of this Ordinance, the person who caused the advertising matter to be published is guilty of an offence against this Ordinance and is liable, on conviction, to a penalty not exceeding One hundred dollars. The question is whether the penalty imposed, which is a maximum penalty not exceeding $100, is appropriate to effect the purpose for which it is designed. The Ordinance deals with the recognition of the classification of films and films to be designated for restricted audiences and if the penalty is not appropriate in the inhibitive sense it is only an invitation to those who are prepared to exploit certain types of presentations to take advantage of that and, at the cost of the. minds of the young, to be prepared to risk a minor penalty which they would more than recoup by the additional patronage they would get from those who came to see a certain type of film which was not designated as a film unsuitable for children. Parents could come accompanied by children, in the absence of the specification of the type of film, and what might be gained in admission fees might more than counter-balance any penalty that might be imposed. The penalty is only a maximum of $100; it could be very much less. From reading the Press we do know of the very sophisticated types of films which unfortunately are available and that many films which could not fall into that category are actually quite unsuitable for any presentation and certainly for presentation to restricted audiences. The Ordinance appears to incorporate the classification of films according to the State definition. In this case the appropriate State would be New South Wales which is contiguous to the Australian Capital Territory. 1 asked officers of the Department of the Interior about this matter and the advice, I received was that the actual method of classifying films throughout the Commonwealth was introduced on a uniform basis and in general terms penalties have been fixed on a similar basis. Apparently there is no uniformity in relation to penalties. If my recollection is correct, the maximum penalty for a breach of this kind under New South Wales law is $200. In the contiguous area - the A.C.T. - maximum penalty is $100. I think that would be a quite unsuitable differentiation and it might render almost nugatory the penalty which is imposed in Canberra. 1 do not want to debate the subject at length. That was the basis of my moving the disallowance of the Ordinance. I shall be interested to hear the comment of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) on the matter. If the Minister is able to indicate that there is good and sufficient reason for the penalty which has been fixed in the Australian Capital Territory and that it is appropriate for the offence, against the general background of the violation of this type of law, I will not attempt, to make it impossible for the Ordinance to go into complete and permanent operation. I had in mind to hear what the Minister said. If, in my best judgment an adequate case is made out I will be prepared to withdraw my motton. I do ask the Minister, if in retrospect the Department finds that, the penalty is inadequate or that it is undesirable that the penalty in the Australian Capital Territory is different from that in the contiguous State of New South Wales, to give an undertaking to review the Ordinance to see whether perhaps on re-examination a higher or a parallel penalty might not be imposed. 1 shall be delighted to hear the Minister's response to my remarks. 479 JQR New South Wales LP 1 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - I think I might begin by reversing the normal process of argument. Senator Byrne may rest assured that if it is ascertained that in the light of experience a larger penalty is warranted or that if a larger penalty would improve the situation, make it better and set a stronger discipline a review of the Ordinance would be sought. The background of the matter, as J understand it, is something like this: The sub-section of the Ordinance requires advertising matter to have clearly visible on it a statement specifying the classification assigned to the film or the appropriate symbol of that classification and the penalty for an offence under that sub-section is one not exceeding $100. Further to that my notes tell me that the film classification legislation has been framed on a uniform basis throughout the Commonwealth as a consequence of an agreement between the Commonwealth and State Ministers reached al a meeting on 18th September 1970. As a result, offences and penalties provided in the State Acts and in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance are generally - I underline that word because I took note of what Senator Byrne had to say - on a par with each other, with minor differences resulting from individual requirements of each State. For example, the penalties provided in the Australian Capital Territory and the various States for publishing an advertisement for a film which does not contain a statement specifying the film's classification or appropriate symbol are: Australian Capital Territory $100; New South Wales $100 - that is the figure I have been given; South Australia $50; Tasmania $50: and Victoria $100. The responsible people in the Department of the Interior make the point that it is difficult to see what benefit would be derived by an exhibitor publishing an advertisement without the appropriate symbol on it. If an exhibitor did not advertise the classification of. say, an R film, he on the one hand would fail to attract that proportion of the public which enjoys the subject matter of an R film and on the other hand would tend to antagonise the parent who prefers to see a film more suited for all members of his family. So. it would seem to the people in the Department, looking at this matter dispassionately and in the light of the consensus of views of their State colleagues, that it would be in the exhibitor's interests to advertise the classification of each film he proposes to exhibit. As the Australian Capital Territory legislation has penalties comparable with those of the 2 closest States, it is felt that that of itself represents reasonable uniformity. I have a great number of other notes which 1 do not think would really help Senator Byrne or the argument. They are general briefing notes on the background of the matter and the various classifications. I think Senator Byrne knows those classifications as well as anybody does. As Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, I take the point Senator Byrne has made. I do not regard myself as being entitled to announce any policy changes while standing on my feet here. But I know the general spirit and intent- 480 K3R 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator Byrne - What is the penalty in New South Wales? 480 JQR 0 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - I have been given a figure of $100. J know that the spirit is to work closely with the States in order to achieve uniformity in being able as far as possible to have good control and not to have differentiation. But if, out of experience, there is need for change, there will be a willingness to accept change once the evidence substantiates the wisdom of and need for it. At this point of time and in the situation in which I am placed, I cannot go further than that. I hope that will be sufficient for the honourable senator. 480 K3R Queensland 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE - in reply - 1 am indebted to Senator Cotton. I intimated to him earlier what my attitude might be. 1 can see the problem. The fact that there has been a uniform approach to this matter is very important. I suppose that one must expect the different attitudes on matters today. I would hope that, in the light of any experience that might be gained in the operation of this Ordinance, if it were found that the penalty as prescribed was not a sufficient deterrent the Department of the Interior would be alert to make sure that a more adequate, more severe and deterrent penalty was provided. I was under the impression that the New South Wales penalty was $200. If that is so, I think there is a strong case for uniformity in penalty. But the Minister agrees that there has been no uniformity in penalty. 1 should like the Minister to give thought to this: If there has been uniformity in classification, it is very difficult to sec why there should not be uniformity in penalty, lt seems to be extraordinary that, although the malice is uniformly accepted, the punishment that it attracts is not uni formly accepted. I cannot understand why that should be so. This is a matter which might well be put to the State Ministers concerned again. I only hope that the scaling is not down to the minimum of some of the States but up to the $100, or whatever might be the maximum. I suggest to the Minister that if my information is correct, namely, that the New South Wales penalty is $200, the matter might be looked at again. In the circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw my motion for the disallowance of this Ordinance. Motion - by leave - withdrawn. 480 bill 480 Debate resumed from 2 March (vide page 391), on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman: That the Bill be now read a second time. 480 KBC Western Australia 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - This Bill was brought into the Senate last week. It deals with a section of the Income Tax Assessment Act and is designed to restore in legislative form the additional depreciation allowance granted to manufacturing industries. This allowance was first introduced in 1962. It was withdrawn in the last Budget when the Government laid down a strategy to deal with the stagflation which was threatening the economy then and which has now worsened. The Government is taking one step back from that strategy which has been criticised by the Australian Labor Party and many other people in the community. But we members of the Opposition have very grave doubts that this is the level at which the Government ought to be taking a step. When this allowance was introduced in 1962 it was opposed by the Opposition. Because of the very full debate that took place in both chambers on that occasion and in the House of Representatives on this occasion, I do not intend to go into the matter as fully as I might if it was a proposition being introduced for the first time. But I intend to say one or two things about it. Senator Drake-Brockman, in introducing the Bill, said: This step has been taken on the basis of views put to us strongly from many quarters that restoration of the allowance is likely to be conducive to greater confidence and activity. He did not say what those quarters were; but, very obviously, the manufacturing industries would have been putting pressure on the Government.I have no doubt that pressure is applied to the Government in the field of taxation by all sorts of vested interests in the community. I move the following amendment: Leave out all words after 'That', insert 'the Bill be withdrawn because it is unselective in its approach and, gives no consideration to balanced economic development'. We might be asked why we do not oppose theBill outright. What we want to do is to indicate to the Government that steps ought to be taken to do something about the economic situation in which Australia finds itself today, and to indicate to the Government that this is not the best step to take. In fact, in many ways this is a very unwise step to take. This allowance was introduced on 7th February 1962, following the 1961 election which was very closely fought. The allowance is now being reintroduced, strangely enough, in February again, just 10 years later, when we are on the eve of an election which promises to have at least some hazards for the Government. The Government has adopted the unusual approach of using the Income Tax Assessment Act to give what is, in effect, a subsidy to a section of industry. The poor old Income Tax Assessment Act is pretty elastic. It is stretched in all sorts of ways. To that extent,I suppose, this approach is not so novel. But, as was commented in 1962 - the more I look at this proposition, the more I believe it - this proposition stretches the elastic just a little too far. The plant and equipment to which this allowance applies is subject to ordinary or historic depreciation. If somebody buys an article of plant and equipment for the purposes of his business he can write it off over varying lengths of time. Whether there is any importance in the length of time over which the article can be written off, I suppose, is bound up with the exercise of caution by the Taxation Office. It appears to me that the end results are just about the same whether the article is written off over X number of years or Y number of years. But this allowance is something in addition to the ordinary or historic depreciation. It is given in the first year of installation of machinery as a special type of depreciation which is nothing more nor less than a subsidy. Subsidies are not strange to the Australian setup. They are embodied in all sorts of things. The thing which seems to be strange, as we have mentioned, is that they are unselective. They are unselective because if an industry is not doing so well - slipping backwards - it is obvious that this allowance is not going to be much help to that industry. It appears to me that that is the industry which ought to be assisted.I suppose it can be marked, depending on the size of the industry and providing that it is a manufacturing industry. But it does seem that this allowance will be a very great help to the industry that does not need assistance as much as the one which is slipping backwards. As I. understand the situation, there is a tremendous amount of under-capacity in the community today. It seems to me that if those people who have an under-capacity say: 'All right, we will take advantage of this', we are just exacerbating the position and putting in machinery which is not going to produce. It is not going to employ people and put goods into the Australian economy which, on a prima facie approach, is what this Bill is intended to do. This Bill is indiscriminating because it treats all manufacturing industries the same. One would think that with all the different facets about which the Government has been talking recently it might have aimed at strengthening those things which it professes to be worried about. Only in the last couple of days I noticed that there was talk that we must do something more about foreign investment in Australia; that we must get some idea of where foreign investment is lying; to what degree it is getting a stranglehold on Australia's industries; and whether the prime purpose of bringing both know-how and capital into Australia is to give us those things which we lack and to develop those industries which need assistance. We need to get some idea whether that is happening or whether money from overseas is merely going into those industries in which we can do so well ourselves and merely transfer the profit from Australians to foreigners. One wonders whether this concession would not have been aimed at those manufacturing industries in Australia which are doing something in the export business. It seems strange that the Government is now assisting breweries which seem to me to be expanding at an ever greater rate. The stock exchange people are always advocating that one invest in breweries. There does not seem to be any great need to assist them. I mention breweries as one example of this tendency. Should not this concession have been aimed at the electronics industry or the motor car industry which, obviously, has an over-capacity at the moment? It is a great employer of labour but at the moment it is putting men off and it intends to put more off in the future. Recently, reading an article. I was impressed with the problem of skilled tradesmen. Australia is a small country. If we look at the other smaller countries we find that they have been able to take their place to a very marked degree because of the skills they have been able to engender in order to make up for the lack of numbers. The Swiss are well known for their precision watchmaking. Sweden is able to produce aircraft and is able to lead in the boatbuilding business even though it is a small nation. One always tends to think of Japan which is, of course, the biggest boatbuilding nation. Of course, Japan is a big nation. But the smaller nations are able to compete, make a profit, employ people and do something in their own industries. Spain is another small country where, at the moment, I understand the Government has a Minister looking at boatbuilding. A problem which has been marked and emphasised in documents is that industry is worried about where we are going in relation to skilled tradesmen. As men are put off in industry it is not the skilled tradesmen who are first to go. Obviously, industries do not want to lose their skilled tradesmen because, like Micawber, they arc going to wait for something to turn up. Such industries do not want to be scavenging around the country trying to get back their skilled tradesmen. If honourable senators have a look at the figures they will see how markedly the number of apprentices has dropped off. It is very obvious that in the future there will be fewer skilled workers coming on to the market than industry will employ. One wonders whether a survey ought not to be made and, if these doubts have some validity, should we not be assisting industry for the long terra in relation to skilled tradesmen? This means, of course, that an amount of money would have to be made available. I do not think this was mentioned in the Minister's second reading speech but I understand that it is anticipated that this scheme will cost the Government about S5{)m. We should consider whether this money should be spent helping industry in this or other ways. As T say. it might be best spent in assisting export industry or those industries which are going to buy machinery which is manufactured in Australia. It may be best spent on those industries producing goods which have a high Australian content, lt may be that consideration should be given to other industries which have so many other facets to them. It seems to us that this Bill is indiscriminating. It does not distinguish between those industries which badly need help on a short term basis and those which do not. What effect will this allowance have on public investment if it goes to places which are already thriving and attracting a great deal of public investment? Will it not mean that more investment will go into that area where, obviously, it is not needed at all. Also, it is obvious that the Government has confined this concession to the manufacturing industries. There is no argument in the Minister's second reading speech to show that this is the section of industry which requires help in order to have the quickest effect on the stagflation through which we are going today. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) made some trenchant remarks recently in relation to Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. He now turns around and gives the manufacturing section of its manufacturing business some sort of boost under the Bill which is before us today. As I say, in 1962 this matter was fully canvassed. Of course that is the time when it should have been. I think that that was the first time that taxation provisions were stretched so far as to make a direct subsidy to manufacturing industries. The matter was debated in this place and amendments were moved to clause 7 of the Bill - as it was in those days - which were quite unsuccessful. Because I would be repeating a lot of material which is already in Hansard I shall not go into this matter as fully as 1 would otherwise. 1 have moved this amendment as an indication to the Government that we feel it has struck in the wrong place. A lot more should be done. We claim that this is a retreat. The Government is acknowledging that its Budget strategy was wrong. But we believe that this is not the right area in which to rectify it. We state our reasons in the amendment and put on record why we believe this Bill should be withdrawn. 1 commend the amendment to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Is the amendment seconded? 483 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - 1 second the amendment. 483 KQN South Australia 0 0 LAUCKE, Condor Senator LAUCKE - 1 welcome this Income Tax Assessment Bill and commend the Government for reinstating the investment allowance of 20 per cent on manufacturing plant and equipment. At the time of the suspension of this investment allowance I expressed my concern at that decision and said that 1 hoped that before very long the allowance would be restored to industry. I regard the investment allowance on new plant and equipment as being vital to the maintenance of productivity and efficiency in industry. If we want to hold down prices on the base things which we produce in Australia and the base things we want to export to markets then we have to produce them as cheaply as possible. I notice that in Great Britain 80 per cent is the investment concession for new plant and equipment. In some instances, the total value of the plant can be written off in the year in which it is installed. When we see the need locally, in big enterprises and in small, to match world competition this sort of action by government is the sort of action which is an incentive to the individual and to industry organisationally but in the process is of real value io the whole economy. I always have a very great concern for the retention of business activity in the hands of the small man as much as is possible in a world which is very difficult for him against the mass producers. If there is one thing that helps small industrial ventures in Australia it is this allowance. At a time when capital requirement bears heavily on those indus tries which in order to exist or to continue their activities must be competitive, this 20 per cent allowance in the year of installation is of real assistance to the capital standing of small enterprises. I speak with some knowedge of this matter as it applies in practice. If we look around any sector of industry in Australia we note that where those interests which have not taken advantage of this sort of incentive have allowed their plant to run down, inevitably they have finished up in a position where they are unable to carry on their activities. It is only those organisations and persons who keep their plant modern that have an opportunity and an ability to carry on and to make their unit really viable, both in volume production and in cost per unit of that production. I have a very definite idea on the law of diminishing returns. I do not accept that gigantic size alone is the only criterion for success in industry. Efficiency can be equally important, and perhaps more important. If general efficiency through maximum use of a given part of the plant is insisted upon in every respect, the small enterprise can be of very great assistance to the economy overall and in the process retain a rugged individualism which I think is of vital necessity to any nation. We need people who are prepared to risk their own capital in their own way; to be masters of their own ship and not just someone operating in an impersonal setting. These rugged individualists should be encouraged for they can be the salt of a nation in the economic field. We have heard some criticisms of this Bill. 1 regret that the Opposition has seen fit to suggest that the Bill be withdrawn because it is unselective in its approach, as the Opposition states in its amendment, and gives no consideration to balanced economic development. The amendment states that the Bill is unselective. All industry, small and big, in my opinion, has to be given this sort of background ability to be efficient. I have no doubt, as I said when 1 began to speak, that productivity is the great need in our economy today. We have to keep costs down in industry. I cannot see anything more beneficial to that end than the purchase of new plant, from lnc point of view of power consumption, la bour required, and the ability to turn out more articles or uni;s in a given time. This is the basis of economic production. This is the basis for keeping prices down on our horns market. This is the basis for enabling us lo compete on overseas markets. If we do not give to industry here in Australia allowances such as this investment allowance we have before us today and which arc comparable to those allowances which are given in all other countries, how on earth can we expect to compete? I have much pleasure indeed in supporting this Bill. 484 K3R Queensland 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE - The Australian Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill and finds itself unable to accept the amendment moved by the Opposition. This Bill embodies the type of fiscal discipline which it is within the power of a government to impose when it is necessary to control the economy either by restriction or by expansion, and the Government has been faced with this very extraordinary situation in more recent times when we have experienced a rise in prices, a rise in costs, and also a rise in the level of unemployment. In its wisdom the Government has decided that there must be a stimulation of the economy. This is one of the fiscal means which has been adopted by the Government in order to bring this about, lt could have adopted a method by which taxation would have been reduced, and that would have had the same effect - perhaps not as rapidly or perhaps more rapidly. However, this allowance is the method that has been selected. I think we all agree that some stimulation in the economy was necessary. The Opposition has suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn because the benefit granted is not selective. I should imagine that to try to extend this benefit on a selective basis might be administratively very difficult, and in the new concept of the diversified undertaking it may bc extraordinarily hard to classify operations as falling within a category which would attract the benefit or, on the other hand, may not be able to attract it. In these circumstances it would make for an extraordinarily difficult administrative situation. I do think that in the balance of advantage and across the board benefit of this kind, the uniform investment allowance for the installation of plant and equipment is possibly the best and administratively the most efficient way in which this can be done. However, 2 effects flow from this. One, of course, is that it should result in the production of more capital goods. That in itself in a time when we need reemployment in some of our manufacturing industries where labour displacement is occurring is important because it will immediately attract labour to the production of that equipment and that plant which manufacturers will be seeking in view of the investment allowance now being given. But perhaps more importantly it will result in the introduction to industry of more efficiency by the provision of more modern plant and equipment. After all, a.s Senator Laucke so correctly and wifely said, ultimately economies in the modern competitive world must rest on their achievement or failure to reach a high standard of competitive efficiency. We know that it is now a matter of history that the great commercial advance in West Germany after the war was due to the fact that all her industries were virtually destroyed, or the allies, as part »f reparation arrangements, took a lot of her machinery away and installed it in their own fabricating enterprises. Germany, therefore, had to re-equip from the ground up. She necessarily re-equipped with the most modern machinery and equipment, and that gave her the great opportunity for the dynamic industrial leap forward which has raised her now to a position of industrial eminence over the whole world. We would hope that there would be a response from manufacturing industries to this investment allowance, lt is now up to the enterprises concerned to take advantage of it, to see that their plants are brought up to the highest possible level of efficiency so that they will not only benefit the commercial operations of their own companies but will benefit also the economy and do a considerable amount to help the unemployment situation. For those reasons we of the Democratic Labor Party do not see any reason to have the Bill withdrawn. It will be interesting to sec whether a remedy such as this will have the expected effect on the economy, either at the level hoped for or at a greater level. The Government found- itself under pressure to do something about the condition of the economy. That it responded in this way is commendable. We hope that the diversion that Senator Willesee looks for will be realised. We hope that the investment allowance will be spent, in the main, in those industries which will produce the type of goods we want, the type which are necessary both in the economic sense and for the technological operations of the nation. I have little doubt that that will be the case. Therefore I think we should welcome this Bill. We trust that there will be an enthusiastic response from industry, both in the industries fabricating goods that will attract such an investment allowance and in the enterprises that will install the necessary plant. We hope that the beneficial results we seek will stem from this legislation. We support the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman) adjourned. 485 bill 485 Debate resumed from 2 March (vide page 419), on motion by Senator Cotton: Thai the Bill be now read a second lime. 485 KTA NEW SOUTH WALES ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - The Senate has before it 3 Bills, the Broadcasting and Television Bill 1972, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Bill 1972 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Bill 1972. Subject to the approval of the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), because they were taken together in the House of Representatives and because the 2 last named Bills relate to (he first Bill, I suggest that (he 3 Bills be debated at the one lime. 485 JXR 0 0 DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas Senator Drake-Brockman - I am agreeable to that course being followed. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - There being no objection, that course will be followed. 485 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - The principal objects of the first Bill, namely, the Broadcasting and Television Bill 1972, are three-fold. Firstly, it seeks to amend sections 84 and 105c of the Act to provide that a licence may be renewed for a period of not less than 6 months or not more than 3 years rather than the mandatory one-year renewal period that exists now under the Act. This amendment is being sought specifically so that in the first renewal period the length of renewal can be varied in order that the future renewal dates for a number of licences held by one company or one group of companies can be synchronised. This means that after the initial renewal period all licences held by the one company or the one group of companies will be considered in the form of a total operation, thus permitting a single report to be furnished to the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) on the operations and administration of all the licences held by that company or group of companies. This, according to the second reading speech of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), will reduce the work load of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and those making the applications for renewal. Secondly, this Bill seeks to amend sections 90c and 92 of the Act in order, we of the Opposition suggest, to protect further the interests of persons and companies which have had special privileges, so far as ownership is concerned, conferred upon them by being allowed to retain more than the prescribed interest in the ownership and control of television and broadcasting station licences as a result of the December 1964 provision in the Act. In other words, the Bill is intended to extend the protection, as we see it, to the specially privileged licensed section wherever there has been a change in the circumstances under which the interests are held. Thirdly, this Bill seeks to amend section 1 1 7(4.) to provide for the name of the speaker and author of a political announcement during an election period to be announced only after the political message has been given, rather than before and after as is the case at present. The Bill also seeks to amend the section to provide that any person making written application to the Australian Broadcasting Commission or to a commercial licensee for the name and address of the author and speaker snail receive such details. In the House of Representatives the Labor Party moved that the Bill be referred to a joint select committee to inquire into and report upon the conditions under which television and broadcasting licences are granted and renewed. That amendment was defeated. Therefore, for reasons which I will enumerate shortly, on behalf of the Opposition in the Senate 1 now move: Leave out all words after 'That', insert 'the Bill be withdrawn until the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts presents its Report on the matter referred to it by the Senate on 19th August 1971, viz.: All aspects of television and broadcasting, including Australian content of television programmes'. I understand that, that amendment now U being circulated. I have moved thai amendment to the motion for the second reading principally for 2 reasons. Firstly, we of the Opposition say that a standing committee of the Senale at this very time is engaged in inquiring into idi aspects of mass media, including ownership and control. For the Government to present legislation of this nature to the Senate when a standing committee of the Senate has been directed by the Senate to embark upon such an inquiry, and indeed is in the course of embarking on that inquiry, is an affront to that committee and to the Senate. Secondly, we say that to present such legislation shortly before a Federal election is to be held - a general election certainly will be held this year - is intended to protect further the existing control of certain newspaper groups in the event of a Labor government being elected at (he next election. True it is, as the Minister said in his second reading speech, provision exists, under section 86 of the Act, for the suspension and revocation of licences in specified circumstances. However, in plain terms, throughout the history of the Aci the Government has never acted, nor is it likely ever to act against any of its strongly entrenched commercial friends, notwithstanding the extent of any breach thai might be committed by a commercial licensee. In view of the fact that the Government may, if it considers it necessary, take action lo revoke a licence under seclion 86 of the Act, we regard as a lame duck excuse on the part of the Government its reason for bringing forward this legislation at this stage. We say that the Government should have awaited the Senate Standing Committee's report on this important aspect of the mass media, including the question of ownership and control, before going ahead with legislation of this nature. This legislation and the Minister's remarks in another place appear to be an open admission by the Government of its disregard for public interest because the very reasons advanced as to the purposes of the Bill suggest that the clauses, when enacted, will ease the work load on the Board and on the commercial licensees and will enable all applications for renewals of licences held by one company or group to be dealt with en masse. There seems to be inbuilt in this legislation a general understanding that, notwithstanding the seriousness of a breach or a number of breaches of the Act that may occur, all licences held by one company or a group of companies will be considered collectively by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and then referred collectively to the Minister for his approval. The Postmaster-General, in the course of his remarks in another place, cited the example of one company which has control of the maximum number of broadcasting stations allowed by the Act. The Minister said at that time that although the Act required the company to amend its articles of association, it was an old established company and it did not want to alter its articles of association. Apparently, merely because the company was not prepared to alter its articles of association to conform with the Act, the Government has had to fall into line with the company's wish and has put the Australian people and the Parliament to the trouble and expense of amending the Act so that it will conform with the company's articles of association. We of the Opposition believe that that is a ludicrous situation for any government to be in. Surely this indicates how these vested interests can stand over the Government. When amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act were being considered by the Senate in 1969 T said that because of the timid policies pursued by the Government towards commercial licensees, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board had become a mere service agency to the commercial interests and that the public was being regarded as no more than a collection of spectators who watch television for the want of something better to do. Consequently we have asked why the Government should not await the report of the Senate Standing Committee before moving in the- way that it has moved to amend this Act. We have asked whether licensees, particularly those who operated under special provisions prior to the provision being inserted in the Act in 1964. have said to the Government: 'Move now, before it is loo late.' The concentration of ownership of Australian mass media is frightening. One has to refer only to appendix J to the last annua! report of the Broadcasting Control Board to see the extent of the ownership and control of the mass media and how it is vested in too few hands. One will see in that appendix 15 pages of small type setting out the multiple shareholding interests of newspaper proprietors and others in broadcasting and television stations in Australia. 487 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator Gair - That was one of the initial mistakes that we made. 487 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - True - a great mistake was made when these licences were granted. I suggest that if a Labor government had been in office probably none of these newspaper companies would have been granted a licence. I invite honourable senators to compare the situation in Canada with that which prevails here. In December 1970 a special Senate committee on mass media in Canada submitted a 1,117 page report on its 2-year investigation of media trends. One of the major conclusions reached by the Committee was that any further concentration of ownership in the Canadian mass media would be undesirable and contrary to the public interest. The Canadian Senate committee recommended, among other things, a Press ownership review board to approve or disapprove of any future transactions that might tend towards a concentration of ownership or a monopoly. But in Australia, although the Senate has established a Standing Committee to inquire into this aspect upon which the Canadian Senate committee reported to the Canadian Parliament the Government has decided to act to protect even further the interests of the owners of the mass media. This has happened only months before a Federal election and at a time when the Senate Standing Committee is investigating the situation. Last year in the spring edition of a publication called 'Journalism Quarterly' there appeared a report of a study carried out at the University of Minnesota in the United States in relation to the concentration of Press ownership and circulation of newspapers in 32 different countries. The study revealed that among the developed countries, after Ireland, Australia had the next tightest control of its daily circulation. When it is taken into account that in Australia those who control the newspapers appear to control also the commercial television networks and some broadcasting stations, the situation becomes alarming, lt is much worse than the situation revealed by the publication issued by the University of Minnesota. This is why we have written into the Labor Party Platform that whilst the dual system of national and commercial radio and television will continue under a Labor government, the tendency towards monopoly is especially dangerous and must be resisted by appropriate legislation. This is why we have said that under a Labor government a fairness principle will be included in the legislation regulating radio and television so that opposing viewpoints will be ensured a fair opportunity of expression. 487 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator Cant - We might need to take the licences from some of them. 487 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland Certainly the licences will need to be looked at. One of the reasons why we have moved this amendment is so that the Senate Standing Committee can present its report to the Senate on the extent of mass ownership and control. This is why we have said also that, in the public interest, a Labor government will undertake a complete review of the conditions upon which licences are granted and renewed and that all applications for issue and renewal of licences W" be heard in public. This legislation, it appears to us, is the direct antithesis of Labor policy. Because we anxiously await the report of the Senate Standing Committee, we have moved the amendment to which I have alluded already. I mention by way of an aside thai, ironically, an incoming Labor government might be able to use this legislation, which provides for variable licences, to the advantage of the public, as it were, in the form of a penalty with respect io those stations which from time to time are indeed in breach of the Act. But it is not only the Australian Labor Party that is concerned about the extent of the grab for further influence that is going on in this country. On 25th February last, the Australian Council of Trade Unions declined that the present ownership of the mass media constituted a threat to Australia's democratic processes and particularly it expressed its concern at the dominance of 4 companies over Australian newspapers, television and radio. On the subject of children's programming, the ACTU said that the nature of the mass media ownership meant that worthwhile life styles and values were not being presented to the younger generations of Australia. One of the Press barons himself. Mr Clyde Packer, who also is a Liberal member in the New South Wales Legislative Council, appeared on the Australian Broadcasting Commission television programme, 'Monday Conference', on 20th September J 971. He virtually described the present double standards of ownership existing in the Act - that is, the standard before 1964 and the standard after 1964 - as being unhealthy and said that the power and the concentration of ownership was in too few hands. At page 9 of the transcript of that television interview, the Hon. Clyde Packer is quoted as saying: 1 think that we have a very big problem in Australia with concentration of media ownership. Perhaps the best way, 1 can explain that is to say that in the 9 largest cities in Australia, there are 18 commercial television licences. Of those 18, 9 arc controlled by 2 companies. In those same 9 cities there are, I think, from memory, either 19 or 20 daily newspapers. Of those 19 or 20 daily newspapers, I think it's either 15 Of 16 are controlled by those same 2 companies. I suppose that you could say that the Packer family was the . . . that we were the last of the independents, as it were. I find it disturbing that 50 per cent of the metropolitan television stations in the 9 largest cities, and virtually 75 per cent of the daily newspapers, are controlled by 2 groups. He went on to say: I don't think that's healthy. One of the interviewers, a Mr Meaney, asked: Do you think that this is- Someone else, a Mr Moore, interjected: How would you change it? What would Y.01 do? ls there anything that can be done? Mr Packersaid: Well, I'm a Tory, and I don't like lo see these ... 1 really don't know what should be done about it; but I think that as far as television is concerned, the Act lays down that you can only control 2 television stations, and as I've said, there are 2 groups that between them control 9. I'd like to see the existing law enforced. Frankly, I think there might have been a misunderstanding on the part of Mr Packer in not appreciating that 2 standards are laid down in the present Act concerning the ownership and control of licences, that is, for those who held a number of licences prior to 1964 in the case of television stations, and a stipulated number for anyone who held a television station licence after December 1964. In the case of broadcasting stations, it was December 1968. Let us look at only some of the frightening extent of ownership in a few hands. The mere fact that that situation, as admitted to exist by Mr Packer, does exist in this country is a most unhealthy situation indeed and I do not think that it can be tolerated for one moment. Appendix J of the Twenty-Third Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, to which 1 have referred already, lists the newspaper companies or persons who have substantial shareholding interests, directly or indirectly, in 2 or more licences for commercial broadcasting stations or commercial television stations. Let us look at some of those set out on pages 175 and 176 of the Board's report. We see that the Packer group, namely the Australian Consolidated Press Group, or the 'Daily Telegraph', has interests in the following television stations: TCN Sydney, WIN Illawarra area, NBN NewcastleHunter River area, ECN Manning River area, CBN Central Tablelands area, CWN Central Western Slopes area, GTV Melbourne, BTQ Brisbane, DDQ Darling Downs Area and SDQ Southern Downs area. It has interests in the following broadcasting stations: 2GZ Orange, 2NZ Inverell, 3AK Melbourne, 6AM Northam, 6PM Perth, 6KG Kalgoorlie and 6GE Geraldton. That is not a bad slice of the cake when we add to it the newspaper interests that that group controls throughout Australia. I turn to John Fairfax Ltd, the 'Sydney Morning Herald' group, directly and through subsidiary companies it holds interests in the following television stations: CTC Canberra, ATN Sydney, NBN Newcastle-Hunter River area, RTN- 489 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator Hannan - -Could the honourable senator give the percentage holdings? I would be interested to know them. 489 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland If the honourable senator wishes me to read them, that would take considerable time. 489 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator Hannan - What was the percentage control that the company had in each licence? 489 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - I cannot give those figures because the control as a percentage is not set out here. Only the shareholding interests are set out. A mathematical calculation would be needed to arrive at a figure in each case. May I suggest to Senator Hannan that the next time such a report is presented to this Parliament the exact shareholding percentage of the company concerned should be set out. 489 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator Hannan - I did not help to draft that report. Senator DOUGLASMCCLELLANDYou were a member of the Board at one time I think, during the course of the year covered by this report. I am making the observation not so much to you as to your former colleagues who still remain members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. Let me return to the John Fairfax Group, lt has direct holdings and, through subsidiary companies, interests in the following television stations: CTC Canberra, ATN Sydney, NBN Newcastle-Hunter River area, RTN Richmond-Tweed area, WIN Illawarra area, AMV Upper Murray area, BTV Ballarat area, QTQ Brisbane, DDQ Darling Downs area and SDQ Southern Downs area. As the field of broadcasting is concerned it has interests in 2NM Muswellbrook, 2NX Bolwarra, 3XY Melbourne. 2GB Sydney, 2CA Canberra, 2WL Wollongong, 3 AW Melbourne, 4BH Brisbane and 5DN Adela.de. The interests of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd of Melbourne in the field of television are HSV Melbourne, BTQ Brisbane, ADS Adelaide, TVT Hobart and TVW Perth. In broadcasting it has interests in 3DB Melbourne, 3LK Lubeck, 3XY Melbourne, 4AK Oakey, 4BK Brisbane, 4AM Atherton, 4BH Brisbane, 5 AD Adelaide, 5MU Murray Bridge. 5 PI Crystal Brook, 5SE Mount Gambier, 6IX Perth. 6BY Bridgetown, 6MD Merredin, 6WB Katanning, 7 HO Hobart and 7 EX Launceston. 489 KBY LP 0 0 YOUNG, Harold Senator YOUNG - Which group is that? 489 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd - the Melbourne 'Herald' group. On page 178 of the Board's annual report the interests of the News Ltd of Adelaide are outlined. Its interests in the field of television are TEN Sydney, WIN Illawarra Area, SAS Adelaide, SES South East (South Australia) Area, NWS Adelaide, BTW Bunbury, GSW Southern Agricultural Area. TVW Perth and VEW Kalgoorlie Area. In the field of broadcasting that group has interests in 2BH Broken Hill. 4BH Brisbane, SDN Adelaide, 6KY Perth, 6NA Narrogin, 6iX Perth, 6BY Bridgetown, 6MN Merredin and 6WB Katanning. A number oi other groups arc listed, of course, but those are the main groups. Even though those groups may not hold a controlling interest in those stations, one can see the extent of their substantial interests in the mass media of this country, particularly bearing in mind their vast newspaper outlets. Of course, one has to bear in mind that a controlling interest insofar as broadcasting is concerned can mean holding only 15 per cent of the prescribed interest and, insofar as television is concerned, only 1 think 5 per cent. There are 116 commercial radio stations and 48 commercial television stations in Australia. When one makes a comparison between those numbers and the number of radio and television stations controlled by the groups to which I have been referring to - and it is a fairly substantial number - one is able to gauge the extent of the tightness of control. I have already alluded to what Mr Clyde Packer said on the ABC on 20th September about the extent of ownership being an unhealthy situation for Australia. Wc of the Labor movement are not concerned about Mr Packer, but we are very interested in his concern as to the tightness of the control and the extent of the influence, especially as we realise some of the things that are going on. I think the extent of influence that these people can bring to bear can best be illustrated by referring to the events that took place in this Parliament about 12 months ago when, I think it will be commonly conceded by most members from all political parties in this Parliament, the Packer group played a very substantial part in the defeat within the Liberal Party of the former Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, and the election of the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). Likewise 1 am sure everyone will concede that it is vital lo a healthy democracy to have a broad diversity in the ownership of the mass media. We have the very powerful AAP syndicated news going out from this Parliament to practically every newspaper in Australia. But let us take as an example the news service provided by Channel 7 in my own State of New South Wales. It is not controlled by the Packers; it is controlled by the Fairfax group. 1 do not for one moment say that it does not provide a reasonably impartial nsws coverage. I have cited it as an example to show the extent of its influence and what could happen if the proprietors of that station - the licensees - decided to become violently biased or prejudiced politically. Channel 7 is. of course, controlled by the Fairfax group. In addition to its own national hook-up it transmits its news service either in whole or on a syndicated basis to the following viewing areas in New Sou th Wales: Newcastle, Wollongong, Batemans Bay, Wagga, Goulburn, Canberra. Cooma. Coffs Harbour, Lismore, Kyogle. Murwillumbah, Bonalbo, Cobar, Orange, Kandos, Lithgow, Mudgee, Tamworth, Walcha. Glen lnnes and Armidale. That is a fairly broad coverage of the Stale. That one news media is distributing right throughout the length and breadth of New South Wales. When one bears in mind that some of the stations which take the Channel 7 news are not, in fact within those set out in appendix 'J' as being controlled by the Fairfax group one can appreciate that the extent of the influence is much more than the use of the word 'control' connotes. Frankly, I do not think that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is being as fair as it should be in providing information to this Parliament about shareholding interests. For instance, on 3 1st March last Senator Gair received an answer to a question he had asked on 24th Febrary 1971 concerning whether a Mr H. E. Hendy was the owner of all the shares in 3 companies which hold substantial interests in 5 television stations. He claimed that the market value of the shares was $980,000 but the paid up capital of the 3 companies owning the shares was a mere $14. Senator Gair wanted to know whether the Board had been advised that John Fairfax and Sons Ltd held an option to purchase the capital of the company al par, that is. for a mere SI 4. The Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme), in his answer on 31st March, indicated that the late Mr H. E. Hendy through 3 private companies, held substantial interests in 5 commercial television stations but thai it was not aware of any option held by John Fairfax and Sons in relation to the shares. Why does the Act not provide for a declaration to the Broadcasting Control Board of any option held by any company in relation to transactions in television shares? If the Act does provide for such a declaration - I cannot see where it does - why does the Board not know about it and why does the Board not tell the Senate about it? If the Act does not provide for a declaration, 1 suggest that it is about time the Government took action to amend the Act to require such a declaration to be made insofar as the holding of options is concerned. This is a case of a company with an infinitesimal capital value of $14 being able to acquire shares worth $980,000. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board does not - I emphasise does not - bother to answer the question about the paid-up capital of the company being a mere $14, nor does it say anything about the extent of the value of the shares. Take a question 1 asked on 30th March 1971. It took nearly 12 months to receive an answer, because I did not receive it until 22nd February 1972. No explanation has yet been given as to the reason for the lengthy delay in answering this question. On 30lh March 1971 1 asked whether a company known as Elwood Pty Ltd - this time wi h a paid-up capital of a mere $4- held 154,000 shares in Riverina Television Ltd worth about $170,000. In its last report the Australian Broadcasting Control Board referred to the question that I had asked and mentioned that 154,000 shares out of a total of 1 million shares were held by that company in Riverina Television Ltd. On that basis even a third class schoolboy can see that such a shareholding would represent a 15.4 per cent control, which is a controlling interest of the television station within the terms of the Broadcasting and Television Act. I suggest that when Elwood Pty Ltd was formed one of its 2 directors was a director or secretary of a company known as Illawarra Newspapers Pty Ltd which, in fact, is a subsidiary of John Fairfax and Sons Ltd. Indeed, the answer provided by the Board 1 1 months after 1 asked the question is very interesting because it shows that the shareholding in Riverina Television L'd was subsequently increased from 154.000 shares to 214,000 shares. I ask: How can a company with a paid-up capital of $4 purchase 214,000 shares which are worth approximately $200,000 unless someone gave it a substantial loan? But, according to the information supplied by the Board in the answer given to me, Elwood Pty Ltd was at one lime a subsidiary of John Fairfax Ltd. However, it sold the capital in Elwood Pty Ltd a few years ago for a nominal sum and ceased to have any interest in it. Nothing is said as to when the transaction took place. I was told only that it was a few years ago. No mention was made as to the exact amount of the nominal sum. I ask the Minister to state whether Elwood Pty Ltd was a subsidiary of John Fairfax at the time it held 15.4 per cent of the shares in Riverina Television Ltd. If it was, if it held a controlling interest and if the money had been forthcoming from John Fairfax to Elwood Pty Ltd to purchase the interest in Riverina Television, I submit that the provisions of the Act would have been breached or certainly circumvented. However, the Board went on to state: When acquiring shares in RVN- That is, Riverina Television Ltd - Elwood Pty Ltd made statutory declarations in accordance with the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act regarding its eligibility to hold shares in RVN. The declarations, slated that the company would hold the shares beneficially. The issued capital of Elwood was recently acquired by a company named UIG Investments Ply Ltd in which all the capital is held by Mrs H. A. m. Henderson and Miss M. L. Henderson of Bellevue Hill, New South Wales. Both Mrs and Miss Henderson furnished statutory declarations lo the Board at the time of this transaction staling that they are the beneficial owners of all the issued capital in UIG Investments Pt> Ltd and that UIG 'would be the beneficial owner of the shares to be acquired in rvn'. Prior to the sale of the issued capital in Elwood to UIG, the Secretary of Elwood informed the Board that beyond the agreement to sell all the issued capital of the company to UIG, no option existed to purchase the shares in Elwood nor was there any agreement, arrangement or understanding in existence in relation lo the shares held by the company in RVN. Frankly, members of the public are entitled to know who, in fact, is providing all this money to companies with such small paid-up capital in order that those companies can purchase large numbers of shares in existing television licences. For instance, I ask who provided the money to enable Elwood Pty Ltd, a company with a paid-up capital of $4, to increase its holding in Riverina Television Ltd from 154,000 to 214,000 shares out of I million shares available in RVN? I want to know whether, as reported recently in the 'Sunday Review', Mrs H. A. M. Henderson and Miss M. L. Henderson referred :o in the answer given to me by the Postmaster-General, the present owners of Elwood Pty Ltd, are the wife and daughter respectively of Mr R. A. G. Henderson, a director of John Fairfax and the chairman of directors of Channel 7 in Sydney. Let me go back to 1969. On 25th February 1969 the Postmaster-General told me that on 16th April 1968 he had approved the transfer of 59,500 shares from Daniel Brothers and Co. Pty Ltd to the Staff Pension Fund of John Fairfax and Sons Ltd and the transfer of 59,500 shares from Daniel Brothers and Co. Pty Ltd to the Sydney Morning Herald Centenary Fund. Then we see that the details of the trustees of the Staff Pension Fund of John Fairfax and Sons Ltd are as follows: Sir Warwick Fairfax, Director of John Fairfax; J. O. Fairfax, Director of John Fairfax; A. H. McLachlan, Director of John Fairfax; P. H. Palmer, Secretary and Alternate Director of John Fairfax; A. P. R. Drinkwater, an employee of John Fairfax. So out of the 5 trustees of the, Staff Pension Fund of John Fairfax and Sons Ltd, 3 trustees were directors of the company and one was an alternate director. The trustees of the Sydney Morning Herald Centenary' Fund were Sir Warwick Fairfax, Mr J. O. Fairfax, Mr A. H. McLanchlan and Mr P. H. Palmer. On 12th May 1969, in relation to the same matter, 1 received a letter from the Postmaster-General, which, amongst other things, said: I have now given my approval to the transfer of the 119,000 shares in question to Vident Pty Lui. as nominee on behalf of the Trustees of the Sydney Morning Herald Centenary Fund (59,500) and the Trustee of the John Fairfax and Sons Stall' Pension Fund (59.500). He went on to say: . it is the Government's policy to prevent undue concentrations of ownership and control of television and broadcasting stations. To this end the adequacy of the existing provisions of the Act are kept under constant review. He added: . if future developments indicate that any amendments to the Act are felt to be necessary in any direction at all. appropriate action will be taken. If honourable senators want further details of those transactions I suggest that they refer to my statement at page 153 of Hansard of 18th February 1971. A Bill to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act was introduced into the House of Representatives on 4th March 1970. The Bill did not reach the Senate until 17th February 1971, 11 months later. In his second reading speech the Postmaster-General said: . . there is an increasing trend for pension funds associated with companies already having extensive interests in broadcasting and television stations to invest also in companies having interests in such stations. Sitting suspended from 5.45 p.m. till 8 p.m. 492 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - It appears to me that the Government in this legislation is bending over backwards to condone what surely must be regarded as dubious manoeuvres, to say the least, in shareholding transactions and the formation and the financing of nominee companies to enable the protected companies under the 1965 legislation to make further grabs on the control of the mass media. By these methods, some of which I have referred to during my speech, they appear to me to be circumventing the sections inserted in the Act by the Government to control what was described in 1965 by the Government as the trend towards monopoly. I wish the Government would enforce section 114 of the Act which provides for the employment of Australians as much as possible in the production and presentation of broadcasting and television programmes. 492 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - Have you ever suggested how that section might be enforced to give it teeth? Is it not meant to be only a general direction? 492 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - It is a general direction, but I would suggest that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board lay down standards which could give to section 1 1 4 the teeth which apparently it does not have now. 492 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - Do you suggest that the Government should do something? 492 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - Yes. Surely the Government can say to the Broadcasting Control Board: 'We want teeth in this Act'. If the standards imposed by the Control Board are not sufficient to carry out Government policy the Government should ensure that the Act is amended to give protection to Australian performers. Let us take professional variety. In Australia today there are great professional variety artists, but about the only time one sees them on television is when a telethon is being run by a commercial station to raise funds for a very worthwhile charitable organisation. The professional variety artists are asked to give - they do so willingly - their services for such a pursuit. If only the Government would give to these people the protection, the rights and the opportunitties that it is giving to the controllers of the mass media I suggest that our country would be far better off. The Broadcasting and Television Act, as it is administered by the Government, can best be described, as I see it, as the Act of double standards. It provides for double standards in relation to ownership and in relation to the protection afforded to commercial licensees when compared with the lack of protection for performers. It provides for the protection of licensees against the Australian public generally as far as the growth of monopoly of ownership is concerned. An incoming Labor government is pledged to re-write the Act to provide for fair and equitable treatment for everyone. That was laid down by the Party at Launceston last year. A Labor government will take legislative and administrative steps to increase Australian content and to preserve a reasonable balance between material of overseas and Australian origin. 493 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - To what per cent would you increase the Australian content? Senator DOUGLASMCCLELLANDWe would certainly increase the present drama content. We would certainly write in provisions for professional variety. There are none now. We would certainly write in provisions for Australian documentary and educational programmes, as there are none now. Even if we wrote in only 1 pet cent we would certainly be increasing the content because there is none now, except in relation to drama. Having taken into account repeat performances which are credited as Australian dramatic material, we would certainly look to see whether we could increase the content quite substantially. We will establish minimum quotas, with appropriate weighting according to the nature of the programme, for Australian dramatic programmes, professional variety and educational and documentary programmes for both commercial and national stations. We will insist that the programme standards of television and radio are maintained at the highest level. No-one in this Parliament can say that that is happening now. We will undertake a complete review of the conditions upon which licences are granted and reviewed. All applications for issue and renewal of licences will be heard in public. Because the Bill provides for none of those things, because the Government has chosen to ignore the inquiry that the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts has embarked upon already and because there is now in the political air a general election we believe that the Bill should be withdrawn until the Senate Standing Committee presents to the Senate its report on all aspects of television and broadcasting. I have moved the amendment because I believe that it is in the interests not only of the Australian people but also of the Senate. The Senate cannot allow its standing committees to be ignored continually and disregarded by the Government. We on this side of the Senate believe that the proposition put by the Opposition should receive the overwhelming support of members of the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (SenatorProwse) - Is the amendment seconded? 493 KVK 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator Mulvihill - I second the amendment. 493 KNU Victoria 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN - I feel that the Senate has cause to be grateful to Senator Douglas McClelland for much - not all - of what he said. I think there was too much wishful thinking in my friend's approach to the programme which he outlined. He said that a Labor government would do this and that, a Labor government would re-issue licences, a Labor government would have all applications heard in public, and a Labor government would do a lot of other things. I give to him the advice which I think Dr Johnson gave to a friend in his recipe for jugged hare. He said: 'First catch your hare'. As far as I can see, the election is a long way off yet. 493 KVK 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator Mulvihill - The gallup polls point a. certain way. 493 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McManus - The Prime Minister has given his answer to that. 493 KVK 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator Mulvihill - Even Senator McManus has reservations about the Government's future. 493 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN - I concede that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) would not hold an election tomorrow. The position that exists at the moment will not exist later. One does not have to be Mandrake to work out the philosophy behind that. The Bill seeks to do 3 things. It seeks to alter the period for which commercial broadcasting and television station licences are renewed, to make certain changes to the way in which share interests are held and, finally, to make a very small amendment to the requirement that at election time the name and address of the speaker and the person authorising a speech should appear at the end of a 100- word message instead of both at the beginning and the end. I do not propose to devote any time to the third proposition because it simply has to be stated to explain itself. The Bill seeks to increase (he period of a licence up to 3 years. It should be observed that the Bill proposes to make the period a minimum of 6 months to a maximum of 3 years. That would give the Australian Broadcasting Control Board power to have an inquiry into a renewal much earlier should it deem that desirable. My friend Senator Douglas McClelland said that the Labor Party would conduct all inquiries into the renewal of licences in public. I rather gathered that the implication was that if the hearing for renewal were conducted in public fresh applications would be called for the renewal of licences. So, no licensee could hold his licence with certainty for more than 3 years. This would be inimical to development. A tremendous amount of capital and organisation goes into running, operating, owning and controlling a modern television station - more so a television station than a radio station. I do not hedge on the point that in the past I have been as critical as Senator Douglas McClelland or anyone else has been of the way in which television licences were issued. I do not want to go back over that thorny past, which is many years behind us. We now have to live with the facts as they are. One of the big difficulties to which Senator Douglas McClelland did not advert is the very limited constitutional power which the Broadcasting Control Board has to deal with breaches of its standards. The Act provides - 1 am satisfied on the authorities thai it is a valid provision - that the Board can lay down standards which should be observed in the conduct of a television station. But from that point on the Board simply has power to write a letter drawing attention to a breach of its standards or, at the other extreme, after conducting a public inquiry it can cancel a licence. No-one in his right mind would cancel a licence for a breach of advertising standards, a breach of advertising time provisions or even a collection of such breaches. There is millions of dollars of capital involved; there is the money of thousands of shareholders involved. Accordingly, the power which the Broadcasting Control Board has to cancel a licence is so great and its operation has so many ramifications that it is one that must be exercised with the utmost discretion. I am speaking from memory now; I have not the records in front of me. I do not recall one instance in which a licence for a television station has actually been cancelled. I think one licence has been withdrawn or reallocated as a result of negotiation. The problem which faces the Broadcasting Control Board, I believe, interests honourable senators opposite as much as it interests us on this side of the chamber. 1 refer lo a legal difficulty which is posed by the decision of the High Court of Australia in the boilermakers case in 1953. That decision, very briefly, laid down that judicial and administrative power cannot be granted by the Commonwealth Parliament to a single tribunal or a single authority. In other words, under the Constitution we have to keep the administrative power and the judicial power separate. That is correct, is it not, Mr Attorney? 494 KMX LP 1 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - Impeccably stated. 494 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN - That being the case, the Broadcasting Control Board does not have the power, even if the Government wanted to give it, to fine people, say, $50, $100 or $500 for breaches of the standards, because that would make the Board both the administrator and the judge of its own case. In the United States of America the Federal Communications Commission, which among many other . things does the job that the. Broadcasting Control Board does in Australia, is not hindered by the same constitutional problem. That Commission can impose a penalty and if the licensee feels aggrieved he can, of course, appeal to the courts. But the Federal Communications Commission in the United States is given a flexible day to day control over a licensee, which does not exist in this country. If honourable senators opposite could get together with the legal brains in the Government and devise some scheme whereby the Broadcasting Control Board could be given reasonable disciplinary power, I believe that there would be satisfaction all round. In saying what I have said, I reserve my objections to the amendments to be moved by Senator Douglas McClelland, with the saving grace that I want to listen to the debate in regard to his second amendment which relates to defamation and to which he made no reference. 495 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - I propose to deal with it at the Committee stage. 495 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN - All right. One of the difficulties in doing what the honourable senator suggests - passing this matter on to a select committee - is the time factor. He and I were members of what came to be known as the Vincent Comittee, which was the first inquiry into Australian television conducted by the Senate. That Committee sat for 14 months and its report was actually produced 16 or 17 months after it began sitting. Its terms of reference where very much narrower than the current reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, of which Senator Davidson is the Chairman. That is a very wide reference and quite obviously will take a considerable time. If this Bill were shelved until that report is presented it might just be another way of killing these proposals which in themselves, I think honourable senators opposite by and large will agree, are fairly bloodless. They are not likely to cause any coronary occlusions in the Caucus or anywhere else. They are obviously administrative matters which day to day control of the industry would seem to dictate. The other matters to which I wish to refer are ones on which again I find myself in some agreement with Senator Douglas McClelland, Firstly, he says that the concentration of ownership of the mass media in this country ls frightening. I agree with that sentiment and I think it is one which would be shared by many honourable senators, although the concentration is nowhere near as bad as Senator Douglas McClelland suggests. The monopoly of radio stations is shared by captains of industry or captains of commerce and the Australian Labor Party. I have not a full list of the stations in which the Labor Party is interested, but they include 2KY in Sydney, 3KZ in Melbourne, 4KQ in Brisbane. 5KA In Adelaide and one in Western Australia whose call sign I forget. Directly or obliquely the Australian Labor Party has an interest in these very influential radio transmitting stations. I do not object to that. I think the Labor Party makes intelligent use of this form of mass media. But I think it is hypocritical for members of that Party on the one hand to claim that certain people are monopolising the mass media and at the same time to enter into this monopoly organisation themselves. I cannot quite recall the figure but my recollection is that the profit published for the Queensland station was in the vicinity of $400,000. That is not a bad profit for a socialist organisation. 495 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - Why do you not tell the truth about it? 495 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN - In fact, the amazing thing is that a socialist outfit can produce such a profit. I speak from memory. I think it is $400,000. I do not want to be tied down to $100,000 or so when dealing with the Labor Party's finances. The case of Elwood Pty Ltd to which Senator Douglas McClelland referred - I make no bones about it - seems to me to be worthy of investigation. I understand that it has been referred to previously; but now that he has given chapter and verse and referred to it in detail I presume it will be considered again by the relevant authorities. There is an aspect of the ownership and control of television and broadcasting stations in this country which t!he current legislation affects. On 17th December 1964 interests held by companies and organisations were not exactly frozen but they were fixed to the degree that companies were not able to own or control more than 2 television stations in capital cities. One of the protective provisions was that those who had already acquired those interests were to be allowed to retain them, provided the acquisition had been completed by the date in question and provided always that there was no alteration in the manner in which the shares were held. This legislation simply provides that the manner in which the shares are held may be altered provided always that the quantum or amount of the shareholding is not increased. To me that seems to be in line with the somewhat belated decision - if .1 may say so - to try to ensure the maximum distribution in the control, ownership and operation of the mass media. Senator DouglasMcClelland referred to section J 14 of the Broadcasting and Television Act which requires the services of Australians to be used wherever practicable. I think I can say with all the modesty 1 can summons that I have been as vocal on this point as others, both inside and outside this chamber. An examination of the most recent requirements of the Control Board in regard to Australian programme material will give the chamber some cause for hoping that the extent and percentage of Australian content which we require and which everyone believes to be desirable will be brought about. A quota of 6 hours of Australian drama is required in every 28 days. A significant aspect of this matter which 1 think has not been canvassed in the chamber is that as from June of this year 50 per cent of the local content will have to be shown in peak viewing times. That is between 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the evening. This is a tremendous step forward. It means that at the peak viewing times when programme matter is most competitive at least half the material will have to be of Australian origin. I think it will be conceded that this is a substantial step forward. In addition the Board has provided that there must be - I think it is for 2 hours in every 28 days - a special children's programme put on at the times provided for this type of material. By and large I have every hope that as the requirements of the Board take effect, with the encouragement of the Government in other fields such as the Australian Film Development Corporation, the fledgling Australian industry will get off its feet and provide a proper quota of good quality material for television. I shall digress for a moment on Australian assessments. I regret to say that many of us are knockers of the local product. I do not know whether it is a form of inverted snobbery but many of us are prepared to criticise something simply because it is Australian. We were able to read in the Press 2 days ago about a film produced by Mr Neary's outfit called 'Wake in Fright'. This film ran very poorly in Melbourne and Sydney. It had no success at all. In the United States where it is now being shown it has been voted one of the 10 best films of the year. 496 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - And in France. 496 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN - -As Senator Douglas McClelland says, it has been successful in France. Knowing how perverse our own audiences are at times it would not surprise me that if the film were to be brought back here and shown now that it has succeeded abroad it would be a sellout. But perhaps that is being too cynical. 496 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - it was entered in the Cannes festival. 496 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN - That is right. As Senator Douglas McClelland says it was entered in the Cannes festival. I believe it had some success there but I do not know what that success was. The Bill before the Senate is obviously designed to ameliorate the administrative position. It is one in which I do not think there is a great deal of ideological content. I support the measure before the chamber. 496 KUD Victoria 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS - The Australian Democratic Labor Party will vote for the amendment which has been moved by Senator Douglas McClelland and which states: Leave out all words after 'That', insert 'the Bill be withdrawn until the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts presents its report on the matter referred to it by the Senate on 19th August 1971, viz: AH aspects of television and broadcasting, including Australian content of television programmes'. In the unlikely event of that amendment being defeated we will vote for the other amendment in which Senator Douglas McClelland seeks the right of persons who feel agrieved by material which has been broadcast to be supplied with a copy of the material. I compliment Senator Douglas McClelland upon a speech which proved what we have already known and that is that this is a subject in which he takes a great deal of interest and in which he is certainly as well-informed as anybody in this chamber. I was interested to listen to Senator Hannan because we all know that he has had a considerable association in the television and radio field. But the reason why the Democratic Labor Party decided to support the amendment is that it appears to us that only in very important circumstances should the Government present a Bill to the Senate which deals with a matter which the Senate has already referred to a committee. I am a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts. We have already had the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and other expert witnesses before us. We have in train preparations for a hearing upon a number of matters in which the matters contained in the Bill are included. We will be meeting on Thursday next to arrange the opening of our inquiry. As I said before, to me it seems entirely wrong - unless a subject matter of the Bill concerned were extremely vital, urgent and important - that when we have organised and arranged for a committee to meet and examine a matter the Government should prejudge some of it and proposes to legislate on it. It appears to me that there is some similarity here to what I have noticed at times: In the last year or two when the Senate has appointed a committee to inquire into a certain subject there has been a sudden rush and we have found that an inter-departmental committee has been appointed at the same time, presumably with the idea of getting in first and trying to head off what the Senate Committee is trying to do. 497 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - That has happened on about 3 occasions. 497 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS - On at least 3 occasions the Senate has determined to have a Senate inquiry and somebody has rushed to the members of the Committee and said: 'An inter-departmental committee is going to take a look at this. Do you not think that you had better drop the whole thing?' Even Senator Hannan said that this Bill will help to streamline administration, but that, there is nothing in it of a revolutionary character. If there is nothing in the Bill of a revolutionary character, nothing that is very urgent, why the rush to put the Bill through? If we legislate now and the Committee reported that something needed to be altered there might have to be retrospective legislation. Listening to Mr Lynch over the past fortnight I have been terribly impressed about the dangers of retrospective legislation - so impressed that it has had an effect upon my thinking in regard to this matter. I do not propose to labour the points because, knowing the facts of life as we do, it would appear that the Bill will not get very far. As I am a member of the Committee I will probably have a good deal to say there. In the circumstances there is not very much purpose in canvassing the field with which we are to deal. So I merely content myself by saying again that the Democratic Labor Party feels it is very wrong to bring before the Senate a Bill which it is openly admitted is not a terribly important Bill but which deals with subjects which will be discussed by a Committee of the Senate in the near future. It is entirely wrong to do so. We should protest against it. We will register our protest by voting for Senator Douglas McClelland's amendment. 497 ISW Tasmania 0 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - I rise to refer to one matter which is of concern to me. Before doing so I would like to add to the remarks of Senator McManus concerning the contribution which has been made during the course of this debate and on previous occasions by Senator Douglas McClelland. I think we are all aware that he concentrates in this area and his concentration makes him a spokesman and an authority in this field. I think that not only does he do the Opposition a credit but also he does this Parliament a credit in the work that he does in the field of television stations and their ownership. The point I wish to raise is related to another committee which was formed last year for the purpose of looking at frequency modulation and the recent statement that we would see the introduction of colour television in this country in the next 3 years. It is true that there is no point in committees being appointed to inquire into these matters unless the reports of those committees are listened to by the Government and acted upon. In the case of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts which was appointed to look into this matter, we find that whatever its findings may be they will be disregarded by the Government. Also the findings of the committee which is inquiring into frequency modulation broadcasting will be disregarded, because in an interview on the ABC's programme 'A.M.' on 17th February this year the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) gave a clear indication that the findings of the committee on frequency modulation broadcasting would largely be disregarded. This is despite the fact that the committee took much evidence in public and it has been deliberating on its report for some months now. I understand its report will not be available for some time yet, which suggests that a good deal of work has been done by the committee in this field. Yet the Postmaster-General has told us that in fact the Government is not prepared to wait to find out what the committee's findings are. This is a very serious matter, because in this country over the past few years since the introduction of television we have witnessed a decline in the standard of broadcasting. Television is a limited field. It has certain inbuilt deficiencies which colour will not overcome. Colour will certainly add colour to some aspects of television. Those who have seen colour television realise the visual impact that it has. But it is still a limited medium. Radio has been the neglected medium since the introduction of television. Tn particular the broadcasting of fine music has been neglected. If it were not for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its concern to ensure that those members of the Australian public who are interested in fine music in fact do get some consideration there would be none broadcast at all. I was interested to look through the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended 30'h June 1971. We find on page 221 of the report an analysis of broadcasting programmes by the commercial stations. We find that entertainment, as it is called, which is a standard of entertainment I think well known to all of us, constitutes about 70 per cent of the fare given to the public by commercial broadcasting stations. The arts constitute 0.3 per cent of their programmes. That figure rises to 8.8 per cent when all broadcasting stations, including the Australian Broadcasting Commission, are taken into account. So we cannot expect to look to commercial radio or commercial television for good quality programmes in this country. I dare say that that is their business and 1 am not advocating that they should be told that they should broadcast concerts simply to satisfy 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the community. But it is a great shame that we should see the Federal Minister responsible for these matters pre-empting the findings of a committee appointed by this Government to inquire into the possibilities of frequency modulation broadcasting in this country. The cost of pit ting FM broadcasting stations in each of the 5 capital cities might be in the vicinity of S2m, yet we think nothing of embarking on the introduction of colour television so thai we can see such nonsense as 'Division 4', Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck . in colour at a cost of something like $130m or SI 40m. I do not question that colour television must come, but it is a shame that it should be brought in with a complete disregard of those better qualities which radio can give us through frequency modulation broadcasting and which are being disregarded. I think it makes common sense that if we as a nation can afford colour televisions we can afford frequency modulation broadcasting. I will be watching, as I think many others will, to see what the findings of- this committee will be. If this Government is prepared simply to bypass its recommendations, if in fact they are in support of the introduction of frequency modulation broadcasting, it will be an indication of a complete lack of concern by this Government for that small segment of the community who are interested in better quality broadcasting in Australia. I hope that before any decision is made by this Government, whether or not it is announced, it will in fact listen to what this committee has to say and nol only give consideration to the desires of the mass of the community but also be concerned for those people who want something a little better than that sort of fare which is thrown at them by commercial television or commercial radio. 498 KMX Victoria LP 1 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - I have listened wilh interest to what has been said in this debate. Appreciating what the outcome of this debate will be, as Senator McManus invited me to do, I do not propose lo delay the Senate for very long. I. must say that I feel that much of what has been said insofar as it relates to the content of programmes on radio and .television is outside the ambit of this Bill. It may be that one takes a too strict view, of the ambit of the Bill in expressing a view of that character, but I feel that if one does examine what the provisions are it 'will be seen that they are designed to correct situations which experience has shown have existed and they do not move into the wider and more controversial area of programming. I appreciate that the Opposition and the Australian Democratic Labor Party have decided to oppose in effect the passage of this Bill. What they have indicated is that the Bill should be withdrawn until the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts has presented its report on the matter referred to it by the Senate on 19th August 1971. That matter was 'All aspects of television and broadcasting, including Australian content of television programmes'. In passing I make a comment which I think ought to be made: If the Government is required to take action, if it is to exercise its powers as a government, I think it should be able to proceed expeditiously from the introduction of legislation in the Parliament until its passage, providing always of course that the Parliament agrees with what the Government is doing. I do not believe" that the overall government of this country ought to be subordinated to the time which a lot of overworked senators can give to affairs in committees. I know full well that the problems of the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts have prevented a matter which was referred to it in August 1971 being taken up by that Committee until some time In 1972. But I do suggest to the Senate that as one House of the Parliament from which the Government is derived it has a responsibility to ensure that the legislation before it is properly considered and that the government of the country is not affected. I appreciate that the Broadcasting and Television Bill, notwithstanding what eloquence might be mustered on its behalf, could not be regarded as a vital Bill. I sense therefore that it ls thought to be an appropriate occasion for the Senate to flex its muscles and to indicate the power it has. I do not know whether the real power which the Senate possesses is best illustrated by action of this character on Bills which noone regards as of such importance or inherent merit that they must not be delayed pending the report of the Senate Committee. As the second reading speech indicated, this Bill is concerned with 3 matters only. The first is to provide for a 3-year renewal period whereas thus far there has been only a one-year renewal period. If any honourable senator examines the case put forward in support of that proposition in the second reading speech in this chamber and in the debates in the other place he cannot but be impressed with the fact that there is merit in getting rid of the one-year renewal period. There is the problem, of course, that certain stations may be in some form of technical breach at the time when their licence next comes up for renewal at the end of a year and it is advantageous for the licence to be renewed for a short period, say 6 months, on the condition that there will be a longer renewal if the omissions are repaired. Likewise there is merit in the proposition that if a number of interests are involved all the licences can be said to expire at the one time and there can be one report on all interests. If the report is satisfactory the period for renewal will be 3 years. I must say, despite all the arguments advanced as to why we should await the report of the Senate Standing Committee, that there has been no criticism directed to that particular provision. Yet it is the language of what is proposed. It seems to me to be a little incongruous that a Senate which values the work done by its committees is not prepared to examine legislation which comes before it on the merits of its provisions. The second provision in the Bill is designed to adjust an anomaly which occurred in the freezing provisions with regard to the holding of interests in commercial television and radio stations. Those provisions were inserted with respect to commercial television stations in 1964 and with respect to commercial radio stations in 1969. They were very stringent provisions. I know that Senator Douglas McClelland developed the argument that these provisions are not as meaningful as he would like them to be but I feel that in his arguments he ignored, in the first place, the precise provisions in the legislation and, in the second place, the very real practical difficulties of imposing an alternative set of standards which can be enforced in a way which would be superior to the manner of enforcing the existing provisions. But these provisions do exist and they limit the number of prescribed interests which one company can have in licences of television or broadcasting stations. They not only limit the number of interests which can be held; they also define what represents an interest in a company and what represents control of a company. As I said, these provisions, having been in existence for a number of years, have created a number of anomalies. Essentially the anomaly which it is designed to correct is the fact that there can be no movement whatsoever in the number of shareholdings or in the form of the shareholdings of companies which, prior to the commencement of these provisions, had interests in licences and which by virtue of the legislation are protected. Just to remind Senator McManus, the provision of 1964 was enacted so that there would be no retroactive effect on vested rights. That having occurred, it has been proved by experience that if a company engages, for example, in portfolio investment it may find that one of the shares in the company in which it has bought shares will have some small interest in a television station. It does not matter whether the increase in the original company's interest is .0001 per cent; that contravenes the provisions of the legislation. I think it is fair to say that this particular provision in the Bill was introduced to overcome that sort of anomaly. In short, a company cannot hold more shares than it held in 1964 at the time that these freezing provisions came into force. It does not matter if there is some change in the form of the holding which it held so long as the amount of shareholding is not increased. That, I think, is a reasonable provision and is amply justified by what has been said in support of it, but once again honourable senators have not said why it is not acceptable. The third provision with which this legislation deals is the simple provision that a person should not when he is engaged in a political broadcast have to yield time, for which he is paying, at the beginning and at the end of a small political broadcast. At the present time he has to yield that time because the name and address of the author must be given at the beginning of the broadcast and likewise at the end of it. The provision contained in this Bill says that where the speech is in excess of 100 words the name and address of the author does not have to be given at the beginning and the end; it has to be given only at the end. I must say - I say it, I hope, with a degree, of cynicism which the Senate will bear - that the matters involved in this particular measure are not the weighty measures which the Senate contemplated would be dealt with by the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts when there was referred to it 'All aspects of television and broadcasting, including Australian content of television programmes', lt is regrettable that the Senate is proposing to adopt a certain course, notwithstanding that the reasons why it is being adopted might be fairly readily apparent to the politically wary. I do not think it redounds to the credit of the Senate that this course is being taken. In the course of the debate there was some reference by Senator Douglas McClelland lo particular transactions which had occurred and in respect of which he said there was demonstrated a widespread tendency to monopoly control in many interests which particular companies had in a number of television or radio stations. I have said to him that the language of the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act at the present time do lay down standards by providing for the percentage interest. They do indicate what is the controlling interest in a company and how many shares a person must have before it can be said that he has that controlling interest. Throughout Senator Douglas McClelland's speech there was the contrast between the Labor Party's approach and the Government's approach, but all I notice when I took at the Australian Labor Party Platform is that the Labor Party is not at all specific. I note that their 'blue book', which of course the Labor Party cannot depart from in any circumstances, slates: ti is necessary for government to regulate these areas in order to ensure that the public interest is protected, but as far as possible the traditional freedom of the Press should apply to radio and television. So far I do not think that there would be any exception to be taken by the Government to that proposition. But then it states: The dual system of national and commercial radio and television is to continue. The tendency to monopoly is especially, dangerous and must be resisted, by appropriate legislation. I should think that that ls the same approach as the Government has adopted. The only difference is that the Government has brought into force what it regards as appropriate legislation. We are yet to hear from the Australian Labor Party what it would regard as appropriate legislation. One of the very real problems in this area is to determine when there is an interest in excess of that which is prescribed or determined. One does not play with words in saying that this is difficult to define. There is a practical problem in knowing when a person has a beneficial interest and when a person is subject to influence from or is prepared to act at the direction of another person. Notwithstanding all the efforts that can be made to ascertain the true position, sometimes we cannot obtain it. Senator DouglasMcClelland referred to the Hendy case. That is a case which the Australian Broadcasting Control Board had examined. 1 am instructed that the Board has not been able to establish whether options were held by the Fairfax Company over the Hendy Company's interest in NBN. WIN, QTQ, CTC and DDQ. Replies were received, but they were not satisfactory to enable a decision to be made. Statutory declarations which were furnished to the licensee companies as required by the Act indicated that the shares were beneficially held by the 3 companies concerned. The terms of the Act are basically pointed towards beneficial ownership, which is necessarily a limited concept. 501 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - I take it that the Act does not require them to declare options. 501 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - It does not require them to declare options. How does one determine whether an option exists and whether it is to be exercised? If it were to be exercised there would be a beneficial interest, but if it were not to be exercised it becomes irrelevant. That is one of the practical problems. Whilst I can accept much of what Senator Douglas McClelland has said, I do not think he has given due weight to the very real practical problems which are involved in making determinations of this character. I repeat only what I said earlier - that if appropriate legislation is to be introduced by the Labor Party to change this situation, if there is a real belief that (he legislation ought to be changed and the community protected, T am sure that the Government would be interested to know the terms of the appropriate legislation which the honourable senator has in mind. If one looks at the Elwood case, it would appear that the UIG Investments purchase in RVN is within the terms of the legislation. Originally Henderson Holdings, which had been owned by Mr R. A. G. Henderson, desired to buy RVN interests, but this was not possible because of television directorships which were held by Mr Henderson. Having regard to the provisions of the Act, UIG then applied for approval. Eleven statutory declarations were obtained by the Broadcasting Control Board from Mrs and Miss Henderson, the shareholders in UIG, and those declarations were to the effect that the shares in UIG were held beneficially by them. Senator Douglas McClelland is suspicious, but what is a board to do when it has s!atutory declarations from persons who state what the position is? In other circumstances, with other issues involved, I suggest that Senator Douglas McClelland would challenge immediately anyone who suggested that what a person had sworn on affidavit - possibly even not what he had sworn on affidavit but what he had told him - was not to be accepted, at least as prima facie truth. He would say that it should be accepted as true at least until some contrary evidence were given. I do not want to use (he expression 'double standards' because I have tried to be objective in this debate, but the problems are there and I think that Senator Douglas McClelland has not given adequate weight to them in his criticisms. Nor has he given adequate weight to the problems wilh which the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has to contend. 501 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - Where would Elwood, with a paid up capital of $4, gel sufficient capital to buy 210.000 shares? 501 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - As the honourable senator said in the course of his address, it was probably borrowed - someone provided the money. I do not think it requires any imagination to believe that it was provided. But that is not the test which the Act lays down. The test is whether the shares are held by a person into whose hands they eventually come, under his title, or whether they are held by some person who is the beneficial owner. I mention these things only because as a matter of words and as a matter of language these are problems which I do not think are being given sufficient attention by Senator Douglas McClelland. In conclusion I say that the writing is on the wall for this legislation. I regret it because whilst it cannot be regarded as vital legislation, it was part of the housekeeping of government, tidying up the provisions of the legislation as experience has indicated that they may require to be tidied up. But if it is the wish of the Senate that even this housekeeping should be submitted to a Senate committee and it is the Senate's will that this be done, one must accept that the will of the Senate will prevail. The Government will oppose the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Douglas McClelland's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Prowse) 28 23 Majority . . . . 5 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! The question now is: That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. 502 bill 502 Debate resumed from 24 February (vide page 203), on motion by Senator Greenwood: That the Bill be now read a second time. 502 1L5 New South Wales 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - This is a Bill to provide for the law of evidence in the Australian Capital Territory. I think that honourable senators are familiar with the background of the Bill. For the most part, evidence in the ACT had been dealt with by ordinance. The relevant ordinance was disallowed by the Senate towards the end of last year and a temporary Act was made providing in substance for the continuance of the provisions of the disallowed ordinance until the end of this month, March 1972. That was done because of the expressed view of the Senate that the law on this important topic ought to be made by Parliament itself and not be a matter of delegated legislation to be enacted in effect by the Attorney-General. The matter has now come before the Senate and there is an opportunity to discuss in some detail the various provisions in the legislation in order that we may provide the best law of this important topic. As honourable senators will realise, the law of evidence applies to civil proceedings as well as to criminal proceedings and is an extremely important part of the law touching the rights of individuals. As such, we must pay a good deal of regard to it because decisions in cases often are determined by the provisions of the law of evidence. It affects the human rights of the persons who appear as parties or as witnesses in courts, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, and has always been the subject matter of a great deal of scholarships and often of a great deal of contention. The Bill here, as I understand it, does not purport to be a complete code of evidence for the law of the Territory. It deals, I would suggest, in substance with the statutory provisions which had been previously made. These were derived from the law of New South Wales. Indeed, certain Acts of New South Wales including the Evidence Act, the Royal Commissioners Evidence Act and the Witnesses Examination Act would cease to be in force in the Territory upon the enactment of this Bill. One matter comes to mind immediately, lt is this: The question must be asked whether really there ought to be a law of evidence which applies generally to the Federal courts, that is, in their dealing in any event with the initial proceedings which come before them. Whatever the law of evidence is to be in the Australian Capital Territory, one would think that the same law ought to apply in courts such as the Commonwealth Industrial Court and the Federal Bankruptcy Court and in other Federal courts which may be established. Criticism has been expressed by judges and in other quarters that the decisions of the High Court of Australia itself may depend upon where a case is heard or. perhaps more importantly, where judgment is given, because the law to be applied in cases depends, under the Judiciary Act, upon the place where the proceedings are taking place or where the judgment is given, lt has been said, and T think rightly so, that the judgment given in Sydney on a case could be different to the judgment which would be given in Melbourne on the same case or vice versa. That is an extraordinary position. It is hardly consistent with the national conceptions with were crystallised at the time of Federation. It hardly seems right that evidenciary provisions should depend upon where a federal matter is being heard. To pitt it in simple terms: The Opposition takes the view that the rights of a citizen under federal law ought to be the same wherever he is and wherever his case is determined, and that we ought to be setting out to make our laws achieve that result, which they do not achieve at the moment. We seem to be inclined to fit our federal laws on subjects such as' this into the interstices of the State laws. Perhaps an exam ple of that is the legislation which followed the Worthing case. This Parliament decided that the law to be applied to a Commonwealth place was the law of the Stale in which that Commonwealth place was situated. That means for instance that the' Commonwealth law which applies on the steps of the General Post Office in Melbourne is different to the Commonwealth, law which applies on the steps of the GPO in Sydney, if there is some activity which is an offence in Victoria but not an offence in New South Wales it means, in simple terms, that anyone who conducts that activity on the steps of the GPO in Melbourne is committing an offence but if someone conducts the same activity on the steps of the GPO in Sydney he is not committing an offence. That result was arrived at by the application of the law of this Parliament to Commonwealth places. Equally one has the situation of procedural matters and evidenciary matters varying from place to place. T suppose this has come about because it was thought that it would be more convenient to adopt this practice as the arm of the. Commonwealth did not stretch so far. In fact, there was some contention over many decades as to whether the State laws applied to such places as Commonwealth property. It may have' been for this reason that the attitude was adopted of not really preferring federal Jaw but of making it subordinate to the Slate law. We have accepted the procedural and, indeed, substantive provisions of State law and made them operate by virtue of our own enactments. lt seems to me to be a pity that we do not have a general enactment instead of one which applies merely to the Australian Capital Territory. However, insofar as it does apply to the Australian Capital Territry and insofar as some endeavour has been made to arrive at something which approaches a code, the Opposition welcomes this legislation. We welcome this attempt to get the law into some kind of order. It has not been satisfactory for one to have had to turn back to the provisions of the State enactments as if they were really incorporated by reference. That is not a satisfactory way in which to have our law operate. This situation is analogous to the sad state of our military law. Even courts martial are unable to say really what our military law is because one has to look at the imperial law and then by examining various references endeavour to deduce the Australian law. We have here legislation which deals with a large number of matters, civil and criminal, and the Opposition welcomes it. In saying that I do not mean that the Opposition agrees with all of the Bill. It contains certain provisions which the Opposition thinks are objectionable and some which the Opposition thinks require more explanation. There are also some as to which the Opposition is, frankly, quite dubious and there are some which it thinks are rather vague but which are of an experimental nature. I think we would be inclined to say that while certain provisions do not receive our blessing we would not offer any opposition because they are of an experimental nature and perhaps ought to be allowed to operate for a while in order to determine what difficulties will be encountered with them. The Australian Labor Party, which hopes to bo in government soon, may seek to revise some of these measures in the light of experience. In saying that I should point out that I think that these matters are, for the most part, not of real party political difference in the ordinary sense. They are not matters on which one would fight an election. They are not matters on which one would appeal to the generality of people because, frankly, some of them are quite technical. But, despite the technicalities, the principles involved are of very great importance as they concern human rights. The Opposition hopes that anything it puts forward will be considered in the spirit of being able to assist in some way in improving this legislation, which, as I have said, is outside of the general run of great party political issues. I wish to indicate some of the matters on which we would like further elucidation. I do not anticipate that this debate will conclude this evening. One of the matters about which there is some concern is clause 29 of the Bill. It deals with documentary evidence of facts in issue where the maker of the statement is not called as a witness. Would it be possible, before the commencement of the debate in Committee for a little more background material to be. supplied than was supplied during the second reading speech of the Minister? We are aware of the appearance of some of it in some of the English and Australian proceedings. But we question the width of its application or why it should be applied in criminal proceedings, and perhaps even in civil proceedings. The Opposition also questions whether the protection given in clause 31 is really wide enough. For instance, statements which might be important in a criminal trial might not be met by the scope of clause 31. In regard to clause 35, I suggest the inclusion of the word 'and' so that it reads: . and/or was otherwise recognised by him as his statement. Perhaps the derivation of this could be given and also some consideration to whether that word ought properly in all the circumstances be included in such a provision. I am aware that in some cases this kind of expression has appeared elsewhere. Clause 38 (2.) deals with the discretion of the judge to refuse to admit in evidence certain statements if he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the person charged to admit the statement in evidence. Perhaps some consideration might be given to whether the word 'would' is setting too high a test. I suggest the insertion of the word 'may' instead of 'would' because it might be difficult for a judge to say that he was satisfied that it would be unfair to the accused person. The test may be different if the judge said that it may be unfair to the accused person. If the accused is objecting the judge may be satisfied that it may be unfair to him whereas, if he has to be satisfied that it would be unfair, this might be setting a higher test than perhaps ought to be contained in such a provision. Dealing with the clauses relating to the admissibility of statements produced by computers, I question whether clause 45 really ought to be contained in the Bill, even if one takes the view that the part is unexplored, of an experimental nature and so forth. I question, even if it were to be passed in that fashion, whether a statement ought to be admissible notwithstanding the failure to comply with the relevant rules of court. There are other matters, perhaps of a more important nature. They have been dealt with fairly fully by the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) in his second reading speech. Those are the questions of compellability and the disclosure of communications made during marriage. 1 do not know whether it is useful to go through the arguments that might be put later. Certain problems arise in relation to these matters, lt seems to us that on the compellability of spouses and the disclosure of communications very great questions are raised which go beyond the evidence being given in a court in a civil pro.ceeding. Whether a spouse should be compelled to give evidence against the other spouse in a civil proceeding is an important question because technical rules are contained in the law of evidence and all through the law. Persons may obtain advantages or lose them through some technical rule. But in this case, we come up against the great principle of the relationship of spouses, lt occurs to me that perhaps some thought may be given to this matter in this place, lt seems terrible that as between husband and wife in a civil proceeding for the sake of some advantage someone can cause a wife to give evidence against her husband or a husband to give evidence against his wife, lt may be that the paramount public interest is better served by not requiring this to be done than by op:ning it up for the sake of some advantage which may be achieved. 505 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - It is only for the sake of competency. Surely you would not challenge that. A person is not compellable but he or she is competent; except in civil proceedings. 505 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - The Attorney-General is saying they are not compellable, but the fact is that under clause 54 (p.) they are compellable. The clause states: The wife or husband of a party to a proceeding (nor being a criminal proceeding) and the wife or husband of a person on whose behalf such a proceeding is prosecuted or defended is a competent and compellable witness in the proceeding- Sena' or Greenwood - If the honourable senator looks at. clause 66 he will see that it states: (I.) In a criminal proceeding, the person charged and the spouse of the person charged are competent witnesses but, except as provided by subsection (3.) of this section, the spouse is not a compellable witness. I thought that the honourable senator was speaking about serious crimes. 505 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - No. When the Attorney-General interrupted I was talking about civil actions. He said they are not compellable but competent only. This Bill makes the spouse a compellable witness in a civil proceeding. This raises a question of the utmost public importance. It is a most serious matter to say that the relationship of the spouses should be invaded to the extent that a wife can be compelled against her will to go into the . witness box and give evidence against her husband. In certain circumstances that kind of thing may place a cloud over a marriage and put between the husband and the wife something that will last a lifetime. The dispute may be over a few hundred dollars or over a bill. The husband has given evidence. The wife is called. She has been outside the court. Not knowing what he said, she says: 'No, he did not say that' or 'He did say that'. That is the kind of situation which the law, as I understand it, has always endeavoured to avoid. The law has provided that they should not be put in that position. Whatever was the advantage or disadvantage in a. proceeding this was no! to be done. 1 will not add much on that matter. We say that the matter is a most serious one. We certainly will be giving attention 'o it later. 505 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - Were not the provisions about which yon are complaining made law in the United Kingdom over 100 years ago? ls not that so in civil cases in respect of the competency and compellability of spouses? 505 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - Is the Attorney-General saying that for 100 years a spouse has been compelled to disclose communications made during the marriage? 505 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - No. I referred only to civil proceedings. That was made law in England in 1851 and in New South Wales in 1852. 505 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - Perhaps the Attorney-General will get further information before the Committee stage is reached. We hope that further attention will be paid to that matter before then. It seems to us that very serious doubts are raised about the incrimination clause. Perhaps information may be obtained as to whether the certificate that is envisaged under clause 57 (5.) would protect a person against criminal proceedings under State law. If the Attorney-General is able to inform us now I would be pleased. If he is not, he can inform us at an early time. Perhaps he will tell us whether the certificate would extend to the spouse, and if not why not. It does not appear to do so. By that clause is it intended to protect a person against criminal proceedings under State law? If so. has any attention been given to whether the Commonwealth is competent to issue that certificate? It may be that the Commonwealth is competent. I think it probably is. Perhaps the Attorney-General could tell us. Perhaps he could also tell us whether any real protection is being given to a person against proceedings under State law. The admissibility or non-admissibility of evidence is one matter. Perhaps he could tell us how it is proposed that a person who would be forced to give incriminating answers which may open up the avenue to a prosecution of him would be protected so that the general principle of the law against self-incrimination can be preserved. Even if the answers are not admissible he may be exposed to a prosecution. As I have said on many other matters, the approach Ls not really a Party political approach. These are not matters on which elections are fought, but they are most important matters of human right. Some of these rights and privileges have been built up in the law. Some have a history extending over thousands of years. We on this side are most concerned that those rights and privileges should not be broken down without the most cogent reasons being given for the departure from what has hitherto been regarded as extremely important matters. I refer now to clause 66 which touches on the subject of a compellable witness. Perhaps before we reach the Committee stage the Attorney-General will be able to give some attention to the matter and supply us with an answer as to the position of an accused person who wished, on his criminal trial, to call his spouse in his defence. Let us assume that the spouses are separated and are even hostile. Under this clause would a man on trial for his life be able to require his separated wife to give the evidence which might be necessary to save him from conviction? The clause states: In a criminal proceeding, the person charged and the spouse of the person charged are competent witnesses but, except as provided by subsection (3.) of this section, the spouse is not a compellable witness. 506 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator Durack - Is not this view inconsistent with the view that you were putting about the compellability in civil proceedings? 506 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - Superficially it may appear to be so, but it is not. The paramount interest is the interest of the community in preserving the relationship between husband and wife. As I put it, I did not want the position to be that a wife could be called to give evidence against a husband, whether in a civil or a criminal proceeding. The view which I am suggesting tentatively is that she should not. 1 will put that another way. I will not be a chauvinistic male. One's spouse should not be able to be called to give evidence against one. I am suggesting that that principle can be preserved by ensuring that in civil proceedings she will not be compellable. I am suggesting that it can be preserved in criminal proceedings by providing that she will not be compellable at the instance of the prosecution. But it is perfectly consistent with that principle that she be compellable at the instance of the accused. The wife could be called to give evidence for the husband, or the husband for the wife. The calling in that case is a calling to give evidence in favour of the accused person. Have I resolved what appeared superficially to be an inconsistency? 506 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator Durack - On the same reasoning a wife ought to be compellable to give evidence on behalf of her husband in a civil proceeding. 506 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - If in a civil proceeding the situation has been reached that a wife will not, at the request of her husband, come to give evidence in that proceeding, then we. may say that the ground or reason for the public interest in maintaining this principle has disappeared. If they are at such odds that the wife is not even prepared to give evidence at the request of her husband, or vice versa, the relationship of the spouses is not being invaded; it has disappeared. The other clauses to which some attention might be given include clause 70, which relates to the introduction of the character of the accused. This again involves a very great principle of the law. The conditions under which the character of the accused should be able to be introduced by the prosecution are a matter of importance to all. We have some concern at the provisions that are included in that clause. Again, clause 74, which relates to comment on the failure to give evidence, seems to me at least to have a certain anomalous character, even though I am aware that in certain places the same provision exists. I have indicated some of the matters to which we will be giving attention during the Committee stage of consideration of the Bill. If the Attorney-General could supplement the extremely informative second reading speech by supplying us with further information on the clauses I have mentioned prior to the Committee stage being reached, we would be extremely grateful. I repeat that we welcome the Bill as an attempt to deal with these most important matters of the law of evidence. We realise that it is not a complete code. We are prepared to engage in a discussion of the detailed provisions of the Bill, some of which - only a few - we consider objectionable, others about which we have some doubt and others again of which we would like some further explanations. But on the whole we are pleased to have this Bill. We are pleased that the Senate saw fit to ensure that the legislation would not be delegated but would be covered by an Act of this Parliament. Therefore I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the motion for the second reading of the Bill. 507 8G4 Western Australia 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - I have read with great interest the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) on this Bill and listened, also with great interest, to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). We in the Senate are privileged to have had the views of 2 leading members of the legal profession on this Bill. I am sure that at the Committee stage we will have an even more valuable discussion of some of its clauses. I agree with Senator Murphy that this Bill is really dealt with much more appropriately by discussion in Committee than by a second reading debate. The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, for the lay members of the Senate has canvassed very extensively the nature of the law of evidence, its purpose and the many changes that are made to it in respect of the Australian Capital Territory. The case which is made out by the Attorney-General and which basically is accepted by the Opposition, as expressed by Senator Murphy, indicates that this measure is a salutary one which was long overdue in the Australian Capita] Territory. Whether the changes that are made really justify a debate in the Senate or whether they could have been achieved appropriately by an ordinance is a matter that we have debated already at some length. For my own part, I believe that the changes included in this Bill are of such a character that they are merely bringing the law of the Territory up to date. There are not many major changes from the basic law of evidence as accepted throughout Australia. There are one or two. and I propose to mention them in the course of my remarks. By and- large, this Bill becomes necessary because the law of evidence of the Australian Capital Territory was extraordinarily outmoded and far behind the law as it existed and as it has developed in the State jurisdications. There are very good examples of that in the Attorney-General's second reading speech. Tt is interesting, for instance, to note the changes in the law relating to hearsay evidence as far as hearsay statements in documents are concerned. When I was in the Western Australian Parliament several years ago I had occasion to introduce a measure to apply the English Evidence Act of 1938 to the Western Australian law. At that time I thought we were the last State in Australia - as indeed we were - to adopt the English legislation. I think that measure was introduced into the Western Australian Parliament in 1967 - 29 years behind the times. 1 thought that was a rather sad state of affairs. So I was rather shocked to find that the Australian Capital Territory was even more behind the times than Western Australia was. 508 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator Murphy - Has it made any difference to you? 508 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - It has. It has also made some difference to one or two cases in which I have been counsel, I am thankful to say. That is only an example of the extent to which we are behind the times. In New South Wales, which has taken the great leap forward into 1875 or thereabouts, perhaps it does not seem to be so bad. It seemed to me that in respect of a measure which had been accepted in the United Kingdom nearly 30 years before and which had worked successfully there we should have done a little better than that in Australia. However, there are a number of other very outmoded provisions in the laws of this Territory. Another feature is the competence and compellability of witnesses, particularly the spouses of parties. Senator Murphy has already made some quite interesting comments on this matter. One of the most outmoded rules which, of course, has been altered here, is the rule known as Russell and Russell which prevented evidence being given by a spouse of non-access and which would have the effect of bastardising a child of the marriage. I think that that rule went out of effect in the United Kingdom as far back as 1924. This rule arose out of the fact - if my memory serves me correctly - that people who had served in the First World War and who had come back had found that their family had increased by several children but that they were unable to obtain dissolution of the marriage on the basis that they had been away from home for 3 or 4 years. They had to have other evidence to prove that the child or children of the marriage were not their own. Of course this serves to indicate what an absurd provision that was. However, this still seems to be the law in the Australian Capital Territory. I am very pleased to find that 50 years or thereabouts later we are bringing the law of this Territory into some semblance of common sense. In my view the nature of this Bill is to be commended. When one reads of the attention, care and thought which has been put into it and the people who have been consulted in regard to it one expects that it would have this character. For instance, I notice that the Bill has been the subject of study for some 3 years by a committee presided over by Mr Justice Fox of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. But the assistance he has been given and the consultants who have been engaged in relation to this measure do make impressive reading. This is detailed at the end of the Attorney-General's speech. In particular the Bill has been considered by and comments received from no less an authority on the law of evidence than Dr Rupert Cross of Oxford University. I think that honourable senators with a legal background will recognise him as the outstanding legal authority on the law of evidence. Perhaps some of the clarity and wording of this Bill may be due to his great facility for clear legal expression and exposition. Apart from such general comments on the proposals which I applaud it is clear from the character of the legislation, particularly the part relating to law of hearsay evidence that this Bill represents the most up-to-date thinking on the subject. Whether one necessarily agrees with the way in which it is treated is another matter but certainly this Bill gives repeated evidence of having received the consideration and treatment which one would expect from the people listed who have been engaged in its preparation. Of course the question arises from a first consideration of a Bill on the law of evidence as to whether in this day and age we should bother about having a law of evidence at all. The Attorney-General in his speech does advert to some modern thinking in legal circles that there is no need for a law of evidence. Whatever the position may have been in the past and whatever the justification for technical rules on admissibility of evidence there may have been, in view of the greater sophistication, literacy and so forth of jurors - apart from judges - it is believed there is no need to have any technical rules relating to the admissibility of evidence. Some people believe that all we really need these days is a general provision that whatever is relevant to the proceedings is admissible. We should be concerned not with the admissibility of evidence but only with the weight which is to be attached to it. Although that might be a respectable approach to the problem, 1 do suggest that there still needs to be some rules which, traditionally, have been dealt with under the law of evidence. Such an approach may well eliminate all the rules relating to hearsay evidence. Of course this Bill before us does have quite a number of provisions which deal with the exclusion of hearsay evidence as a general rule. But we would still need to have rules relating to what is generally called the 'facilitation of proof. That is the way in which certain things can be more easily proved. I refer particularly to proof of signature of officials, public documents and so on. We would need to have some rules relating to evidence by infants and the swearing of infants. We would need to have some rules relating to the protection of witnesses. I think it is clear that undoubtedly there is need for some rules relating to evidence in our legal system. I agree wilh the Attorney-General and with the basis of this Bill that perhaps the time has not arrived when we could adopt this more radical approach and say that we need only the law of evidence along the lines which I have been discussing. It is true that steps in this direction are rapidly gaining pace, particularly in the United Kingdom. But I would prefer to see a longer experiment with some of the relaxations of the present rules, particularly those relating to the exclusion of hearsay evidence. I suggest that we wait a little longer before we try anything more radical. Like Senator Murphy all I seek to do in the second reading debate on this Bill is to consider what one might call 'certain highlights' of the measure and leave a more detailed consideration until the Committee stages. That becomes inevitable because it is not a measure with which we commonly deal. It is not a measure which has behind it some principle which can be debated at the second reading stage, leaving the detailed work for discussion at the Committee stages. The whole of this Bill, apart from the basic question of whether or not we need a law of evidence, deals really with a number of detailed and quite separate measures. Therefore it is an extremely difficult subject to discuss in a speech at the second reading stage. However, there are one or two major provisions of the Bill which probably do impinge upon some pretty basic rights which could be the subject of useful discussion at this stage. For reasons which I have given already I entirely support the provisions of the Bill which deal with the extension of admissibility to statements in documents. As I have said already this seems to me only to be bringing the law here into line with that which has applied in the United Kingdom and the States of Australia for many years. It does so in a way which obviously takes account of the experience of practice under the English Evidence Act of 1938. As a matter of fact, it seems to be following very much experience we had in Western Australia when we adopted that legislation in 1967. So I can say only how much I agree with the way in which that approach is made in this Bill. However, a very considerable, and of course interesting, extension of the hearsay rule is proposed in relation to the admissibility of documents produced by computers. I gather that this is a fairly novel extension of the rule, although I think the Attorney-General said it had been adopted in Victoria. I do not know to what extent or when it was adopted; at all events, it would not be a very long experience. 509 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - It would be in the last six or nine months. 509 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - But it is in force, I gather. 509 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - It has been introduced to the Parliament. 509 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - So it is a little early for us to say just what effect this category of admissibility will have. Of course, on the face of it it seems a fairly sensible extension which is applied much along the lines as statements in documents - documents which have come into existence by people who have no axe to grind, so to speak, when the document comes into existence. On the face of it, the document - in this case the product of a computer - should have every resemblance of persuasiveness and reasonableness about it. I notice that some of the restrictions placed on the admissibility of the document produced by the computer are that the computer must have been working properly and it must have been operated in the ordinary course of the activity and so on of the person who was using it. In this broad sense I think it is only sensible that the documents produced by a computer should be admissible. However, I can foresee that there could be serious objections to the production of evidence from a computer. The admissibility of evidence provision is stated in the broadest terms in clause 42 <1.) of the Bill. It states: . . a statement contained in a document produuced by a computer is . . . admissible as evidence of the facts stated in the document if those facts are facts of which direct oral evidence would be admissible. Presumably, of course, the oral evidence of the facts is given by a person with personal knowledge of them. One can visualise the use of computers by police forces. In the course of police work a great deal of information could be fed into computers quite properly in the course of an investigation. But, of course, one could readily imagine how highly damaging and highly improper it would be for such evidence suddenly to become admissible at a criminal trial simply because it had been processed through a computer. I would like to hear the Attorney-General's comments on this aspect of the matter. It is a subject in relation to which, as I said, we have not had any experience in practice in this country. Really I do not know whether any experience has been obtained anywhere in the world. For my own part 1 would like to see a little more discretion provided in the judge to exclude this evidence, particularly in criminal proceedings. 1 have in mind the general discretion that is given to a court to refuse to admit statements in documents. Clause 38 (2.) states: In a criminal proceeding, the judge may refuse to admit in evidence ... a statement in a document tendered in evidence if he has reason to doubt the reliability of the document or is satisfied that it would bc unfair to the person charged to admit the statement in evidence. 1 cannot see any quite similar provision under Part VII of this Bill which deals with the admissibility of documents produced by computers. I think there is some need for a safeguard in this situation. I know that some discretions are given for the admissibility of these documents. Clause 43 (1.) states: . . if it has reason to doubt the authenticity of a document ... or the accuracy of the information contained in such a document . . . But that is not quite the point that I have in mind. I have in mind a sort of general discretion that the judge may exercise if he feels that it will be unfair to the person charged, as is provided under clause 38. 510 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - It would have to be a circumstance where unfairness would arise from something other than lack of authenticity or lack of accuracy. That may be difficult to establish in the case of a document. 510 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - Except that I have in mind the situation where evidence is coming into the hands of the police and the police are computerising a lot of information preparatory to using it in a criminal charge. I would not think in the ordinary course of events that the prosecution would produce that type of evidence, but if it were produced I think it would be most improper for that evidence to go forth at a criminal trial and that a judge should have that sort of discretion in relation to it. 1 turn now to the question of the competence and compellability of spouses. Senator Murphy has made some interesting comments on this question. It is true that what this Bill seeks to do on this subject is simply to bring the law of the Australian Capital Territory into line with what has been the experience in the United Kingdom and other parts of Australia for many years; namely, to make parties and the spouses of parties competent and compellable witnesses in civil proceedings, to make them competent witnesses in criminal proceedings, and compellable witnesses in certain criminal proceedings. 1 am not presenting myself as an authority on the law in every State of Australia but for my part there is an extension in this Bill in that it makes a spouse compellable to disclose communications made with the other spouse during the marriage. I think that might be the real ground of Senator Murphy's objection. He did not put it in that limited way, I know; he put it in a broader context. 510 K6F 0 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator Cavanagh - I think that is an additional ground. 510 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - The way in which Senator Murphy put it was that a spouse should not be compelled to give any evidence against the other partner of the marriage. This is not the sort of protection which has existed, the- only protection being in relation to statements made between the spouses. The old traditional provision has great merit on the line that Senator Murphymentioned that is, for the preservation of the secrecy and the inviolability of the marriage relationship. I am old fashioned enough to believe that there is a lot of merit in that protection. I know it has been adversely commented on by no less a person than Lord Reid whom the Attorney-General quoted and who, when speaking in the House of Lords, indicated some of the deficiencies of that protection. I think we should give some consideration to this on the general lines of protecting the basic inviolability of the marriage relationship, at all events when the parties are living together. Before leaving the question of witnesses generally I feel that clauses 60 and 61, which deal with discrediting one's own witness, leave this problem in a somewhat unsatisfactory state. It is a very sound general rule of the law of evidence that if one calls a witness to prove a particular fact and that witness fails to do so or proves the contrary to be the case one can call other witnesses to establish that fact. In that sense, one can contradict one's own witness. What the law has set its face against is a person discrediting his own witness in the same way that one can discredit an opponent's witness, that is, by cross-examining the witness about what he says, and suggesting that he is not telling the truth or that he is mistaken or forgetful. The most damaging way of attacking him is to prove that on other occasions he has made statements inconsistent with his present testimony, whether in writing or verbally. Another method of attacking a witness, although it is not often adopted by counsel and it has very great dangers attached to it, is to attack the person's reputation and credit generally or to try to establish that he is not to be believed because he has a criminal record or a reputation for untruthfulness and so on. It has always seemed to me that the law on this subject is unnecessarily complicated. It has always been clear that one can call other evidence to contradict what has been said. If the first witness says that something is not a fact, you can bring along another witness to say that it is. That has nothing to do with discrediting the particular witness directly. I think it is basically sound to say that if you call a witness you should not be able in one breath to call him a witness of truth and in the next breath to attack him on his credibility. 511 K3R 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator Byrne - You cannot approbate and reprobate. 511 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - Yes. You cannot do that to show that he is not someone who ought to be believed or could be believed. I have always believed that if a witness comes into court to prove a certain fact and he does not prove it but proves the reverse although he has made a statement to the contrary, there should not be any real difficulty about not only proving the statement that he made previously but also cross-examining him about that statement. A witness may make a statement identifying a particular person or about the existence of a particular set of facts. One might want to use the ordinary techniques of cross-examination and ask him questions as to the when, how, and why of the circumstances surrounding the evidence he gave. Glauses 60 and 61, as I understand them, try to facilitate cross-examination in those circumstances but to my mind they do not do so very clearly. When we come to the Committee stage I propose to say more about those, clauses. I am a little disappointed about Part X of the Bill which relates to evidence in criminal proceedings. 1 refer particularly to the proof of convictions against an accused person. As the Attorney-General clearly set out in his second reading speech, there simply has to be a very considerable degree of protection of an accused person in a criminal trial against any evidence being given or any cross-examination being conducted concerning his previous convictions or conduct because of the damaging effect this would have on the question of his innocence or guilt. But an accused person forfeits this right in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is when he seeks to rely on his good character as a ground of defence. If an accused person tries to make out that he did not commit a particular act because he could not have done so if regard was had to his good character, naturally he could not be allowed to retain that appearance of good character if he had a string of convictions. Another ground, which has been in existence in England since 1898, gives rise to a great deal of difficulty in criminal trials. I refer to the situation in which he is said to lose this protection if the nature or conduct of his defence is such as to involve imputations on t'-e character of the prosecutor or witnesses for the prosecution. There is a whole host of case law which reveals the defects in applying this provision and the many cases where real injustice has been worked on the accused who has been hampered in presenting his defence, no doubt even in respect of matters of substantive fact in relation to the charge. Although it has nothing to do with his character or the character as such of the prosecutor, indirectly the character of the prosecutor is affected. Senator Byrne who perhaps has had personal experience of this type of situation would probably agree with me. I must say that personally 1 have not had much experience of this because .1 have not had much experience in the criminal jurisdiction. However, I know from academic and other discussion that this is ft very difficult provision. I would have liked something a little more up to date included in this legislation. The only other matter that 1 wish to mention in general on the Bill is the very modern provision which has been adopted in England, although I do not know how far it has been adopted throughout the States of Australia. I refer to the rule which provides that in a civil proceeding, in order to prove a particular fact, one can admit evidence of a conviction which necessarily involves the establishment of that fact. This is known in legal jargon as overturning the rule in Hollington v. Hewthorne. In everyday experience it covers the situation in which a person is being sued for damages for negligence, probably in a running-down case, and the defendant has been convicted by a traffic court for negligent driving on the same facts as the plaintiff has sought to establish as the basis of this claim for damages. Until now that evidence of his conviction for negligent driving has not been admissible in the claim for damages, but under this Bill it is proposed that the conviction for negligent driving should be admissible in the civil court in the claim for damages. On the face of it this seems to be a reasonable enough proposition. No doubt a judge hearing the claim for damages would, in most cases, not pay much attention to the conviction in a lower court because, as we all know, people summonded on 'a charge of negligent driving, or a lower category of case which they have in Western Australia, although 1 do not know- about the other States, known as careless driving, or perhaps failing to give way to the right, often do nol bother lo appear before the court. There is a whole gamut of traffic offences, ali or any of which could be used to establish negligence on the part of a defendant in a civil case. As we all know, in many of these cases the defendant when charged in the tra flic court does not bother to go along to the court or to put in a pica, or he puts in a p,en of guilty because he thinks it is an easy way out and will save him employing a lawyer and perhaps save costs. He might even think that he would be more leniently treated if he wrote lo the court with a long p'ea of his own, pleading guilty and putting forward some exculpatory comment. So J suggest thai it is perfectly clear that the circumstances in which a person is convicted in a traffic court have very little bearing on the question of his civil liability. Again. 1 have been conservative and old-fashioned enough to believe that the case of Hollington v. Hewthorne had considerable merit in it. However, it is now to be overturned in this legislation. I do pot think it is worth while making any great issue about it, but I would like simply to record that the case to which I have referred seems to have some merit in it. I should think that in practice, although we now make the convictions admissible, in fact they will have very little bearing upon the decision which a judge would make on the same facts in a civil claim. 512 K3R 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator Byrne - It is almost like bringing in a criminal conviction in an estoppel situation, lt is not generally admissible. 512 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - It is not a matter of estoppel. 512 K3R 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator Byrne - ft is not between the same parties. 512 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - That is so. The only other matter on which I wanted to comment is one that I mention because it has a considerable interest generally so far as laymen are concerned. That is the provisions of the Bill concerning confessions. I was a little surprised when Senator Murphy did not mention this because the Bill does not alter the rules hitherto governing the admissibility of confessions. This measure provides for the admissibility of confessions in certain circumstances in which they would have been excluded under common law. I refer to clause 68. 513 K6F 0 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator Cavanagh - Does the honourable senator support a confession obtained under threat as being admissible? 513 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - The honourable senator is referring to a point that I was about to lead up to. Sub-clause (2.) provides: A confession or admission tendered in evidence against tie person charged in a criminal proceeding shall not be rejected only on the ground that a promise or other inducement, or a threat (not being the exercise of violence, force or other form of compulsion), has been held out to or exercised upon the person making the confession or admission, if the judge is satisfied that the means by which the confession or admission was obtained were not in fact likely to cause an untrue confession or admission to be made. The reason for this modification of the existing rule is that there has been a very highly technical administration of the existing law in relation to an inducement, a threat or a promise. Many confessions have been rendered inadmissible because of a very highly technical interpretation of what is a threat or an inducement. For instance, if my memory serves me rightly, it is all right to say to a person: 'Be sure to tell the truth', or 'Make sure you are telling the truth', or something like that, even when expressed in quite firm language, but if one were to say to a person: You had better tell the truth', that would be inadmissible because of the use of the word 'better', that being perhaps an inducement or a threat. I mention this as an example for Senator Cavanagh's benefit. 513 K6F 0 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator Cavanagh - Would it not be better to define a threat or promise? 513 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - I do not think that can be done. The way in which the Bill approaches the problem gives the judge a discretion. Debate interrupted. 513 adjournment Exhibition in Colombia The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. 513 KSY Queensland 0 0 MCAULIFFE, Ronald Senator MCAULIFFE - I crave the indulgence of the Senate at this hour to ventilate a matter that I feel is important enough to protest about because I think that a speedy investigation of the facts should be carried out by the respective departments concerned and an explanation provided. I raise the matter also so that my remarks will be recorded in Hansard for future research. In August 1971 the Government of Colombia extended an invitation to the Prime Minister's Department for Australia to participate in the First International Handicrafts Exhibition to be held at Narino from 4th January to 10th January 1972. Invitations were issued to other nations also. As I said, the invitation was received in August. On 17th November 1971 - 3 months later - a copy of the letter was received by the Premier's Department in Queensland. Honourable senators should remember that this exhibition was to be held from 4th January to 10th January 1972. Yet, on 17th November 1971, 3 months after the invitation had been received by the Australian Government, it was forwarded to the Premier's Department in Queensland. I take it that it was sent to appropriate departments in other States. The Queensland Premier's Department processed the letter to the Queensland Department of Education. From then on, the letter was handled by the Director of Cultural Affairs in Queensland who wrote to the Government of Colombia and asked it for a list of the conditions which would be required to be met by intending applicants. A list of conditions was received together with 6 application forms. The Director of Cultural Affairs immediately sought out 6 people living in or around Brisbane. He did this because of the time factor. He sought people whom he thought were of sufficient standard to be able to be exhibitors at an international level. He forwarded a letter to 6 people who had been selected. Four of them replied that they would be interested in being applicants. Among the applicants was Mrs Lillian Bosch of Surfers Paradise. Mrs Lillian Bosch is no ordinary run-of-the-mill art exhibitor. She is a woman of international fame in the arts. She is a former American who migrated to Surfers Paradise about 3 years ago. She has established there, at a cost of $500,000, an art centre. She is a relatively young woman and is continuing to improve the art centre. It is reasonable to assume that, in her lifetime, this art centre may be worth approximately $1.5m. The reason why I am laying emphasis on the cost of the art centre is that Mrs Lillian Bosch has willed it to the Commonwealth of Australia. I ask honourable senators to remember that this art centre already has been willed to the Commonwealth of Australia as this, in the light of what I will disclose later on, will provide a most interesting comparison between her generosity and the generosity of the Government to which she has been so kind. I will not weary honourable senators by giving them a long run-down on the reputation or the talents of Mrs Bosch. Let me point out, however, that the Australian News and Information Bureau Office in New York on 18th October 1971 issued a bulletin in which it devoted 3i columns to the reputation of Mrs Lillian Bosch as an artist of international fame. In the concluding paragraph, the bulletin states: She says she has made provisions in her will for the Surfers Paradise Cultural Centre to be left to the Australian Government in the hope that it will become an internationally known centre of culture. As I said, I do not wish to give the Senate a tedious account of the details of this bulletin. I ask for leave to incorporate it in Hansard. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows): 514 miscellaneous The concrete jungles of spaceage man seem worlds away to Winter Haven-born artist Lillian Hodnett Bosch. These days, as she strolls relaxed and content along the while, surf-washed beaches of Australia's Gold Coast, she finds it difficult to believe that they exist at all. At last,' she says, '1 have found peace.' In November 1968, she was almost at her wits end after 12 months of relentless globe-trotting to escape from the traumas of modern living. Finally, she landed at Brisbane airport with a vague notion that the Great Barrier Reef might prove to be her Shangri-la. She was startled to learn from a cab driver that the reef was still another 500 miles or so further north. OK,' she said, 'take me to the nearest beach.' But lady', he replied, 'that's 55 miles away.' I don't care,' she said, 'take me!' So, Lillian Bosch 'discovered' Surfers Paradise, the glamor surfing beach resort on Australia's Gold Coast. I just sank into the warm sand . . . and haven't moved since,' she says. She has certainly moved to establish herself in Surfers Paradise. She now owns 3 prime beach-front properties with a 150 ft frontage to the Pacific Ocean, is buying up several more around her and has re-designed one beachfront home into a fascinating series of intimate galleries. Nor do her plans stop there, she is midway through construction of what she claims will be Australia's first privately-owned international cultural centre. As the dollars pour out from her real estate interests along the Gulf of Mexico, she ploughs them into this venture of a lifetime. So far. her cultural dream' has cost around $500,000. She has walled-in a huge rear-section of the three beachfront properties, and is turning it into a natural art setting. She plans an intimate gallerycumtheatre in a garden setting with freeform pool, huge boulders, mosses, tree ferns and waterfalls. The centre also will produce 16mm films of artists-craftsmen at work to build up a large film and slide library of the arts. Lillian plans to invite internationally known artists and craftsmen for brief workshop sessions with Australians in similar fields. This will become an international centre for fine artists-craftsmen,' she says. 'They can work here in the best possible atmosphere, and pass on some of their knowledge to others.' She also wants to make a move of life as she sees it on the sands outside her front window; the people, the surf, the fishermen, the sunsets, the tiny crabs. Ecology, conservation and preservation of the balance of nature play a major role in Lillian Bosch's thinking and art. She has recently developed a passion for Australian aboriginal arts and crafts, and has several fine examples of bark paintings and carvings from central and northern Australia. Tn the mornings, usually around daybreak, she strolls along the cool deserted beach, picking up shells, seaweed, driftwood, anything, she says, that looks like 'interesting aft material.' On hot days she holds business conferences, interviews and art discussions in her pool. We just stand in the water , up to our necks and yak,' she says. Tn this climate it beats sitting around a table.' She also owns 800 acres' of dense rain forest at Springbrook, the natural mountain backdrop to the Gold Coast. " Springbrook is her 'ultimate retreat',' and she goes there when she .wants to think, read and paint. Lillian Bosch was born in Winter Haven, 47 years ago, the daughter of pioneer citrus grower James Victor Hodnett. She attended Traphagen School and the Arts Student League in New York and Sophie Newcomb Art School of Tulane University, New Orleans. Her B.S. degree was received at the University of Tampa, and her graduate work was at Florida State University with Karl Zebre Internationally-known painters with whom she studied include Rene Bouche, Maurice Kantor, Theodore Stamos and Stuart Brisley. She also has studied paintmaking, sculpture, weaving, tapestry, ceramics, pouring stainless steel and other crafts. In 1965 she exhibited in the Redfern Gallery, London, and at the Four Arts Society Exhibition, West Palm Beach. In 1970, her works were included in the Gold Coast Prize Exhibition; the Perth Drawing Show; and the Metarco Gallery, New York; Lidums Gallery, Adelaide; America House (World Craft Council), New York; the Queensland Art Gallery; the University of Queensland. This year she held a one-man show at Macquarie Galleries, Canberra. She has been married three times and has lived in Mexico, Spain, Morocco, France, Italy, Denmark, Canada and England. One marriage left her with a legacy of 3,000 acres of land on the Gulf of Mexico. When land values boomed in the 1960s Lillian Bosch could afford to 'do her own thing.' Above all else, Lillian Bosch intends to develop her cultural project She says she has made provisions in her will for the Surfers Paradise Cultural Centre to be left to the Australian Government in the hope that it will become an international-known centre of culture. Honourable senators will see that Mrs Lilian Bosch, one of the applicants from Queensland who was prepared to accept the invitation to this exhibition, is an artist of international standard. As I have said, the Queensland Director of Cultural Activities, Mr Creedy, cabled the Government of Colombia and received application forms which he sent to 6 people. Among some of the requirements of the Colombian Government regarding intending applicants were the provisions that: Exhibits which are sent by Government Offices and Agencies, either official or semi-official, will be accepted. Exhibits from Private Firms must have the authorisation of Government concerned. It is recommended that each participating Nation send a Delegate as its representative to the first International Handicraft Exhibition. Two exhibits from each country, chosen by that country, will become the property of Plastic Arts Section of the Casa de la Cultura de Narino Each participating country should send its National Flag, typical costumes (both male and female) of any region of the country and also any literature and souvenirs which it considers apt, in addition to its handicrafts. Honourable senators will admit that those requirements are not very onerous. Mr Creedycirculated this information and, as I said, 4 applicants, including Mrs Lillian Bosch, accepted. I was then approached by Mrs Bosch. She said that she would need to make arrangements to depart by Qantas on 24th December 1971 if she was to participate in the international exhibition. She asked whether I could assist her by pointing out to the Australian Government that she was an accredited delegate or representative of the Queensland Government. I have a letter here which the Queensland Government sent to her and to the Government of Colombia accrediting her as an official Queensland representative and as the leader of Queensland's delegation. On 17th December 1971, I telephoned the office of the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, the Hon. Peter Howson, M.P., to ask him to give urgent attention to this matter. His secretary said that the matter was urgent as it was 17th December and these people were due to depart on 24th December. My request was taken down over the telephone. I dictated the information over the telephone. Two days later I had received no communication. Then I was asked to submit my request in writing. In the letter which I wrote, I asked: Could the way be cleared with Customs for the exhibition pieces Mrs Bosch will be carrying, both out of and back into Australia, bearing in mind she will have left two pieces at the exhibition. (Approximate value of these two pieces is $300 and $200 respectively.) Could Mrs Bosch be provided with a National Flag. Could Mrs Bosch be provided with literature on Australia, an amount of, say, a small travel bag. Could Mr Creedy's letter to the Officer in Charge of the Exhibition be supported by a letter from you giving Mrs Bosch Australian representation at the Exhibition. The address is - Officer in Charge, First International Handicrafts Exhibition, Casa de la Cultura. de Narino, Apartado Aereo No. 794, Pasto, Narino, Columbia, South America. ls there a possibility of notification to the Australian Ambassador at Brazil, whom it \ is understood visits Columbia as part of his duties, wilh a view to his giving any possible assitance to Mrs Bosch. On 22nd December the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts replied in the following terms: I refer to your letter of 1 7th December about an International Handicrafts Exhibition to be held in Colombia, South America, from 4th-10:h January 1972. Although I am afraid that I am unable to provide Mrs L. Bosch wilh a letter conferring representative status, I shall arrange for your other requests to be brought to the attention of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Which got the letter in the first place - (in respect of the Flag), Foreign Affairs, Customs and Excise and the News and Information Bureau, in order that they may provide whatever asstance is practicable. I have also asked that they communicate wilh you direct. It is now 7th March 1972 and as yet I have not heard from any of the organisations mentioned. Incidentally, nothing more has been heard of the matter. Mrs Bosch went to Colombia at her own expense. She was appointed a judge of a crafts section at the exhibition and was invited to be and accepted the position of a judge of a major festival associated with the Colombia activities. She was given warm and hospitable treatment by a wide variety of influential Colombian people who recognised her great talents. Here is the punch line. Mrs Lillian Bosch returned from Colombia, South America, on 24th January. She brought back with her a special international trophy which was awarded for the work she exhibited at the international exhibition and a second trophy which was awarded for work exhibited by Frances Wildt of Brisbane, who accompanied Mrs Bosch. Colombia will stage another exhibition in 2 years' time. The last exhibition, which was the first one ever conducted, was attended by 10 countries, all from the Southern Hemisphere. The standard of the exhibition was very high and the outside interest in it was obvious. The number of countries which will be participating in 2 years' time could easily be double if not treble the number which participated on this occasion. It was a major planned showing and was run in conjunction with local Indian festivals which highlighted the excellent local crafts, especially weaving and wood carving. The festival associated with the exhibition called on the participating countries each to be represented in the parade. The national flag of the country was required to be carried in that parade, national dress or representative costume displayed and the national flag hung in the Casa del Cultura during the 10 days of the exhibition. What a shame to Australia that Mrs Bosch did not have a flag of her own country! The Colombian authorities obtained an encyclopaedia and provided an artist to draw a picture of the Australian flag for the people to see. They also entered a float representing Australia in the festival procession, but as there was no supply available of national material they did their best by fitting out a float with make-believe Australians on it. These people were dressed something like wild colonials strongly influenced by South American Indians. As the invitation to participate in this exhibition arrived in Australia in August 1970 it is surprising that, between them, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, the Australian Tourist Commission, the News and Information Bureau and the Department of Trade and Industry could not come up with enough basic display material for shipment to Colombia so that Australia could be presented as we like to think of ourselves. Mrs Bosch said the exhibition was important and she believes that it is important for Australian crafts that we be represented at every international exhibition to which we are invited. She has shown her willingness to attend far away places, talk Australian craft on an international level and give her valuable work to remain in overseas countries to bring admiration to Australian skills. Perhaps the lesson to be learned from the dreadful exercise of the Colombian exhibition is that the Commonwealth Government should be able to assist people like Lillian Bosch in the same manner as it assists sportsmen to attend government sponsored or official international competitions. IV might even be said that Australia could do well to aid financially Mi s Bosch, or people like her, to get to foreign countries by way of Qantas Airways Ltd. Incidentally, Mrs Bosch has assisted the Commonwealth of Australia to the extent of half a million dollars. These people most certainly must be supported by way of accreditation, status and official recognition. We must also ease their departure and re-entry problems. I believe that this matter calls for an urgent top level inquiry and an explanation to the Senate, Mrs Bosch and the Queensland Government. The Commonwealth has shown a lack of responsibility and gratitude to and interest in a woman who has already willed a half-million dollar art centre to the people of Australia. I shall let the matter rest there and look forward to the Minister's co-operation in having the matter fully investigated and explained. 517 CAK Tasmania 0 0 RAE, Peter Senator RAE - Having listened to the speech of Senator McAuliffe I would hate to let the opportunity pass without paying tribute to the News and Information Bureau for the co-operation I have received from it. On every occasionI have approached it and sought material for use on an overseas trip or in a particular circumstance the News and Information Bureau has co-operated immediately and fully. In situations where I have wished to have an Australian flag available I have received nothing but cooperation from the Department of Education and Science-- 517 K6F 0 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator Cavanagh - The honourable senator is suggesting that assistance is given only to Liberal members of the Parliament. 517 CAK 0 0 RAE, Peter Senator RAE -I am simply saying that there are various ways in which one goes about doing things and there are all sorts of factors involved, but I have received nothing but co-operation from the departments and organisations mentioned by Senator McAuliffe.I do not wish to enter into a political debate. Nor doI wish to discuss whether Senator McAuliffe should have received a better response from the Ministers or departments he mentioned. I am simply defending certain public servants who impliedly have been attacked this evening and whose co-operation I have always found to be outstanding. 517 K1F Victoria 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator POYSER - As this appearsto be a night of confessions. I have decided to put my position on record. When the Lions Club of Australia made application to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) for a flag to be taken to an international conference in Japan it was told by the Prime Minister that flaps were available only to schools and boy scouts. 517 JXR Western Australia CP Minister for Air 0 0 DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - All I can do is promise that Senator McAuliffe's remarks will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers. Question resolved in the affirmative. 517 22:48:00 Senate adjourned at 10.48 p.m.