House of Representatives
21 October 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2289

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association led by Mr G. A. T. Bagier, MP. On behalf of the House I extend to the members of the delegation a very warm welcome.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

page 2289

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

Army Cadet Corps

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undernamed persons (electors of N.S.W.) respectfully showeth:

Their disapproval of the Australian Government’s decision to disband the Australian Cadet Corps.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the corps be retained. It performs an important educational function in the schools and is a youth activity that promotes discipline, leadership and a chance of living with fellow cadets in a community atmosphere.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Stewart. Petition received.

Army Cadet Corps

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

Their great dismay at the decision of the Australian Government to abolish the Army Corps of Cadets from our Secondary Schools.

The enthusiastic acceptance by leading educators, those nearest to the secondary educational scene (our Headmasters), the approval and encouragement of thinking and caring parents and the dedicated support of those teachers involved (the Officers of Cadets) bear certain witness to the reliability of this activity as a character builder for our youth.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

Why, after a century of proven usefulness, would you destroy so well established an institution for good in our community.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bonnett, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Drury, Mr Hodges, Mr Killen and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

Defence Cadet Corps

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the decision to abolish the Naval Reserve Cadets, the Army Cadet Corps and the Air Training Corps is ill conceived.

The Cadet Corps has much to commend it including stimulating an interest in Service life and providing an element of discipline so often lacking in the youth of today.

Your petitioners therefor humbly pray that the House take action to impress upon the Government the need to retain the Australian Cadet Corps.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr McVeigh. Petition received.

Fraser Island

To the Honourable the Speaker and member of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That whereas the natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as part of the World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

  1. That the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island; and
  2. That the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Cass, Mr Jarman, Mr Kerin, Mr Mathews, Mr Morris and Mr O’Keefe.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

  1. Further shrink the flow of funds available for finance for private enterprise in Australia.
  2. Will eventually lead to nationalisation of much of private enterprise in Australia.
  3. Cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Connolly. Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

  1. Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and Agents of the Private Insurance Industry throughout Australia.
  2. Compete unfairly with Private Insurers.
  3. Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 197S.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Hyde. Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Add to the Taxpayers burden.
  3. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 197S.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Macphee. Petition received.

Home Ownership

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that implementation of the Report on Housing by the Priorities Review Staff will not ensure that the Australian community can secure living accommodation of its own choosing appropriate to its needs: that many of the proposals positively discriminate against home ownership: that the proposals if implemented would not encourage thrift and initiative but would further advance the philosophy of dependence upon the Government for basic services: that the proposals are more concerned with redistribution of income than providing accommodation for the Australian community.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to take no further measures which will make home ownership unattractive to those who have a home and unachievable for those who have not.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Ellicott, Mr Hodges and Mr Newman. Petitions received.

Income Tax

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. It has been suggested recently that the regular wrangling between the Australian Government and the various State Governments would be greatly reduced if the State Governments were given access to part of the Australian Government’s income tax powers. It has been claimed that the States would no longer be forced to approach the Australian Government ‘cap in hand’. Your petitioners, however, believe that any proposals to hand over income tax powers to State Governments in Australia would not eliminate disagreement over financial matters between the Australian Government and the State Governments, but would just move the focus of disagreement from general revenue grants to the income tax system.
  2. Your petitioners believe that the potential area for dispute under a personal income tax system partially under the control of the Australian Government and partially under the control of the State Governments is quite wide. Examples of probable areas of dispute include:

    1. Indexation of income tax would reduce the rate of growth of income tax, which would be resisted by the States.
    2. Similar problems could arise from changes in the shape of the income tax rate scale, or the imposition of separate levies for one reason or another (health levies, Woodhouse Proposals, etc.).
    3. Since almost any proposals to change the income tax system might be seen as a potential threat to their revenue by the States, resistance to income tax reforms (e.g. introduction of a guaranteed minimum income scheme) could be strengthened.
    4. Since it is likely that the various State Governments would want to make a series of alterations to the tax system over time, it is likely that there would be a drift towards greater complexity- this would probably be opposed by the Australian Government, leading to disputes between the Australian Government and the States.
  3. Your petitioners believe that in addition to failing to bring about any improvement in Australian GovernmentState Government financial relations, a transfer of any personal income tax powers to State Governments would have various disadvantages, including the introduction of a more complicated after-tax wage structure in Australia, the development of numerous marginal income tax scales throughout Australia, further difficulties in the system of industrial relations, and new problems for the Australian Government in the management of the economy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Dr Cass. Petition received.

Income Tax

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble

Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That if existing income tax laws were amended so that the State Governments had the power to vary the total amount of personal income tax there would be various undesirable consequences, including

  1. it would become difficult to ever introduce a successful program of personal tax indexation since a commitment by the Australian Government to tax indexation would mean little if various State Governments themselves had the ability to increase income tax rates;
  2. it would open the way for State Governments to steadily increase income taxes and would therefore tend to increase the proportion of overall taxation in Australia raised through income taxes: since Australia is already heavily dependent on personal income taxes for revenue by international standards, any further move to increase dependancy on personal income taxes should be examined carefully;
  3. it would mean that the Australian Government would lose the complete control that it has at present over the pattern of marginal income tax rates: this would further complicate the already difficult task faced by the Australian Government of formulating a wages and industrial relations policy which will meet with wide community acceptance;
  4. it would complicate the overall task of economic management for the Australian Government if State Governments had the discretion to move income taxes in an opposite direction to that judged desirable on economic grounds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received. by Mr Enderby. Petition received.

Television: Religious Programs

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the undersigned men and women of Australia believe in a Christian way of life; and that no democracy can thrive unless its citizens are responsible and law abiding.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will see that the present statutory time for Radio and Television stations in providing religious programs will continue.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received. by Dr Cass. Petition received.

Television: Religious Programs

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we strongly oppose any change to the statutory time requirement binding radio and television stations to provide religious broadcasts as recommended by the Department of the Media.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the existing requirements.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petitions received. by Mr Corbett and Mr Jarman. Petitions received.

Increased Telephone and Postal Charges

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia sheweth:

That the recently announced enormous increases in postal and telecommunication charges will have severe repercussions throughout Australia.

Your petitioners consider that all sectors of the Nation’s economy will be seriously handicapped by rising postal charges and further consider that normal communication between Australian citizens will be seriously hindered.

We request that the decisions to increase postal and telecommunication charges be immediately rescinded or the alarming size of the increase moderated.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Newman. Petition received.

Increased Telephone and Postal Charges

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we wish to protest most vigorously at the proposed increases in postal and telephone charges.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Diminish the size of the increase or, if possible, leave charges as they are.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received. by Mr Staley Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the decisions of the Australian Government-

  1. To depart from its 1972 election promise that basic pensions would be related to average weekly earnings and never be allowed to fall below 25 per cent thereof, and
  2. b) To increase postage costs and the costs of installation and annual rental of telephones, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions. ‘ Your petitioners are impelled by these facts to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decisions (a) and (b), and to determine-

    1. That pensions be related to average earnings as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1972 policy speech, and
    2. That no charge be made for installation or rental on the telephones of those pensioners entitled to a PMS Card.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Les Johnson. Petition received.

Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members of St Philip’s Church, Canberra, respectfully showeth:

  1. That we are deeply concerned for the just treatment and true advancement of Aboriginal Australians,
  2. That a report recommending the declaration of Kakadu National Park adjacent to Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve, Northern Territory, is to be submitted to the Governor-General,
  3. That a public inquiry is in progress into the environmental aspects of the proposal to develop Ranger uranium deposits within five miles of the proposed park area,
  4. That these inquiries, while dealing with adjacent areas, appear to be completely independent of one another,
  5. That the implementation of such proposals may be destructive of Aboriginal society, as have been similar schemes in the past,
  6. That officers from the Ranger inquiry have visited the area and are concerned with the possible effect of the project on the Aboriginals,
  7. That although the Kakadu National Park has been discussed for at least five years in the Northern Territory there have never been any attempts to consult Aborigines in the area about the park, and
  8. That the placing of advertisements in newspapers does not absolve the National Parks and Wildlife Service from its responsibility to so consult the Aborigines in the area.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government not to proceed with the declaration of the Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, or develop the nearby Ranger uranium deposits until the Aborigines in the area have been fully consulted.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received. by Mr Berinson Petition received.

Income Tax

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the undersigned persons believe that-

The $300 limit on income tax deductibility in respect of personal residential land and water rates is unrealistic and is a discriminatory income tax penalty.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Connolly. Petition received.

Aborigines: Land Rights

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That Parliament ensure that appropriate action in accordance with relevant legislation of the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government’s policy in relation to Land Rights, be implemented as soon as possible in order to ensure that-

  1. Aboriginals and Islanders resident in Queensland have their land restored to them.
  2. That the Aborigines Act 1971 and the Torres Strait Islanders Act 1971 be abolished or nullified forthwith.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Dr Edwards. Petition received.

Proceedings in the Parliament

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Danny Sankey of 18 Village Lower Road, Vaucluse in the State of New South Wales, Solicitor, respectfully sheweth:

  1. On 13 December 1974 the Honourable Edward Gough Whitlam, Q.C., Prime Minister and Minister for Environment, the Honourable Reginald Francis Xavier Connor, the then Minister for Minerals and Energy, the Honourable James Ford Cairns, the then Treasurer, and the Honourable Lionel Keith Murphy, Q.C., then Senator and AttorneyGeneral of this Commonwealth, purporting to act as and in a meeting of the Commonwealth Executive Council signed and/or caused to be signed a certain Minute Paper headed ‘Department of Minerals and Energy’ recommending for the approval of His Excellency the Governor General, inter alia, that in pursuance of Section 6 1 of the Constitution the Minister for Minerals and Energy be authorised to borrow for temporary purposes a sum in the currency of the United States of America not exceeding the equivalent of $4,000m and to determine on behalf of Australia the terms and conditions of the borrowing.
  2. Your Petitioner has been advised that Section 86 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, 1914 as amended provides, inter alia, that a person who conspires with another person to effect a purpose that is unlawful under a law of the Commonwealth or to effect a lawful purpose by means that are unlawful under a law of the Commonwealth shall be guilty of an indictable offence.
  3. Your Petitioner has been further advised that Section 13 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, 1914 as amended provides that unless the contrary intention appears in the Act or Regulation creating the offence, any person may institute proceedings for the commitment to trial of any person in respect of any indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth and further that no such contrary intention appears in respect, of the aforesaid offence under Section 86 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, 1914 as amended.
  4. Your Petitioner is a private citizen living in the Commonwealth of Australia and is desirous of instituting proceedings against the said Honourable Edward Gough Whitlam, Q.C., Reginald Francis Xavier Connor, James Ford Cairns and the Honourable Lionel Keith Murphy, Q.C., pursuant to Sections 13 and 86 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, 1 9 1 4 as amended.
  5. Your Petitioner has been advised that to institute and pursue such prosecution it will be necessary to adduce in evidence a full and official record of the proceedings of this House which took place between 2.SS p.m. and 10.09 p.m. on 9 July 1 975, and in particular of the speeches of the aforesaid the Honourable Edward Gough Whitlam, Q.C., Reginald Francis Xavier Connor and James Ford Cairns and further to adduce in evidence documents tabled in this House during the course of those aforesaid proceedings.
  6. The Petitioner has been further advised that the proper procedure for obtaining the right to use in Court the full and official record of the aforesaid proceedings and the documents tabled therein is to petition this House and seek its leave (see Church of Scientology v. Johnson-Smith 1972 1 A11E.R.378).

Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that your honourable house will:

  1. Grant leave to your petitioner and his legal representatives to issue and serve subpoenae for the production of the relevant official records of the aforesaid proceedings of this House held between 2.SS p.m. and 10.09 p.m. on 9 July 197S and of the relevant documents tabled therein and further to issue and serve subpoenae for the attendance in Court of those persons who took the record of such proceedings.

And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received. by Mr Ellicott Petition received.

Income Tax

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That if a system of personal income tax was introduced allowing State Governments the powers to vary personal income tax rates, this would lead to State Governments raising personal income taxes rather than lowering them;

That since the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are Territories, and not States, laws allowing State Governments to vary personal income taxes would not apply in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory.

That this would lead to Australian Citizens living in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory paying lower levels of personal income tax than would be paid by Australian Citizens living in any of the six States;

That this would also lead to Members of the House of Representatives and Senators paying lower levels of personal income tax than would be paid by Australian Citizens living in any of the six States since Members of the House of Representatives and Senators pay personal income taxes as though they were living in the Australian Capital Territory;

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the present system of personal income taxation which ensures geographical uniformity of treatment of citizens throughout Australia will be retained and that a system of double taxation will not be imposed on incomes.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received. by Mr Kerin Petition received.

Income Tax

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would-

  1. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. b) find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and
  3. require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not reintroduced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Morris. Petition received.

Television Programs

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

  1. That we object to the ABC television and radio programs for the following reasons:

    1. the intrusion into family life by irresponsible programming during peak hours, such as the recent sex clinic program in a This Day Tonight segment and the much advertised Kev. Kavanagh program at 8.00 p.m.
    2. harassment of the interviewed: such as (1) The Blythe Star Survivors (2) Politicians for sensational purposes
    3. The degradation of customs and lack of respect for persons such as: The funeral of the Queensland Senator, Bert Milliner.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Newman. Petition received.

Australian National Line Freight and Passenger Charges

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth:

That your Petitioners desire- the immediate revoking of your Government decision to increase the incoming freight and passenger service charges to the State of Tasmania per the Australian National Line vessels by 40 per cent, because-

This decision can have nothing but disastrous effects to an island state so dependent upon shipping for its goods, and tourism to bolster the economy.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Newman. Petition received.

Whitlam Government

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That your petitioners are suffering from unemployment or other distressing circumstances.
  2. That your petitioners have reason to believe that their current sufferings are not due to any fault of their own, but arise from the disastrous policies pursued by the present Commonwealth Government.
  3. That your petitioners believe that there can be no relief from the sufferings which afflict them in common with so many other Australian citizens until the present Government is replaced by another whose policies will be different and directed to the advantage of the Australian people.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that having suffered economic hardship due to the policies pursued by the current Federal Government respectfully request that all support for this Government by your House be withdrawn- so that the people of Australia may pass judgment on these policies at the polls. And so return to economic stability.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Wentworth. Petition received.

page 2294

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2294

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN RAISINGS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Did he have discussions between 20 May and 10 June with the former Minister for Minerals and Energy concerning overseas loan raisings?

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I suppose I would have some conversation with the Minister every day on a variety of matters.

page 2294

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the Treasurer aware of proposals for a further cutback in Government spending? Can he say what would be the effect of such a cutback on the process of economic recovery?

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The sorts of proposals which I have seen put forward for further cutbacks in Government expenditure come from the Opposition. Of course, they would be in total conflict with any credible suggestion that they would help the recovery of the economy. What must be realised is that a very substantial proportion of the outlays in the Budget go directly into the economy to support and foster the expansion and the recovery of the private sector. Generally, the sorts of figures I have heard quoted by the Opposition’s spokesman on economic matters, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, indicate quite horrendous effects on the economy if the cuts- of the order of $l,700m- were to be followed through. For instance, the Minister for Defence has indicated that the defence forces would be paralysed. They would be devoid of any effective peacetime role. In education there would be substantial retrenchments. In the rural industries there would have to be a cutback in the level of funds released for various restructuring programs, support programs and programs of assistance for primary producers. It is clear that welfare housing would have to be cut back critically. Overall the benefits from the public sector supporting the economy at this point of early recovery would be crippled. In sum, the effect would be a rather disastrous contraction, with far worse problems of increased unemployment and of collapse in the corporate sector.

page 2294

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN RAISINGS

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

-Will the Prime Minister assure this House that neither he nor any of his Ministers were aware of continuing negotiations or communications after 20 May about the raising of a major overseas loan?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– In the last few weeks or months the honourable gentleman has had many more contacts with Mr Khemlani than any of my colleagues have had. I have never had any contacts with him at all. It is amazing that when Mr Khemlani was in the country the honourable gentleman’s colleagues in the Senate did not summon him to that body. They had a whole week- last week- to do so. Of course, after he gets out of the country, after he gets out of the jurisdiction of the Senate and of Australia’s courts, he makes some of these allegations. I suggest that the honourable gentleman pursue this matter with his new-found friend. If he wants to ask me any further questions on this matter he might place them on notice.

page 2295

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr THORBURN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Prime Minister seen reports of a proposal that Medibank should be financed through the imposition of a levy? Can he say whether the Government has considered this proposal and, if so, with what results?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-This is a proposal which commended itself to the Government. As a matter of fact I put it to the people in 1969, in 1972, and in 1974 and on each occasion with increasing public support. Nevertheless, when the necessary Bills were brought into this Parliament they were opposed in the House of Representatives and they were rejected in the Senate. This happened in the former Parliament and it happened again in this Parliament. Is is to be noted that the Liberal Party, which opposed the system of financing Medibank proposed by the Labor Party and endorsed by the people, opposed it in the House of Representatives on 2 occasions and succeeded in having it rejected by the Senate on both occasions. Now the Liberal Party is converted to the cause. Medibank is a fact of life. I am astonished by the gyrations of the honourable member for Hotham on this matter because he was in the forefront of the opposition to Medibank and the forefront of the opposition to the proposed methods of financing Medibank in 1973, in. 1974 and in 1975. Now, this week, he climbs down and proposes it. As in all these matters he is behind the times.

page 2295

QUESTION

TABLING OF CONFIDENTIAL LETTER

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-The Prime Minister will recall last week answering a question on notice of the honourable member for Curtin in which the honourable member asked that a certain letter be tabled in this House. The Prime Minister’s reply said that the correspondence involved Sir William Gunn and because of the confidential nature of it he could not table it. I have been in contact with Sir William Gunn and he assures me that there is nothing of a confidential nature that concerns him. Will the Prime Minister now table that letter?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-Mr Speaker, if honourable gentlemen will allow me I shall look up the passage of 9 July last. It will be recalled by honourable members that in the debate on 9 July references were made to proposals put to the Government on behalf of overseas lenders by Mr Khemlani, Dr Harris and Sir William Gunn. I tabled a very great number of documents during that debate and so did my colleagues. I have been amazed that no questions have come from the Country Party, now the National Country Party, on this matter. In fact, on 9 July I gave good reasons for not tabling the documents concerning Sir William Gunn’s company and then I asked these questions:

Does the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) want Sir William Gunn ‘s papers to be tabled?

Mr Anthony:

– Yes.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I beg your pardon?

Mr Anthony:

– I am saying: Yes.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I see. It was a rhetorical question on 9 July because for once the Leader of the National Country Party did not interject. Now let me ask the other question which I asked on 9 July and which the Leader of the National Country Party did not answer.

Mr Anthony:

– Table the letter.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I want right honourable and honourable gentlemen to listen to the question because when I asked it on 9 July the Leader of the National Country Party did not answer. He did not interject. An honourable member says that he was ‘mute’. I would have said ‘dumb’ too. This is the other question:

Does he -

That is, the Leader of the National Country Party- make any charge against Sir William Gunn? Mr Anthony- No.

Mr WHITLAM:

-No. Well, why table the papers?

page 2295

QUESTION

THE BUDGET: EFFECT OF DELAY

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Housing and Construction. What impact will there be on the housing and construction industry as a result of the passage of the Budget being delayed?

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Urban and Regional Development · PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am unable to say yet with any certainty what the impact will be except to say this: Within 3 weeks the Government will not be able to meet its commitments in respect of certain works and construction; by the middle of December the Government will not be able to meet some other commitments; and by the end of December it will be completely unable to meet its commitments in the field of construction. That will have some pretty horrific consequences not only for the building and construction industry but also for employees in the industry and for the economy generally. I cannot believe that in this Parliament there are such cynical and heartless people as would inflict such economic vandalism on the Australian community by persisting with this action. I certainly hope that those gentlemen opposite will think their attitude again and will prevail upon their Senate colleagues to allow this Budget to go through before their present action wreaks such havoc on this economy; havoc from which it might well never recover. If the cash flow from Commonwealth contracts is cut off a number of very substantial and highly reputable building contractors will be in grave danger of going bankrupt. Our opponents might as well face the consequences of their action, because these guilty men will be held responsible and the Australian community will reap from them a very heavy penalty as the price of such economic and political vandalism.

page 2296

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN RAISINGS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I ask the Prime Minister: Will he tell the House what discussions he had with Sir William Gunn after 9 July concerning overseas loan raisings? Did he have any further discussions with any of his colleagues concerning loan raisings involving Sir William Gunn?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I have had only one conversation with Sir William Gunn on this matter. It was after 9 July. I had a message that he would be ringing me. I naturally took the call. I did not know what he was ringing about. But he is a member of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia. He has had many appointments under successive governments. I took the call. He put a proposal to me. I said that I would refer it to the proper authorities. I did. The Treasurer could give any further information. For people who might be somewhat puzzled by the constant references to Sir William Gunn, I should point out 2 things: One is that no reference had ever been made to him since 9 July until the honourable member for Curtin rather clumsily, but I trust inadvertently, put a question on notice to me about somebody who was mentioned in the debate on 9 July. As would have appeared by further reference to the debate on 9 July, the matter concerned the Transia corporation, the Gunn family company. So of course in very restrained, discreet terms I answered the question placed on notice by the honourable member for Curtin. To his chagrin, because of the deficient research he had made, I referred to the debate on 9 July and gave page references. He has obviously had a quarrel behind the scenes with the Leader of the National Country Party, who is putting on the best face he can in this matter. The other thing I should point out is that Sir William

Gunn a few years ago was widely touted as the white hope of the Country Party.

page 2296

QUESTION

PORTUGUESE TIMOR

Mr FRY:

– Is the Prime Minister aware of reports of Indonesian military support for antiFretilin forces which have been attacking Fretilin forces along the border of Portuguese East Timor? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what action the Government is taking to discourage Indonesian military involvement in Portuguese East Timor, an involvement which can lead only to bloodshed and suffering for the Timorese people? Will the Prime Minister give the House any information regarding the fate of 5 Australians missing in Portuguese East Timor?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am aware of reports of incursions from Indonesian Timor into Portuguese Timor and from Portuguese Timor into Indonesian Timor. I have no more information to give honourable gentlemen than what has been given by the Foreign Minister in the Senate in recent days. I can, however, give the honourable gentlemen some response to his question about the television newsmen- one team from Channel 7 in Melbourne, the other from Channel 9 in Sydney- who were filming in the border areas near the town of Balibo, which was the scene of heavy fighting between rival factions on Thursday and Friday of last week. The House will be aware of the report cited in the Jakarta newspaper Kompas of 20 October that advancing Democratic Union of Timor- UDT- and Apodeti forces had come across the remains of 4 male Europeans in the Balibo area. The UDT leader, Lopez de Cruz, was reported as saying that he could not confirm whether the four were Australian journalists but that written markings on the ruins of the house in which the 4 bodies had been found indicated that they might be Australians. While the Press report was sketchy, it indicated that the house could have been hit by a mortar or artillery shell, presumably during last week’s heavy fighting.

The Government is gravely concerned about the fate of the missing journalists. The Australian Embassy in Jakarta has been able to enlist the co-operation of the Indonesian authorities, who have undertaken to do what they can through their contacts with Apodeti and UDT to try to ascertain the identity of the 4 bodies. An officer of the embassy will be proceeding to the border area shortly, possibly today, to make an onthespot investigation, and the Foreign Minister will keep the Parliament informed.

page 2297

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN RAISINGS

Mr LYNCH:

– I ask the Prime Minister the following question: Can the honourable gentleman assure this House that no member of his personal staff was in contact with an intermediary concerning the Government’s loan raising attempts? Is the honourable gentleman satisfied that his personal staff were unaware of any continuing negotiations or communications either directly or indirectly with the Government’s original intermediary?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The honourable gentleman must be basing this question on some remarks made by his departing friend on his departure. I have already stated that I have never met Mr Khemlani. I have not spoken to him, nor has he spoken to me. He has not written to me or sent me any telex, nor have I written to him or sent him any telex. There has been no contact between him and me at any time. I have asked members of my staff- not only my personal staff but also the staff of my Department- and they assure me that no letter has ever been received in my office or my Department from Mr Khemlani or from anybody acting on his behalf or purporting to act on his behalf. They assure me that no telex has come to my office or my Department from him or from anybody purporting to act on his behalf. None of them can remember any telephone call ever being made by anybody on his behalf. He, because I think his name would have been recognised, certainly has not made any call. There has been no contact between me and the gentleman nor between any member of my staff and the gentleman. It might not surprise honourable members to know that I do not open letters or receive telexes or take telephone calls myself direct.

page 2297

QUESTION

TORRES STRAIT ISLANDS

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

-Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs seen a report from Queensland of Saturday, 18 October, about a meeting of Torres Strait Islanders held to discuss the recent charges by the Queensland Premier against the Australian Government of bungling and extravagance in assisting the people of the area? Did the meeting decide to issue a signed statement about the issue raised by the Premier? If so, can the Minister tell the House what the Islanders themselves said about the controversy ignited by the Premier’s allegations?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Speaker, considering that the contents of that question relate directly to a Premier of a State, I do not believe it is in order and I believe it has nothing to do with the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question asks the Minister to provide the House with information on a matter relative to allegations against the Minister. I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Speaker, the Chairman of the Eastern Island Group in the Torres Strait Islands, George Mye, and 17 other Island leaders representing the combined councils of the Eastern Islands issued a statement on 14 October. It is a long statement and generally it establishes that the Premier made unsubstantiated allegations about my Department, grossly exaggerated statements and statements which were alleged to be facts but which subsequent inquiries have found to be untrue. The Islanders have said that they, first of all, are appalled at the recent political confrontation and criticised the fact that it has taken place at all. Of course there are two to a confrontation and to some extent that criticism has to involve myself as well as the Premier. I certainly would not want to read all of the statement, but I shall read a couple of relevant parts. It says:

Much of the information given out by the Queensland Premier is incorrect. He has gone into considerable detail, no doubt to impress upon the people his intimate knowledge of the area. This would have been very impressive except that most of the detail was wrong.

In respect of tractors the statement said:

The Stephen Island tractor is not at Murray Island but rather at Darnley Island. . . . This tractor was never ‘sitting rusting on beaches’ and has been in constant use in co-operative operations with a driver from Stephen Island.

In regard to housing the statement says:

The Premier’s ignorance concerning co-operative houses is understandable when it is remembered that neither he nor any of his officers have been on to Darnley Island since the Co-operative began operations, in spite of invitations and opportunities. … In point of fact 3 Co-operative houses are all but complete, two others well under way, an office building completed: all on Darnley Island while on Murray several houses and a workshop are almost complete.

Referring to shipping- I think honourable members will remember the criticism about the vessel Miss Doreen- the statement says:

Remarks concerning ‘Miss Doreen’ made by the Premier were complete untruths.

The statement goes into several pages and concludes:

Many of the Premier’s accusations involved the Eastern Islands which he has not visited for 9 years. There is no denying mistakes having been made, but priceless experience has been gained by the people working for themselves and handling their own affairs. The old Queensland attitude of doing what boss says and accepting what he chose to give is past. Charity is not wanted.

In fairness I have to acknowledge that I have not read the entire statement. I think it is appropriate that honourable members should have the benefit of the statement because the Islanders especially complained in their statement that nobody asked the people of the Torres Strait what is true and what is not true. They are the ones who know. In the interests of truth I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 2298

TORRES STRAIT ISLANDS

Statement issued by Mr George Mye Eastern Island Group Representative, and 1 7 Eastern Island Chairmen and individuals on 14 October 1975.

The Combined Councils of the Eastern Islands of the Torres Strait were appalled at the recent political confrontation between the Queensland Premier and the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. As a result of the allegations and accusations made, many of which directly concerned the Eastern Islands, an Area Council meeting and a meeting of the Erubmerugar Cooperative Association, were held to discuss the attitudes and allegations of the various parries concerned. One fact seems clear. Both parties are eager to find fault with the other but both appear to have skirted the main issue- the people and what they think and feel. Nobody has asked the people of the Torres Straits what is true and not true. They are the ones to know- not distant politicians who made flying ‘fact finding visits’ to the area and become immediate experts. What follows are the views of the people of the Eastern Group of Torres Strait Islands: What is the truth as they see it, and also many relevant points which have not yet been raised. In doing so we would make it clear we do not ‘side’ with either the State or the Commonwealth. We are concerned with presenting the people’s viewpoint. We will now answer certain allegations which concern our region.

The Premier speaks of the 3 State vessels: as supplying the Islands. He neglects to mention that the ‘Stephen Da vies’ has only just returned to service from a 12 month refit and is still having troubles. This meant that for the past 12 months only 2 boats have been in service and each of these spent over a month on refitting through the year. The Eastern Islands averaged 1 cargo boat visit for 5 weeks which was not enough to keep supplies up. ‘Miss Doreen’ has carried much Inter-Island Board cargo free of charge to prevent people from starving. In point of fact it carried much of the cargo used in preparations for the Premier’s visit to Sue Island, Coconut Island and Yorke Island.

The Premier mentions the ambulance boat supplied by DAIA. Where was this boat when he visited Yorke? It was lying on the beach with a split hull and the 2 almost new 1 IS horsepower outboard motors ($4,000) being submerged at high tides. This vessel is a prime example of wasted money in the Torres Strait. It is too small, very expensive to run, m a moderate to rough sea, it is impossible to transport a patient due to the rough ride and it is completely unreliable. Last trip to the Eastern Islands was in April. Since then it has been out of action for one reason or another.

All medical evacuations from Eastern Islands this year have been carried out by ‘ Miss Doreen ‘ or hovercraft.

After a hard day’s sport in the hot sun, everybody was looking forward to an early supper and some relaxation by way of Island dancing. Unfortunately the evening was marred by several happenings. Firstly everyone was kept waiting some hours for supper until the Premier’s party arrived. When they did arrive, without apology, Director Killoran, was seen by all present to immediately make off to the Sisters’ quarters with an arm about each of the two nursing Sisters based on Yorke Island.

He returned after the meal had begun and, completely ignoring the Island leaders who had specific matters they wished to discuss with him, even ignoring other members of the Premier’s party, he devoted all his energies to forcing his personal attentions on one of the nursing Sisters in plain view of all present. His behaviour was viewed as disgusting and an insult to the dignity of the occasion. All members of the official party must have been thoroughly embarrassed by this behaviour and it is difficult to believe the Premier could condone such behaviour from one of his officers.

When the Premier’s party returned to the vessel ‘Melbidir’, the Director was heard to tell the Premier he ‘had to look after this bird’. Island leaders came away from Yorke deeply resentful of this treatment by the Director and they feel it is typical.

People of the Eastern Islands recall when Mr BjelkePetersen was their Minister, that one Island leader had occasion to report Mr Killoran to the Minister for similar behaviour with an Island girl (his daughter) but no action was taken at that time.

Their feeling may be understood when returning home, disgusted and resentful of this behaviour in public view, they then heard the allegations of the Premier which were, no doubt, fed to him by Director Killoran. All respect for the Director in the Eastern Islands has gone and an apology is due the people who were present that evening.

Conclusion

Many of the Premier’s accusations involved the Eastern Islands which he has not visited for 9 years. There is no denying mistakes having been made, but priceless experience has been gained by the people working for themselves and handling their own affairs. The old Queensland attitude of doing what boss says and accepting what he chose to give is past. Charity is not wanted.

Signed By:

George Mye, Eastern Islands Representative and 17 other persons.

page 2299

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Prime Minister: Did the honourable member for Cunningham, then his Minister for Minerals and Energy, have any authority, implied or otherwise, to negotiate for a major overseas loan after 20 May?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-This question has been answered months ago. I would have thought that it was answered on 2 1 May last. It is quite obvious that members of the Opposition are just trying to divert attention from a matter of major moment in this House and in this Parliament at this time. I can imagine their embarrassment. During the lunch hour the Liberal Party had organised a meeting in front of Parliament House. It was addressed by the Leader of the Liberal Parry, and he was howled down. It is the first time I have ever known a party to organise a political meeting at which its leader was howled down and had to vacate the field. He started at 1 o’clock and by 12 minutes past one he fled into Parliament House. In the circumstances there were loud cries for me to appear. I did. I was cheered to the echo.

Government supporters- Hear, hear!

Mr WHITLAM:

-Just like this.

page 2299

QUESTION

DEFENCE: EFFECT OF BUDGET DELAY

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– Further to the answer given by the Treasurer earlier, is the Minister for Defence able to say what will be the consequences to the defence forces of delay in passing the Budget?

Mr MORRISON:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs in matters relating to the Islands of the Pacific · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I am afraid that the difficulties that would confront the defence forces would be such that the defence preparedness of Australia would grind down. The record Budget of $ 1,800m for defence, including a record amount of funds for equipment, would no longer be operative. Maritime and air surveillance of the Australian coastline would cease. The activities of the armed forces in the detection of smuggling and drug running and in relation to fisheries in Queensland and Western Australia would halt. As of 30 November salaries and allowances to all members of the armed forces would cease. They would have either to be stood down or go on leave without pay. This is a very serious problem and it is brought upon this House, upon this Parliament and upon the Australian people by the rapacious ambitions of just one man who is prepared to hold Australia and the defences of Australia to ransom. It is an act of blatant political banditry.

page 2299

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

-The Prime Minister will recall that on Thursday last he said in answer to a question:

When all the Bills which have been already been delayed or rejected once by the Senate are so delayed or rejected a second time I shall advise the Governor-General to dissolve both Houses under section 37 so that these Bills still pending for delay and rejection can be put to the people in the same way as the 21 which the honourable gentleman has mentioned.

I ask the Prime Minister: Will he be good enough to supply me with a list of the Bills that he has in mind?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I would think that the honourable gentleman could see the Bills by looking at the notice paper. I do not really think that I have to carry out his research for him. The Bills are largely ones dealing with corporations, compensation and insurance. They are Bills which have been rejected, unacceptably amended or unconscionably delayed by the Opposition in the Senate. They are Bills which will be introduced a second time. If they are rejected a second time they will be added to the 2 1 Bills which have already been twice rejected by the Senate and upon which I am entitled to advise the viceroy to dissolve both Houses.

Mr Anthony:

– You said you would.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The suggestion is sometimes made that, because 21 Bills have been twice rejected and because in respect of those

Bills I am entitled to advise the viceroy to dissolve both Houses, I should forthwith do so. Honourable members are not so naive as to overlook the fact that if I were to do that in respect of the Bills which have already been rejected twice, after the election I would again have to go through the performance of bringing in those Bills which have been rejected only once. That is, instead of having 2 debates in each House on those Bills in the present Parliament we would have one in the present Parliament and maybe two in the next Parliament, at least one in the next Parliament. I believe it will be much more economical of members’ time and the country’s finances if we have them all put together at any double dissolution that is held.

I am, however, quite optimistic, particularly in the light of events and responses in the last couple of days, that when there is an election for half the Senate- that is, half the senators from the States and for the first time senators from the 2 mainland Territories- the Government will have a majority in the Senate and that these Bills will be put through in the normal way in the lifetime of this Parliament. If, however, honourable gentlemen want to contemplate an election for the House of Representatives before the due date, sometime before 8 July 1977, then they should note that a double dissolution has to be held at least 6 months before that time. Accordingly, there could be an election for both Houses, a double dissolution, perhaps in December next year. I do not contemplate that there will be any election for the House of Representatives before December 1976 at the earliest.

page 2300

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is he aware of statements to the effect that the cost of medical benefits under Medibank is running well above the level estimated by the Government? Can the Minister inform the House whether this is the case? Will he tell the House what medical benefit costs the Government has met so far?

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have long become resigned to the fact that most members representing the Liberal Party and the National Country Party in this House have a complete disregard for truth, justice and honour if they believe there is some political advantage that can be scored regardless of their actions or statements. The statements that are being made by some members of the Opposition on Medibank are untrue. One phone call to the Department of Social Security would have shown that they were untrue.

The facts are that the estimated expenditure on Medibank from July to September was $106m. The actual amount of expenditure during that period was $84m. One subtraction will show a $22m under-expenditure on Medibank from July to September; that is, 23.32 per cent less expenditure than estimated. It is true that the number of claims being made on Medibank is higher than was expected by the Government, but the rate of expenditure is lower. I remind honourable members that the shadow minister for social security, the honourable member for Hotham, a few weeks ago was talking about dismantling Medibank and was reprimanded by the Leader of the Opposition. In the last few days the honourable member for Hotham has been talking about putting a levy on to pay for Medibank. Mr Speaker, you can judge the Opposition by its actions.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, I ask the Minister to table the paper from which he was reading.

Mr STEWART:

– I table the paper.

page 2300

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Mr PEACOCK:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

-My question to the Prime Minister is supplementary to the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party, which was not answered by the Prime Minister. Did the honourable member for Cunningham have any authority, implied or otherwise, to continue with his overseas loans negotiations?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I answered the question earlier.

page 2300

QUESTION

AIR NAVIGATION CHARGES

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Has he seen reports that the United States Government has approached the Australian Government on the matter of air navigation charges and the suggestion in such reports that the United States Secretary of State, Dr Kissinger, has involved himself personally and demanded immediate negotiations?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-There is no evidence that the United States Secretary of State, Dr Kissinger, has in any way involved himself personally. The United States, through the normal diplomatic channels, has raised the matter of our air navigation charges, alleging discrimination against its international carrier, Pan American World Airways Inc. As far as we are concerned there has been a formal request for consultation which will take place later this year. There is no foundation for the suggestion that I have seen in newspapers of late that a levy has been imposed on Qantas Airways Ltd by the United States Government, or for that matter that I have called for discussions. The problem of air navigation charges is world wide with the increase that is taking place in the cost of constructing airports and providing all of the sophisticated machinery and facilities that are now necessary to cope with the large aircraft using airports today.

The British Government, I believe, has increased charges recently by about 35 per cent. There has been a complaint, I believe, by the United States Government to the United Kingdom Government against this increase, once again alleging discrimination. We could go on for quite some considerable time about the question of whether we are charging fair and reasonable air navigation charges. It might be interesting to see the result if the airlines decided to reduce the number of flight frequencies to the point that people would use the aircraft that are available. I believe that the American national flag carrier Pan Am has been operating on the Pacific route with a load factor of something like 40 per cent. If it were to cut back its flight frequencies more people would be on board the aircraft in use and it could then aim for a more reasonable price structure than exists at the present time. I have with me a table which clearly sets out landing charges and related charges imposed on airlines operating in a number of countries. I ask the Opposition to give me leave to have this table incorporated in Hansard. It clearly sets out the true position as far as air navigation charges are concerned.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 2301

QUESTION

REJECTION OF THE BUDGET

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In 1970, when I asked a question of the Prime Minister when he was urging as no mere formality the rejection of the Budget, does he recall saying that ‘the Parliament has already voted Supply to the end of November. By that time there can be an election for both Houses. An election therefore would cause no disruption; the only thing that will cause disruption is the continuance of this Government’? Does he recall saying that in 1970? Has he changed his clothes again?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The honourable gentleman is learning, though slowly. He put the same question to me last Thursday, but he did not phrase it very well. That is an aspect of Fraser phraseology to which we must become accustomed. As a result of the honourable gentleman’s reminding me I did recall that I did say this. I, of course, have learnt in the meantime, and I now am quite resolute in the view that the House of Representatives decides who shall be the Government in this country and the Senate does not. It would be an intolerable -

Mr Anthony:

– Crush the Senate! Abolish the Senate.

Mr WHITLAM:

-The Leader of the National Country Party says: ‘Abolish the Senate’. He should know that that requires a referendum to be carried in each of the 6 States, and the way he is going I think it would be. It is an absurd proposition that the Government, which has a comfortable majority in the people’s House, should allow itself to be dictated to by a Party which has barely half the members in the other House. I have noticed some advice being tendered publicly to the viceroy that it is his obligation to take advice from the Liberal Party whether it is in government or in opposition. I also notice the unusual inference that the viceroy should take more notice of a House where neither side of politics has a majority than of the House where one side has a comfortable majority. Accordingly I am now quite resolute, and I apologise for any obscurity -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You are gaining more friends every day.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am picking up supporters all the time. I am more and more resolute, and I apologise for any lack of clarity or force in my previous comments on this subject, that the House of Representatives will determine, and the House of Representatives alone will determine, who will be the Government of Australia. I am ashamed to admit in the presence of so many distinguished visitors in the gallery that the Australian federation still lags some way behind the mother of parliaments. It would have been impossible at any time since 1910, when my distinguished predecessor Asquith, with the support of the Labour Party, asserted finally the incontestable supremacy of the Commons- it would have been impossible at any time since 1910, before anybody in this House other than the honourable member for Mackellar was born -for the Lords to reject a Budget.

Mr Hunt:

– Are they not born into it?

Mr WHITLAM:

– There are some people on the other side of the blanket who have the same delusion. One does not have to go back to the mother of parliaments. One can go to other federal systems. One can go to Canada or to West

Germany or to Malaysia, whose distinguished Prime Minister the Leader of the Opposition in Australia insulted at lunch last week. The man makes as many gaffes inside the House as outside. It would be impossible in any federal system in the world or in any unitary system in the world for the upper House to usurp the money function of the Parliament. It would be a parliamentary revolution for that to happen. Accordingly, Mr Speaker, I must tell the Leader of the Opposition that he cannot derive any comfort from what I said in 1970. If he thinks I was right then, if he has caught up to my thinking of 5 years ago, why does he not reject or incite his colleagues to reject the Budget? But of course they will not bite the bullet. They will not in fact face the real issue. They are moving that the Budget -

Mr Cohen:

– They are squibbing it.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Squibbing it, if you like. I do not like these colloquial vulgarisms. They are deferring or delaying or stalling the Budget. They have not yet rejected it. If they do reject the Budget they think they will make history not only in the Australian federation but in the Englishspeaking world, in parliamentary systems throughout the world. If they reject the Budget I think they will discover that our fellow citizens and many small businesses will be inconvenienced but I do not believe that they will go to the wall. I believe the Australian Public Service and the Australian armed forces will loyally keep to their posts. They might not be paid as easily or as immediately as has been the case and as they are entitled to expect. But they will not be destitute.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Prime Minister might shorten his answer.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. I think perhaps further questions should be placed on notice.

page 2302

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I table the protocols for the further extension of the International Wheat Agreement 1971, together with a ministerial statement.

page 2302

COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

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

page 2303

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on Filament, Fluorescent and other Discharge Lamps.

page 2303

DEPARTMENT OF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report on the activities of the Department of Manufacturing Industry for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 2303

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– Pursuant to sub-section 7(7) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974 1 present 3 determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. Two of these determinations relate to the Secretary to the Postmaster-General’s Department, the Australian National Railways Commission, the Commissioner for Community Relations, commissioners under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1 974, the Road Safety and Standards Authority, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, the Schools Commission and the Health Insurance Commission. Determinations in relation to the same were presented and disapproved on 9 September. These 2 new determinations are without the 3.6 per cent national wage increase which had been incorporated in the disapproved determinations. The other determination relates to the Special Consultant on Community Relations, Commonwealth Hostels Ltd.

page 2303

BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled: ‘The Economics of an Australian Landbridge’. Due to the limited number available reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2303

ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AND JERVIS BAY

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present an information paper on the progress in environmental conservation in the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay.

page 2303

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Phillip · ALP

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970-1973 I present the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 2303

COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Phillip · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the final report of the Committee on Community Relations.

page 2303

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– I claim to have been misrepresented. On page 3 of today’s Australian there is an article reporting the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), the Federal Opposition’s spokesman on immigration, as saying that a Federal Government report critical of migrant education had been virtually suppressed and quoting the migrant newspaper La Fiamma as describing the report as ‘the gravest scandal in migrant history’. On 13 October 1975 La Fiamma ran an article on page 1 about the report of the inquiry into schools of high migrant density which I tabled in the House on 7 Octoberfor the information of the honourable member for Warringah, the ‘suppressed’ report. It was tabled in the Senate by Senator Douglas McClelland. The article in La Fiamma appears to have been based upon my Press release of the same date, 7 October. It drew attention to the fact that in the last few years increasing evidence has become available on the educational plight of immigrant children and that increasing pressure has been applied to have the situation remedied.

There was also an accompanying editorial which referred to the situation described in the report as ‘the gravest scandal in migrant history’. There was no suggestion in either the article or the editorial that the Federal Government or its policies were to blame. It is worth noting that, by arrangement, the report was tabled in the New South Wales Parliament by Sir Eric Willis and in the Victorian Parliament by Mr Thompson. If anything, the report reflects upon State governments. Charges of the suppression of the report are clearly unfounded. Put together, copies of the report, the article in the Australian and my Press release of 7 October will show that there has been a complete misrepresentation.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

- Mr Speaker, I have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 2 occasions. Anyone who had been at the meeting outside Parliament House this afternoon would have understood that the Prime Minister’s version of that meeting was a good actor’s interpretation but did not relate to the facts. In addition the Prime Minister’s remarks concerning the Prime Minister of Malaysia not only were offensive to me but I am sure that they would also be offensive to the Prime Minister of Malaysia. I only regret that our Prime Minister is showing such marked signs of irrational and unbalanced behaviour.

page 2304

OVERSEAS LOAN NEGOTIATIONS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The evasion of the Government in the manner in which it reported to the Parliament and the people on the whole circumstances of the overseas loan negotiations.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 59

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That Government Business, Notice No. 1 be postponed. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 59

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2305

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76 AND APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1975-76

Senate Resolution

Consideration of Senate’s message No. 276.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP
  1. 1 ) That the House of Representatives having considered Message No. 276 of the Senate asserts that the action of the Senate in delaying the passage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 for the reasons given in the Senate resolution is not contemplated within the terms of the Constitution and is contrary to established constitutional convention, and therefore requests the Senate to re-consider and pass the Bills without delay.
  2. That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution.

The message from the Senate on the Bills which appropriate the moneys for the ordinary annual services of government is a direct challenge by the Senate to the authority of the House of Representatives. It is a direct challenge to the rights of this House and therefore to the rights of the people of Australia. The House must meet that challenge- now. The rights of the House of Representatives must be established- now. The rights of democratically elected governments to govern must be established- now. The rights of the Australian people must be established- now. It is a matter that must be determined- now- so that it is put beyond all future doubt. These rights have never before been questioned by any action of the Senate since Federation. Now for the first time they are challenged. The issue must now be settled once and for all. We as the elected Government of Australia- the Government solely because the people gave us a majority in this House- must now so conduct ourselves that this act of aggression by the Senate shall never again be attempted. It is not only a matter of upholding past conventions which go to the very foundation of parliamentary democracy; it is a matter of establishing the principle beyond all doubt for the future, for all time- not just for this twenty-ninth Parliament, but for all future Australian Parliaments; not just for this elected Government, but for all future elected governments of Australia; and, may I say, not just for the present Prime Minister but for all future Prime Ministers of Australia.

The present crisis caused by the action of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and those in the Senate who have been prepared to follow him is in the grand line of the great constitutional struggles of the past- of 1640, 1688, 1 832 and 1 9 10. At stake is the same great issuethe people’s control of the Executive and the moneys raised and spent by the Executive through the people’s control of the lower House, the people’s House. The taxpayers’ control over their money through their elected representatives in the people’s House is the foundation of parliamentary democracy. Under our Westminster system of control this is firmly lodged in the lower House- the people’s House- this House. It is precisely for this reason that in Australia whichever Party has the majority in the House of Representatives forms the Government of Australia. It is precisely for this reason that the Australian Con- i situation sets specific limits upon the powers of i the Senate in relation to money Bills. The Senate ‘ cannot originate Appropriation Bills for the ordi-i nary annual services of the Government, nor can < it amend them in any way. <

A constitutional principle of fundamental ‘ importance to the future of parliamentary ( democracy would be breached if the Opposition in the Senate were now allowed to reject these j Bills. Like all truly great constitutional principles it is at heart very simple. In the past few days the j Australian people have already demonstrated ( that they grasp clearly what is at stake. Never in j the experience of any of us here have they so i promptly and enthusiastically rallied in support ( of a clear and basic principle. The tactics of the , Leader of the Opposition, if successful, would di- J vide this nation and leave a legacy of bitterness . unequalled since 1916 when another great wrecker forswore his previous pledges and prinjciples. But the Leader of the Opposition will not be allowed to succeed in wrecking this country and its parliamentary system. His only success so far has been to galvanise the entire Labor movement throughout Australia. It is only the beginning. Support for the parliamentary principle goes far beyond our ranks and the real pressure on him is going to come from the overwhelming ‘ majority of decent Australians- not least the overwhelming mass of decent Liberals- men and women- who, whatever their opinion of the Labor Party may be, believe profoundly in the great parliamentary principle which this House < itself and this House alone embodies. Could we who are members of this Parliament have had it i more dramatically brought home to us than it was during the lunch hour when a meeting i organised by the Liberal Party, to hear the Leader of the Liberal Party, turned on him and made him flee into the building itself. A previous Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, has said that the rejection by a hostile Senate of a Bill of this kind would create ‘an impossible situation and make popular government unworkable’. The Government will not stand by and let popular government become unworkable- not now, but more important, for the future.

This Government is not only justified in maintaining its position but it is bound in duty to do so. The Government- any elected government- based upon the majority in the House of Representatives, must be able to govern. This is an issue not just for this present Government and for me; it is a principle of fundamental importance for all future governments and Prime Ministers and for Australia. This must be emphasised: In this grave constitutional crisis, this crucial dispute between the 2 Houses, none of the electoral options available are in any way relevant to the issue at stake. The fact, for example, that there are grounds extant for a double dissolution does not solve the problem- it compounds it. There can be no double dissolution on this issue- on the grounds of the Senate deferral or even rejection of the Budget. The grounds for a double dissolution on this issue do not exist. They could not exist for at least another 3 months- until after the Senate had twice rejected the Appropriation Bills. There could not be an election after a double dissolution on this issue for at least 4 months. There could not be a Parliament springing from a double dissolution on this issue for at least 6 months. A double dissolution cannot be called until a Bill has been rejected twice, with an interval of 3 months. We found that, under Australia’s electoral laws, after a double dissolution the country is without a Parliament for 3 months. That is the sort of disruption proposed by the Leader of the Oppositionmore severe even than the needless disruption of 1974.

To seek a double dissolution now on other grounds, however sound in themselves, would simply concede the right of the Senate to send the House of Representatives to an election any time the Senate chose. It would concede the very principle at stake. It would be surrender to the unconstitutional pretensions of the Senate to make or break governments formed in the House of Representatives. To concede that right now, to surrender that principle now, would be to establish a spurious right, a non-existent power to the Senate for all time. We will not sell out the constitutional rights of this House. We will not barter away the future of this House.

I went to the people as Prime Minister of Australia only 17 months ago and my government was endorsed by the people for the second time in less than 18 months. We were elected to govern for a further 3 years, until 1977, and that is the Government’s expectation and intention. Governments are made and unmade in the House of Representatives- in the people’s House- and so long as my Government continues to maintain a majority in this House it will continue as the Government of Australia. Behind the manoeuvrings and maunderings of the Leader of the Opposition there lies a strange and even sinister story which is quickly becoming revealed and unravelled. The people of Australia are awake to it. There is, for instance, the curious role of the Press proprietors and the Leader of the Opposition’s even more curious relationship with them, the inflammatory headlines, the lying posters, the carefully orchestrated editorials, the flying visit to Broadway last month and the urgent ring-around last Tuesday night. At his Press conference last Wednesday the Leader of the Opposition was asked:

This is the second time in eighteen months that you have tried to reject money Bills in the Senate to force an election. Why should the people of Australia think that this is none other than another attempt by the Opposition to take power.

His answer was:

I suggest that you read this morning’s newspapers.

As everybody in this place knows, the Leader of the Opposition telephoned the leading newspaper proprietors on Tuesday night to tell them first of his plans and to enlist their prior support, that is, to condition the public in advance.

Mr Mathews:

– He killed the editor of the Age.

Mr WHITLAM:

-And that is what the public read in their newspapers.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the Prime Minister is saying and what the honourable member for Casey interjected is a farrago of untruths from start to finish.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member may ask for a withdrawal. I suggest that the honourable member for Casey withdraw his remark.

Mr Mathews:

– I withdraw the remark.

Mr WHITLAM:

-But now, seeing the response and just anger of the public, the proprietors are having second thoughts. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that last Wednesday’s editorials were in some way an expression of Australian opinion, let him read yesterday’s newspapers: The Melbourne Herald said:

We believe the Opposition should not continue to refuse Supply. If they gained office by radical strategy Mr Fraser and Mr Anthony would quite possibly find a permanently ungovernable Australia on their hands.

Hear also what the Adelaide Advertiser said:

It is Mr Fraser who first threw away the rule book and made this a boots and all fight. He and his supine followers cannot now complain if they get hurt.

The proprietors are having second thoughts. So should the Leader of the Opposition. So should his supine followers. The conditioning which the Leader of the Opposition and the proprietors sought to impose upon the public last week, and indeed for weeks before that, they now seek to impose upon the Governor-General himself.

There have been those long months of conditioning by the political, the business and media interests who have never been prepared to accept the legitimacy of an Australian Labor government. Now we are seeing a fresh phase in this exercise. Now we have the headlines: ‘Will Sir John Kerr act?’ and ‘Fraser says Kerr must sack PM’. Where will this intimidation stop? I find it thoroughly depressing that the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott), a former Solicitor-General, one who discharged his office with distinction and impartiality, lends himself to this disgraceful episode.

We now have the extraordinary spectacle of the Opposition, apparently recognising that it has failed to blackmail me into an election for the House of Representatives, seeking to bring reprehensible pressure to bear on the GovernorGeneral, the representative of the Queen of Australia, to achieve that very thing, and to do so by dismissing me as Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who twice in less than 3 years has been elected with a majority in the governing house and who continues to have a majority in that House. It is the very definition of a constitutional monarchy that the monarch acts on the advice of the Ministers constitutionally assigned to him. It is unthinkable that in Britain the Queen would dismiss a Prime Minister having the confidence of the House of Commons. The GovernorGeneral’s position in Australia is the same as that of the Sovereign in Britain. The Balfour Declaration of 1 926 laid it down thus:

It is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations that the Governor-General of a dominion is the representative of the Crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain or of any department of that Government.

Nor is it the function of the constitutional monarch, or the viceroy, to act as arbiter between rival parties, still less to take advice from the leaders of both sides with a view to forming a conclusion of his own. One has to go back to George III- before the first settlement of Australia- to find an example of a monarch who tried to rule after this fashion. If the GovernorGeneral were to intervene by dismissing Ministers, he would be expected to do the same on another occasion. He would be dragged into the arena of party politics. The Crown would become the football of contending factions. In another situation in which a Governor-General was being incited by a non-Labor Senate to reject the advice of his Majesty’s Australian Labor Government, Sir Isaac Isaacs said this:

If, as you -

The Senaterequest me to do, I should reject their advice - The Ministers’ advicesupported as it is by the considered opinion of the House of Representatives, and should act upon the equally considered contrary opinion of the Senate, my conduct would, I fear, even on ordinary constitutional grounds, amount to an open personal preference of one House against the other- in other words, an act of partisanship.

Sir Isaac Isaacs acted on the advice of his Ministers. To pressure a Governor-General to intervene for partisan advantage in a dispute between the 2 Houses and contrary to the advice of the Ministers constitutionally assigned to him would be to incite yet another constitutional breach.

The vital issue must be stated again and again. It is the Senate which is on trial. A constitutional principle of fundamental importance to the future of parliamentary government is being violated by the blocking of Supply by the Opposition in the Senate. The fact of the matter is that not 6 months in the life of this Government had passed without the provision of Supply being questioned or threatened. It began, as Senator Withers revealed, in April 1973, before an election could be held for half the Senate, before a double dissolution could be granted. The course of action was being prepared by senators who took office 1 Vi and 4Vi years before my Government and who were elected 2 and 5 years before my Government. That course has now been pursued to the limit, through the death of a Labor senator and the gross misconduct of the Queensland Government in replacing himachieved, as Senator Steele Hall has said, ‘over a dead man’s corpse’.

From the first weeks of our coming in, the Opposition- the self-anointed, self-appointed men born to rule- showed the lengths to which they would go to disrupt the normal operations of the Government in their quest for power. The Leader of the National Country Party comes up with this hackneyed old phrase ‘lust for power’. Can there be any doubt who it is that is really lusting after power? But if we have to use these sexist analogies, the difference between the conduct of the Government and the conduct of the Opposition is the world of difference between the lawful exercise of conjugal rights and the rapist.

Let me place my Government’s position clearly on the record. I shall not advise the Governor-General to hold an election for the House of Representatives at the behest of the

Senate. I shall tender no advice for an election for either House or both Houses until this constitutional issue is settled. This Government, so long as it retains its majority in the House of Representatives, will continue the course endorsed by the Australian people in May last year. Far more important than what happens in the next 30 days is what happens in the next 30 years. That is what is at stake. If this House succumbed, if the Senate were to succeed, these would be the consequences: The immediate result would be that this nation would be 4 months or 6 months without a parliament at a critical time. The House of Representatives, the people’s House, would have its financial paramountcy violated. Responsible government would be undermined. Basic constitutional conventions, every bit as important as what is written in our constitution, would become meaningless. Elections for the House of Representatives could be precipitated by the Senate twice a year. The mandate given by the people at a House of Representatives election would be subject to a virtual veto by the Senate. The frequency of elections and the uncertainty of the Government of whatever Party in pursuing its program would wound and weaken the administration of the nation’s affairs; in a situation of economic uncertainty this effect could be catastrophic. Difficult and important decisions which any honourable and courageous government saw as necessary though in the short term electorally unpopular would be seized upon to destroy it. Internationally Australia’s standing as a stable parliamentary democracy, as a constitutional nation would disappear forever.

The message from the Senate constitutes an act of constitutional aggression by the Senate. Aggression must not be allowed to succeed. This act and all its consequences, short term, long term, lie solely at the door of the Leader of the Opposition and his followers. Not for the first time is government of the people for the people, by the people- and in our case, by the people’s House- at stake. In the words of Lincoln when he was trying to avert the greatest constitutional convulsion in the history of democracy, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition and his followers:

In your hands and not in mine rests this mo- .mentous issue. You can have no conflict without yourself being the aggressor. You have registered no oath to destroy the Constitution, while I have the most solemn one to preserve and defend it.

The Leader of the Opposition maintains that all that is required for Australia to avoid the evil consequences of his own actions is for us- the elected Government- to cave in. Of course, if Britain had caved in in 1940 a great deal of inconvenience would have been avoided. But the destruction of British parliamentary democracy would have only been postponed. We will stand up for the rights of this House and the rights of the Australian people. We will not surrender.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

- Mr Speaker, the oddness- one might almost say the madness -of the analogies which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) seeks to draw came in his last few words when he compared what he is seeking to do with the Battle of Britain in 1940. What ludicrous arguments does he have to draw? Then he called on Lincoln, a man whom the present Prime Minister will never emulate. He forgets that Lincoln lived in a land where the Senate and its House of Representatives have concurrent powers in relation to financial matters- powers which this Prime Minister would seek to destroy. What more disgraceful motion could any Prime Minister have moved than the motion which has been moved by this Prime Minister? This Prime Minister is asking this House to carry a resolution in defiance of the Constitution itself because the motion says that the purposes of the resolution of the Senate are not contemplated in the terms of the Constitution. Of course the Constitution gives to the Senate concurrent powers with the House of Representatives in these matters.

If authorities are needed for this learned and eminent Prime Minister, we can go to Quick and Garran which states:

The Senate has co-ordinate power with the House of Representatives to pass all Bills or to reject all Bills. Its right of veto is as unqualified as its right of assent -

It is as unqualified in relation to money Bills as it is in relation to other Bills. More recent authority is contained in Mr Odgers’ book which states:

The only restrictions on the exercise by the Senate of its financial powers are the restraint which it traditionally exercises and the electoral sanction.

It has not so used those powers previously because there has never previously been a government as bad- one might almost say as evil- as this Government is. Another eminent authoritya senator who was so eminent that this Prime Minister thought he should be on the High Court bench- said:

The Senate is entitled and expected to exercise resolutely but with discretion its power to refuse its concurrence to any financial measure, including a tax Bill. There are no limitations on the Senate on the use of its constitutional powers.

That was said by the former Senator Murphy, now Mr Justice Murphy, the great friend and proponent of the Prime Minister and the protege of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself said:

Any government which is defeated by the Parliament on a major taxation Bill should resign. This Bill will be defeated in another place. The Government should then resign.

The Prime Minister can change his clothes and his principles as often as he gets up in the morning. Concerning the propriety of pressing the matter on a Budget let me quote his own words to this honourable Prime Minister:

Let me make it clear at the outset that our opposition to this Budget is no mere formality. We intend to press our opposition by all available means on all related measures in both Houses. If the motion is defeated we will vote against the Bills here and in the Senate. Our purpose is to destroy this Budget and to destroy the Government which has sponsored it.

He could well have used those words to express our intention now. The fact that he had not the power to carry those words into effect does not detract from their meaning for one moment.

I shall quote another authority, who spoke in a different context, to this eminent Prime Minister. Before giving the authority let me read the words because they were said in relation to the Parliament of a State where the same systems apply. They are:

The Legislative Council in rejecting 3 Supply Bills had used the power conferred upon it to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances.

I added only the words ‘and reprehensible’. Surely this Government has done many reprehensible things. The quotation continues:

The Legislative Council of Victoria cannot originate a money Bill, but it may reject such a Bill, including a Supply Bill. It may suggest amendments but it has no power to make them. Surely it is a curious argument to say that a power deliberately specifically conferred on the Upper House is, in no circumstances, to be exercised. I agree that such a power should be used only in extraordinary circumstances.

That was said by R. G. Menzies speaking in circumstances of a different time- a time of great national moment when a Labor government of an earlier day was seeking to rape Australia. Then there are the circumstances of the London Times. I suppose the Prime Minister would suggest I telephoned the proprietors of the London Times too.

Mr Mathews:

– Quite likely.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I wish I could; that would have been wonderful. One of the odd things about this Prime Minister is that when there are editorials against him he says that I have telephoned the proprietors. When there are editorials for him they are good. In that there is no consistency and no merit. What did the London Times say of the present situation? It said:

The Senate ‘s Opposition majority has vetoed the Budget, leaving the Government without supply. In a parliamentary democracy -

If we still have it- the inevitable result should be an appeal to the electorate for its verdict. But Mr Whitlam does not accept the validity of the Opposition tactics in the Senate. Mr Whitlam now says democracy is in danger. It is not in danger provided he holds a general election. The only person now endangering democracy is his ally Mr Bob Hawke . . . who has warned that a general strike might be called … the Senate has not exceeded its powers.

Mr Whitlam, the Prime Minister, will not face the people of Australia because he fears just and proper retribution for 3 years of bad government, 3 years of harm to people who are retired and destroyed and who have not another life to rebuild, and 3 years of harming young people who can no longer buy a home because the costs have gone up, the price is too much and inflation has put it out of their reach. A former Minister for Housing echoed a previous Minister for Housing and said: ‘We do not want people to own their own homes. It will make them a nation of little capitalists’. The present Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) said: ‘We are going to make them a nation of littler capitalists- 6 squares is enough’.

How much harm has this Government done to the normal people in Australia, to the average person in Australia? Mr Whitlam, the Prime Minister, says that democracy is in danger. It is not in danger so long as governments are prepared to face the people of this country. A similar situation happened in Victoria in 1952. We accepted that situation. Labor won. Democracy survived. The present hysteria would disappear overnight if the Prime Minister was not afraid of his masters. He has said that it is a question of asserting the rights of this House over the Senate. It is not a question of that; it is a question of asserting the right of the Prime Minister, of Mr Whitlam, to govern as he would believe as long as he would want, regardless of the circumstances. The people outside, the average people, who have not a voice in this Parliament except through their representatives and who have not access to the media and to the newspapers, have only one way of indicating a view- by placing a piece of paper in a ballot box. That is the right which the Prime Minister is not prepared to give them. That is the right that he seeks to deny. It is the most basic right of all in a democracy. That is the right which the Prime Minister would deny.

I know that some eminent law professors said that this sort of thing ought not to be done. They did not deny the constitutional right to do it but they did make a political judgment. I suggest that they, or some of them at least, were probably supporters of the Labor Party. They tried to lend credibility to their political judgment by their, stature as professors of law. One of them, to his great credit, said in public a day or two later that because of the latest circumstances and because of the reprehensible circumstances of Mr Connor’s sacking and all that surrounded it, his view had changed. We need to understand that this Government has been incompetent to an extraordinary degree and has been reprehensible. There has been sordid scandal after sordid scandal. This Prime Minister tries to pretend that he does not know what has happened and tries to pretend that he does not know what his Ministers are doing. We had an honourable Deputy Prime Minister who resigned in disgust. We had another person who had acted as Prime Minister sacked for lying to the Parliament. We had another Minister who was sacked for lying to the Prime Minister himself, who consequently misled or lied to this Parliament.

But how much more is this Government hiding? Members of the Government will not table all the papers. They will not even say that they have not burnt the records and documents in relation to the Khemlani affair. The Prime Minister says that there is nothing to cover up, but every time he says that there is nothing to cover up something further is revealed, such as continuing negotiations, long after he has tried to suggest that it has all ended. He knew of the Cairns misrepresentation weeks before. The honourable member himself said that the Prime Minister knew of the letter. But the Prime Minister was prepared to condone it, to connive in the misrepresentation and the misleading of this Parliament until it became public and then he said: ‘Oh the man must go’.

What about the Connor documents? The Prime Minister issued an instruction on May 29 that all the loan documents must go over his desk. Are we to assume that that did not happen? Is he that inefficient? Are we to assume that he did not read anything in a matter as important as this or are we to assume that he did read and that he did know and knew everything that his Minister was doing? Questions asked in this Parliament over the last two or three weeks that have been evaded, avoided or placed on the notice paper add further heavy evidence to the fact that this Prime Minister knew that the Minister for Minerals and Energy had honourably allowed himself to be a scapegoat for his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s involvement began when on December 13 he signed an Executive Council minute which was an evasion of the Constitution, a conspiracy to defraud the Loan Council.

The Prime Minister says on television, in this House and at public meetings that no charges have been made. Charges have been made a thousand times and they are the most serious charges that could ever be made against any government. But he has the Goebbels tactic of repeating the words- ‘no charges have been made, no charges have been made’- and hopes somebody will believe him. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) will believe him, but we know what the honourable member for Casey is. Nobody in Australia will believe the Prime Minister as he repeats that falsehood around the country. Charges have been made and the charges are unanswered. He says that the money was to be raised only for temporary purposes. He admits in one answer that the purposes were not temporary and in another says that it does not matter if temporary money is raised for non-temporary purposes. But then he says he will take the matter to the Loan Council just to make sure. He knows quite well that that original document, that infamous and evil December 13 Executive Council minute, was a defrauding of the Constitution and an evasion of all responsibility of government.

He has sacked Ministers to protect himself. Nine senior Ministers have been sacked or demoted. We now have new Khemlani allegations which, coupled to all the rest, tie this Prime Minister in solidly to the misrepresentations, the deceptions, the deceit and the duplicity of this Government. We would be derelict in our responsibility to the people of Australia if we did not exert all the influence available to us through the proper constitutional processes not to say who will govern this country but to give the average men and women of Australia an opportunity to vote- a basic right of people in a democracy and a basic right that this Prime Minister seeks to deny. If this man was so confident that he was right, if he was so confident that he had support, would he not go to the people of Australia and say: ‘Let us get rid of Fraser; let us get rid of those Liberals’? That is the one thing he will not do because he fears the people of Australia.

It is not only in these matters that the Prime Minister has trampled upon the rights of people. There are other areas. Civil rights are going down the drain. He has a ministry of propaganda akin to other countries but not to a democracy such as Australia. He is personally in charge of telephone tapping. For what purpose? Restrictions on freedom of speech have been applied to Vietnamese refugees but no restrictions on the freedom of speech have been placed on communist refugees from Chile. What kind of man, what kind of Prime Minister is this who persists in holding on to power against the will of the Parliament? This is the first time that a democratically elected Prime Minister has sought to continue in government when the Parliament has denied him money. Then he makes a charge against us. This is his own charge- a charge against himself of trying to bully the GovernorGeneral. What more outrageous proposal could the Prime Minister have made? Everything he said on This Day Tonight and in this Parliament was as a direction to the Governor-General. That is not something that ought to occur from the Prime Minister or from anyone else. The Governor-General has responsibilities under the Constitution. We in the Opposition have a place under the Constitution as part of the processes. The Constitution is not only for a Prime Minister. Once he has lost the capacity to govern because money is cut off he has then lost the capacity to stay in his present place. As an amendment I move:

That all words after ‘Senate resolution’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘is within the terms of the Constitution and that the House of Representatives should face the people.’

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Anthony:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I rise to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). Some honourable members have to establish once and for all- even if members on the other side of the House will not join with us- who is the Government of this country, because there can be only one. The encouragement that honourable members opposite give to the Senate and to the States in the braking of conventions cannot be tolerated any longer. Since 2 December 1972 the Opposition parties, led by the National Country Party, have been determined to see that this Government should never survive. Threat after threat has been made since 2 December 1972. They led to the double dissolution of 18 May. Even when the Labor Government was returned at that poll the Opposition parties still refused to accept the judgment of the Australian people.

How then did members opposite twist the result of 18 May? They did so firstly by asking their Premier of New South Wales to replace Senator Murphy with other than a Labor senator and secondly by encouraging their national spokesman on madness, Bjelke-Petersen, to appoint a person other than a replacement from the Labor Party to the Senate so that they could carry in the Senate by a vote of 29 to 28 that in deed and in fact the Senate will be the government of Australia. The people of Australia, led by the Labor Party over the last 7 days, have given honourable members opposite their answer about the decision that has been taken by the Senate. In very simple terms it is just not on and honourable members opposite know it.

Let us look at some of the reasons why honourable members opposite made this decision. As I say they have always refused to accept the Labor Party’s being in government. They wanted a parliamentary system as long as the Labor Party never won an election but once we gained the treasury bench on 2 December 1972 they had to find some means, fair or foul, to try to overturn the Labor Government. All the responsibility for what happens here on in lies with the Liberal and National Country Parties in the House of Representatives as well as in the Senate. Those 29 senators are acting only at the behest of the decision made by all members of the Opposition so they all carry the responsibility. It never ceases to amaze me that some honourable members opposite who have been in politics for so long cannot make rational and gutsy political decisions. What did they do a month ago? They sent out a team of market research people; people not even involved in politics. Members opposite said: Ask 2000 people around Australia what they think about the present Government; ask how many of them will be upset if we call an election by rejecting the Budget. At a joint party meeting called 2 weeks ago a big report was given to members opposite stating that only 3.5 per cent of those people interviewed would be upset if the Opposition rejected the Budget. How stupid can honourable members opposite be? How long have they got to be in politics before they learn that their judgment is perhaps better than the servants they send out into the community? (Quorum formed). In their gross stupidity, the Opposition parties acted on the advice of their market research team, whoever it includes which reported that 3.5 per cent of the people would be upset if the Opposition parties in the Senate rejected the Budget. The feeling, the intelligence and the political awareness of Australians were underestimated. In the last 7 days we have heard what the people of Australia have said about the actions taken in the Senate by the Opposition parties. It is no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition speaks a little louder this week. It is no wonder that he looks a little paler. His paleness reflects what he has seen in the streets in his travels around Australia.

There are people thoughout Australia who want to stop work immediately to add their voices to protest about what the Opposition parties have done. They are continuing to go to work only because the trade union movement and the Labor Party have told them not to stop work, that we do not want a situation of anarchy to develop. That is the type of reaction that the parties opposite have provoked because a market research team told them that not many people would be upset if the Budget was not passed. Many of the same market research people told the Opposition parties in 1974 that they would win an election. Honourable members opposite still have not learnt the lesson. These market research people are those who go into the Opposition party room and tell the Opposition parties to destroy the parliamentary processes of this country. Let them stand for election to the Parliament; let them back their judgment in the Parliament and not act by giving the Opposition parties the advice that they have given.

Let us look at what has occurred. What is the reason for the rush to hold an election? In any of the advertisements that the Opposition parties have run in the last week we have not seen mention of some of the questions that are now raised in this House. Once again, the National Country Party is dragging the Liberal Party to the altar. The difference is that this time it is a sacrificial altar; it is not an altar of wedlock. The National Country Party is dragging the Liberal Party there because it is horrified at the laws that this Government seeks to introduce. We propose legislation to ensure that the source of political donations is divulged and that the principle of one vote one value is introduced. Such proposals terrify the National Country Party. So it dominates the Liberal Party and drags it to the altar saying that the introduction of such laws in Australia must be avoided. That is the way in which the National Country Party operates. One of these days surely the Liberal Party will wake up to what is going on.

In addition, we see this grand and once great coalition, the Liberal Party and the National Country Party, trying to stop other legislative action besides that which is being opposed at the whim of the National Country Party. The coalition is trying to stop the consolidation of government policy such as Medibank. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), who is the shadow Minister in this area, put his foot in his mouth a month ago and said that the

Opposition parties would dismantle Medibank. We would return to the situation which existed in 1972 when 1 500 000 people in our community were not covered by any form of health insurance. The coalition wants to dismantle the Australian Legal Aid Office. Those 100 000 people who have been assisted by that body in the form of legal aid would have to go to solicitors, if they had enough money to do so. The Opposition parties want to stop the injection into our schools of the enormous amount of money that this Government is providing so that each child will have an equal opportunity. The Opposition parties want to stop all of these activities; that is what this matter is all about. That is what they are after. Honourable members opposite should not continue to put up the furphies that they have carried on with as to what they are seeking.

Let us look at who is demanding the election. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts, including the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony), say that the people are demanding an election. We have asked repeatedly: ‘Will you tell us who is demanding an election?’ We know that the newspapers are. The newspapers of Australia are the most monopolistic of the media in the Western world. The whole of the newspaper medium in Australia is controlled by 4 families. We know that those 4 families want an election. They are not entitled to any more say than any other average 4 Australian families. Having seen the number of advertisements that the Opposition parties have taken in those papers in the last week, we can understand why the newspaper proprietors like them. Those advertisements have appeared at a cost of $29,000 a day, over 6 days. The Liberal and National Country parties have taken those advertisements in our newspapers. They have spent about $180,000 and no election campaign is on. It is no wonder that the Opposition parties do not want to divulge where their funds come from. It is no wonder that they do not support the principle of one vote one value. The people of Australia should have explained to them where this money comes from and whom the Opposition parties represent.

An unfortunate feature of the Leader of the Opposition is that, because he went to Oxford, he still believes in the London Times. We understand. But if he wants to be guided by the London Times he should read it every day and not just on one day. I do not think that the London Times has a very great bearing on political developments in this country. But if the Leader of the Opposition, because he went to Oxford, does think that it is terribly important, he should have read the edition of London Times on the day after the edition from which he quoted. The London Times is now saying that the Opposition’s move has backfired and that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will have to back down. As I say, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should read the London Times every day. He did not quote Pravda or the Peking People’s Daily, so we do not know what they are advising him, but apparently the London Times is terribly important.

Let us look at how we have reached the present situation, following the 1974 election, in which the Opposition says the Senate has the right to throw this Government out. This Government has been elected twice in 18 months. It was elected in December 1972 and reelected in May 1974. In 1974 a result was obtained that no one in Australia wanted. The Senate had elected to it 29 senators from the Labor Party and 29 senators from the Liberal and Country parties, with 2 independent senators. That is how the Senate was constituted in 1 974. The Senate is now asking for the support of the Australian people to throw the present Government back to the polls.

What has happened to the composition of the Senate in the meantime? Before I deal with that, let me refer first to what happened in that 1974 election. The people of New South Wales found that approximately 40 party candidates were fielded in the Senate election for that State. The Liberal Party with the assistance of the Country Party devised a scheme whereby the informal vote could be lifted for every additional candidate that they put up at the polls. The people of New South Wales had to vote for 73 candidates in electing their senators; almost 13 per cent of the people of New South Wales voted informally. Approximately 200 000 more people throughout Australia voted for the Labor Party than voted for all the other political parties put together in that election. That was the result of the Senate election which was part of the double dissolution election on 18 May 1974.

Since then, what other conventions have the Opposition parties broken, which they think the Australian people will accept? The Opposition parties ask us to believe that Bjelke-Petersen, their national spokesman for madness, may send to us, and we must accept, Senator Field as a Labor Party senator. Is this a convention? Is this something that must be followed? Senator Field made the statement, before he arrived in Canberra, that he was coming to destroy the

Government. They do not sound very much like the words of a Labor senator. What happened as the result of action by Premier Lewis of New South Wales? Senator Murphy was a Labor senator for that State. What did Mr Lewis do? The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) has said- he seems to have forgotten his remarks in the last week- that the Senate is tainted and that the Senate is bogus as a result of the actions of those Premiers. Yet the Opposition parties are asking the Australian people to accept the way in which the Senate is constituted at present.

In his speech on Thursday last, the Leader of the Opposition challenged us on this side of the House to go out onto the streets and into the factories to find out what people were thinking. We have all done exactly that. We are elated. We are elated at the results of talking to people in the streets, in the factories, at public meetings and at trades and labor councils. What honourable members opposite have forgotten is that Labor members represent people where factories are situated. It is much easier for us to talk to the working class and to the ordinary citizens of this country. I can tell honourable members opposite here and now that those people are right behind the Labor Party in its refusal to buckle under to this threat by the Senate to throw the Government to the wolves or to take it to the polls. This is the message at factories and wherever we go.

A public meeting was held in Adelaide yesterday. It was the largest political rally .held in that city. It took place at lunch time. We were telling the workers not to stop work. We had the largest political rally that Adelaide had ever seen. People came from political parties right across the board- the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Democratic Labor Party and the Communist Party. Members of all those political parties were there. They spoke with one voice. They said: ‘Don’t cop it. Fight it out. It will not be your responsibility if the whole country falls into chaos. That is a responsibility that must be accepted by the Liberal and National Country parties’. These views come not just from old Australians; ethnic groups including the Greek and Italian communities sent messages to our rallies throughout Australia.

The Opposition parties must learn. They must not be like the Americans in Vietnam who did not know when to withdraw with honour. When the Americans did finally withdraw, they did so with disgrace. Opposition members must face the fact that it is no use yelling at their supporters and trying to keep them all in line. The fact is that the Opposition parties have made a mistake.

That mistake has been based on the recommendations of a group of long hairs from Sydney who told them what politics is all about. Decisions ought to be made by the Opposition parties themselves. They have made a very bad mistake. The sooner they withdraw and step down from that decision, the better it will be. Some Opposition senators must say that they will not reject Supply. The Opposition parties have not even gone that far. They want to delay Supply. They do not even have the courage to carry out their convictions by saying: ‘We are going to reject it’. The tragedy of the decision made by the Liberals and the Country Party last Wednesday has rebounded on them. The people of Australia are not going to accept that decision. It is better for members of the Opposition to make a quick decision to step back from that decision, otherwise, they will end up withdrawing in complete disgrace as we have all predicted.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party of Australia · Richmond

– We have listened with a great deal of interest to the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Young). We have listened to him before in this House, but I doubt whether we have ever before heard him make such a frantic, panic-like speech- almost an hysterical speech. He tries to accuse us of being doubtful about our decision, and” he says that we are wrong. His argument crumbles to the ground when we ask him: ‘If you are so confident why do you not go to the Australian people and let them decide?’ But of . course he is panicky and he is hysterical because .he- is frightened to face his masters, the Australian people. He is one of the Prime Minister’s mob. He is trying to back him up on what is now a completely illegal stand by saying that the Senate has not got the power to force the Government to go to the Australian people. That is dishonest and it is typical of the dishonesty that we have seen time and time again from our present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). Of course I can understand this lightweight corning into the debate today. He is probably the only one the Prime Minister can now round up, having lopped off the heads of most of those on the front bench. Of course he must try desperately now to regain the ground which he lost this morning in the ballot to fill a ministerial vacancy.

The Prime Minister comes in here and says he gives his solemn oath to preserve the Constitution. Goodness me, what is his oath worth? He has misled and deceived this Parliament so many times that his oath is not worth a cracker. This man cannot any longer be trusted by the Australian people. He says that there have been no charges, no allegations, no accusations against him as far as the overseas loans affair is concerned. Goodness me, the Hansard records of this House and of the Senate are full of accusations against him, but of course he will not reveal the facts. It is just one big cover-up after another, because if the truth does come out it will highlight this Government as being involved in another Watergate- Australia’s great Watergate. Why will he not bring forward these documents? Why will he not answer questions in this House? Why did he not answer the question today as to whether he knew that the former Minister for Minerals and Energy, the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor), had knowledge of his authority to seek loans after 23 May?

The truth is that the Prime Minister did know. That is why he will not answer the question. He has dumped this former Minister on false pretences. If Labor Party supporters want to be so foolish as to follow this Prime Minister blindly then they will be led to their destruction, but he is not going to lead this country to destruction because we will fight this issue. The issue here is the preservation of our Constitution. He is trying to smash it. Honourable members opposite should have learnt from his experience in Queensland when the Prime Minister went up there and tried to take on the Queensland Premier. The Queensland people gave the most overwhelming rejection of this man that there has ever been. The next episode was his visit to the electorate of Bass, and that resulted in the greatest swing against a government that we have seen in any by-election for years. The people rejected the Prime Minister. What happened in South Australia, the State from which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Port Adelaide, comes? The people disowned the Prime Minister; they did not want him. The Premier of that State said: ‘We will have nothing to do with Mr Whitlam and his Government’.

This Prime Minister is trying to break the Senate. This Prime Minister has wrecked and breached more conventions and customs than any other Prime Minister or any other person in Australia. No Prime Minister has smashed conventions as Mr Whitlam has. No Prime Minister has smashed people’s jobs as Mr Whitlam has. No Prime Minister has smashed the worth of people’s savings and earnings as Mr Whitlam has. No Prime Minister has smashed the dreams of young people who want to own their own home as Mr Whitlam has. No Prime Minister has smashed business confidence, has smashed the confidence of the farming community, of small businesses, of mining operators and of people in factories as Mr Whitlam has. No Prime Minister has smashed our alliances as Mr Whitlam has. No Prime Minister has smashed our defence organisations, even the cadet corps, as Mr Whitlam has. No Prime Minister has smashed our respect overseas as Mr Whitlam has. No Prime Minister has smashed the hopes of loyal ALP supporters as Mr Whitlam has.

This Government is not a Labor government’s bootlace. It is made up of a few academics and a Prime Minister who is taking Labor supporters on a wild goose chase which is going to lead the Labor Party to complete and utter disaster because he is now challenging the authority of the Senate. He is out to smash the Senate. Why is he out to smash the Senate? Because the Senate is the one brake that we have on the aggression of this Prime Minister and his attempts to implement his socialist beliefs. He is peeved at this point that his legislation has been rejected in the Senate. Twenty-one Bills are now issues for a double dissolution. In May 1974 when the Senate threatened similar action he had the courage to call a double dissolution on 4 Bills. He called it on 5 Bills, but he misled the Governor-General on one of them and on that one the High Court had to overrule him. Today he has not got the courage because he knows only too well that the Australian people now know their Prime Minister; they know that he is not a man of integrity, that he is not a person fit to govern this country any longer. He is up to his neck in the overseas loans scandal as well as the scandal of the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd. This Prime Minister wants to take away the supreme power of the Senate.

When debate was taking place between 1887 and 1897 among the wise founding fathers of this country one of the outstanding features of all the discussion was the question of how much power the Senate should have. They considered it likely that sooner or later this country would be confronted with a bad government, an untrustworthy government. So they conferred on. the Senate through our Constitution the ultimate power to block money Bills and therefore to make the continuation of government impossible and force the Lower House to go to the people. This power was not put in the Constitution just to create some inconvenience for the Australian people. It was put in the Constitution as a protection. If this Government should win this issue and create a precedent, this great safeguard, this great protection for the Australian people will be taken away. We are fighting more than an election issue. We are fighting for the preservation of decent government and the preservation of our Constitution. When this megalomaniac decides that he can override the Constitution we have a dangerous man in charge of this country. This move must be fought by every loyal Australian. We cannot let him just treat the Senate with contempt, which is what he is doing. His statement last Saturday in which he said ‘The GovernorGeneral will take advice from me and me alone’ was an act of intimidation of the GovernorGeneral. The Governor-General certainly should listen to the Prime Minister. It is his duty to get advice from the Prime Minister but it also is his duty to get advice from the greatest constitutional advisers of this country. This man, the Prime Minister, is leading the Labor Party to destruction. It is well known that the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron) said in Caucus only 2 weeks ago that every major crisis that the Party had confronted was caused by its Prime Minister. This Prime Minister is not a Labor Prime Minister’s boot lace. Let us look at some of the crises we have gone through. Who was the man -

Mr Mathews:

– I take a point of order. Is it in order for the Leader of the National Country Party to stand there and lie his head off to the House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-No point of order is involved. The honourable member for Casey should withdraw the term ‘lie’ which he knows is unparliamentary.

Mr Mathews:

– I withdraw it.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I am glad that I am getting through to the consciences of some of the Labor men in this House because they will have to answer in the long run. They will have to answer for this man who has caused all the industrial trouble in factories by his 3 revaluations, by his obsession to apply his academic principles to the economy of this country, by his across-the-board tariff cuts which put thousands of people out of work in this country. This is the man who belittled his former deputy Prime Minister, Mr Barnard, to the point of utter frustration and disillusionment. That man had to resign from this Parliament and take an overseas position. This Prime Minister had to push Senator Murphy upstairs into the High Court. He is the man who confronted the former Speaker, and that was a sad day for democracy in this House. The Prime Minister used the weight of numbers to completely over-ride him. This is the man who belittled the former Treasurer, Mr Crean, and demoted him. I am pleased to say that he was reinstated by the decent elements within the Party.

This is the man who, as a leader, did not even have the decency to try to get Jim Cairns out of his problems over the Morosi affair. If he was a leader’s boot lace he would have gone up, patted Jim on the shoulder and said: ‘Listen Jim, ease up a bit.’ But what did he do? He sat back and let him be the laughing stock of the nation while he had a letter in his possession for 2 months and then used it as the excuse for dumping him. This is the man who now is dumping the former Minister for Minerals and Energy. He let him go on these operations to borrow money overseas. The former Minister believed he had the full authority of the Prime Minister. Now the Prime Minister has dumped him.

How can honourable members opposite expect any loyalty out of this sort of man. They are blindly following him and letting their Party be destroyed. It will be destroyed because the Australian people will not allow the Senate to have its authority taken from it. If the Prime Minister wins on this issue the Senate ‘s teeth will be pulled out. It no longer will be able to apply the brake and the restriction which there must be if there is a government with an obsession to push its centralist and socialist views on the Australian people. If the Government diminishes the powers of the Senate by its action it will crumble its real authority as a States House. If the Government does that it will not be revolution that it will bring about in this country; it will bring about the secession of the weaker States who must have representation in the Senate in order to be able to exercise some of their authority. We will find that Tasmania will want to go on its own and, goodness me, I can understand it doing so under the present regime. I could understand Western Australia doing so and I could understand Queenland doing so. This man says that the power of the Senate should be taken from it and it should be smashed. He says that it should not have the right of being able to challenge the bad, corrupt and scandalous government that we have in Australia today.

Well, the challenge is on. We will take this Government on if it wants to corrupt and break the Constitution because in the long term the message will get through to the Australian people. The Government might be able to engender fear and it might be able to misrepresent with the support of some of the dishonest elements in the media but we will get our story across because we will get out on the highways and byways and tell the people openly what sort of Prime Minister we have and where he is leading this country.

Mrs CHILD:
Henry

-It is a measure of the concern that the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) feels that he abandoned the set speech that he uses on every occasion to get set into Mr Whitlam, the Prime Minister. I remind the Leader of the National Country Party that he is not taking on the Government over this issue, he is taking on the people of Australia and there is a big difference. In line with many thousands of fellow Australians, I also am extremely distressed that the Opposition in the Senate has acted in the way it has acted. I believe it has a clear responsibility to the people of Australia to make sure that political opportunism does not rebound on the people. It is the people who elect us and they must be our first responsibility. It is obvious that they are not regarded in that way by the Opposition when the Leader of the National Country Party says that he will take on the Government in the streets or anywhere we like. It is the people of Australia that we are talking about. I spoke on this subject in the Grievance debate about a fortnight ago. I am not sure whether I am a prophet but I then said:

From 2 December 1972 the freely elected government of this country, elected under the same system as every other government, that is, elected to serve for 3 years, has never been free from threat from the Opposition which has never been prepared to see itself as an Opposition.

The present Opposition sat on the treasury bench for 23 years. (Quorum formed) On 18 May 1974 the Labor Party was again elected to govern and since then we have had exactly the same pattern of lawlessness emanating from the Opposition benches. We have seen the procession of leaders throughout the Liberal-Country Party coalition over the past years since the resignation of Sir Robert Menzies and we have seen also the coalition’s slow disintegration. What I want to say today is that this is no longer just a political conflict between Labor and Liberal. It is no longer a conflict between conservative and progressive. It is no longer a conflict between tory and socialist. It is not a conflict between left and right. Very simply, it is a struggle to protect our Australian way of life, to protect our democratic parliamentary system and to maintain stability in government. The people in the streets have shown their concern for stability in government. Many of them are not Labor supporters and they may not vote Labor when we go to the polls in 1977 but they are determined to protect a way of life that has served us well.

I urge the Senate to pay attention to its own role. It cannot continue to claim that it is the States House of review, that it represents the

States’ rights, and then usurp the long established convention that the people’s house governs. To delay or defer money Bills is not the normal work of the Senate. We have a responsibility in this House to protect our system of democracy. The disruption to administration and to funding could cause hardship for many people. It could cause hardship at the time of the year when most people are winding down for the holiday period, preparing to relax over the Christmas holidays. This is the time of the year when people like to have just those few extra luxuries. They go away for their holidays and require just that little bit more. But this is not going to happen this year. It is not going to happen because of the tactics of the Opposition in the Senate.

Deferring the Budget will have the same effect on those dependent on government finance as a straight out rejection. I admit that it would have taken a lot more courage to reject the Budget. I accept the fact that the Opposition in the Senate did nor reject the Budget but deferred it. As a result of this action councils will have to wait for their money, voluntary organisations will have to wait on finance and many people who have arranged bridging finance will find themselves in trouble. Those who are waiting on defence service loans also are going to find themselves in trouble. Medibank payments could be disrupted. There are so many ramifications from this Senate action that could flow right through the community.

The business of government should not be disrupted in this way. The Senate has a role to play as the House of review and it should not take unto itself the role of disrupting the work of the elected government. It should not disrupt our established system of government. I believe that the system which is based on the principle that governments operate through the House of Representatives has served us well over many years. This is the people’s House. It is the House where the will of the people is heard. If we are to stand by and watch the system destroyed we are all under threat. If we are to be forced to the polls whenever an Opposition thinks it can win a ballot, we are in jeopardy. If we are to face yearly elections, we are facing bargain basement government.

Elections are due in May 1977. This is when the voice of the people should be heard. The Leader of the National Country Party kept telling us to go to the people. We have been to the people twice in 3 years. How often do we have to go to the people? Liberal-Country Party governments went to the people once every 3 years. Are there new rules drawn up when Labor comes into office? We believe that this is a responsible Budget and that it should be allowed to pass. We believe also that the path the Opposition has set us on is a path fraught with destruction. Conventions and precedents cannot be broken lightly. Governments simply cannot submit to blackmail. I quote the following passage to honourable members:

If the Parliament becomes unworkable by destruction of convention, democracy itself becomes unworkable because democracy rests much more on adherence to convention than to the rigid application of rules and laws.

They are not my words, although I heartily concur with them, but the words used by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) during a radio talk on 2 March this year. I think it is extraordinary to find the extent to which his attitude to democracy has been white-anted since then.

I refer also to something that was said by the Leader of the National Country Party. If the right honourable member is taking any comfort to his heart from the results of the elections in Queensland and Bass- and it is in line with the thinking of members of the National Country Party always to live in the past and to be guided by the principle of ‘do not get a new thought; it might frighten you’- he should have been on the steps of Parliament House today after he left what was the Liberal and National Country Parties’ rally outside this House and was booed across to and up the steps because the Prime Minister then came out on to the steps. The people outside the House were not our people. We did not organise this rally. The Leader of the National Country Party said: ‘They know the Prime Minister’. They do know the Prime Minister and that is why they are calling: ‘We want Gough’. It will be of no comfort to the right honourable member to look back to Bass or to look back to South Australia where Labor still holds government. It will be no comfort to him to look back to what has happened in Queensland. Even the Queensland people are condemning their own Premier and their own Governor who stepped outside his correct role.

I believe that at the moment Australia is in a position of extreme danger. Once we start whiteanting away at the foundations of the democratic system, as the Opposition has been doing since 1972, it is one hop, step and a jump before the system collapses. A democratic system at any time hangs by a very fragile thread. It hangs by a thread of convention, precedent and integrity. We have seen so much of this swept aside in the last 2Vi years by the Opposition. The entire system can be under threat; it can crumble.

I reject any of the accusations made by the Leader of the National Country Party against our Ministers and what they have had to say in our Caucus room because that is where we find democracy at work. It is the place where everyone gets a vote and where the principle of one vote one value is maintained. That is what this entire struggle is really all about: It is an attempt by the National Country Party members to hang onto a system that serves them, even if it serves them at the expense of every other thinking person in Australia. We will not surrender.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I hope that the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) will not regard it as a discourtesy on my part if I excuse myself from dealing with all of the arguments which she has pressed upon us. I wish I could join with the honourable lady in regarding this debate as a debate which were to be restricted solely to consideration of the constitutional structure of this country and the relationship of the 2 Houses one to the other. May I say for myself that I would do nothing which would in any way diminish the authority of this chamber.

Mr Hurford:

– What are you doing now?

Mr KILLEN:

– I wish the honourable gentleman would have some patience. I know that he has got a desperately well cultivated set of poor manners, but he should try to cultivate a little patience. Long before this country was thrust into this circumstance I examined precisely the possibility of this circumstance taking place. I did this in an article published in the Australian on 19 October 1973. I think that all honourable gentlemen and ladies, irrespective of their views, will concede that that was a date when there was no crisis, as has been described by members on both sides of the House and indeed by every editorial observer. In that article I said:

The Senate’s authority, with respect to the appropriation bills, is plainly restricted. But in ultimate terms, the Senate’s power to reject does exist.

I trust there is no ambiguity about the Senate’s power in ultimate terms. Its power to reject does exist. I would doubt very much if there would be any lawyer in the country worthy of such a description who would contest that view. The language is clear. But that rejection should be exercised only in the most exceptional of circumstance. For example, I would raise considerable argument against the proposition that it should be exercised if no double dissolution machinery were available because it would be this House, and this House only, which would go to the people. But that is not the circumstance as it exists today and the gyrations of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). endeavouring to persuade himself and his followers that he will not resort to the double dissolution provisions, shows precisely how he is on occasions encouraged to take views which are thoroughly reckless and, beyond that, which are taken up merely by dint of political expediency.

All that the Prime Minister has said this afternoon would operate in a circumstance of normalcy. But the fact of life is that this country today is not operating in a circumstance of normalcy. This country is now confronted with what I unhesitatingly describe as a dishonest Government. We have had 2 Ministers sacked because their leader said that they had misled him. The House will recall that in a Press statement issued by the Prime Minister on 14 October 1975, and given outside this House mark you, the following comment was made:

Yesterday I received from solicitors in Melbourne a copy of a statutory declaration signed by Mr Khemlani and copies of a number of telex messages between Mr Khemlani ‘s office in London and the office of the Minister for Minerals and Energy.

In my judgment these messages did constitute ‘communications of substance’ between the Minister and Mr Khemlani.

And what followed? The Minister for Minerals and Energy was dismissed.

Mr Duthie:

– He resigned.

Mr KILLEN:

– It is all very fine for the honourable member for Wilmot to say that he resigned. The fact is that the Prime Minister said: ‘It was my painful duty’- that was his description of it- ‘to ask the honourable gentleman to go’. The honourable member for Cunningham lost his ministerial office not on the evidence produced by any person on this side, not by dint of any charge made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser), not by anything said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) or by myself. The honourable member for Cunningham lost his ministerial office because of evidence produced to the country by Mr Khemlani. Mr Khemlani, in ultimate terms, was the Prime Minister’s witness.

That being the case, I will submit to the House that the Prime Minister knew that between 20 May and 10 June 1975 the honourable member for Cunningham, the former Minister for Minerals and Energy, still had an authority to negotiate for loans. I go further and say that the Prime Minister in fact had said to the Minister for Minerals and Energy: ‘If you raise a loan an

Executive Council minute will be drawn to cover it. ‘ I suggest further that on Monday, 20 October, an interview was conducted between a gentleman of the Press and the Prime Minister’s own witness, Mr Khemlani, the man who caused the Minister for Minerals and Energy to lose his office. It was not caused by dint of any charge made on this side. Among other things, this was said:

Interviewer. And after May 20 did Mr Connor still refer alleged negotiations to the Prime Minister?

Mr Khemlani: Yes, because during our discussions on the telephone Mr Connor used to point out to me that the Prime Minister had been particularly informed and was waiting for the confirmation of funds to come through.

Interviewer After May 20?

Mr Khemlani: Oh yes. When it was a matter of confirming the funds at any time, and then we had delays and therefore Mr Connor used to say that we are keeping the Prime Minister late in the Parliament House or even at home.

The Prime Minister’s own witness makes the Prime Minister out to be utterly dishonest in this respect. Today he was asked 3 questions on this matter and he refused to answer the questions.,

I invite honourable gentlemen sitting on the government benches to go through this transcript of the Khemlani interview. If they can get from it any message of comfort all I can say is that thenintellect has been dulled to an extraordinary degree. Let us take another excerpt from it:

Interviewer When Mr Connor resigned, you expressed shock and surprise and I think you also said that you believed he was a scapegoat for the Government. Would you comment on that?

Mr Khemlani: Yes, now when at the time when the news came to me, of course it was expected in view of the declaration and the proof which I gave that somebody would have to come forward and say that he did it and the only person who could was Mr Connor. Now whether the Prime Minister was going to stand by and support and protect him was a thing I had expected to do because I know in my mind that Prime Minister knew of my negotiations of my continuation of the loan arrangement with Mr Connor all along.

There it is again. So is this now the position: For the purposes of political convenience the Prime Minister will accept the evidence of Mr Khemlani to sack one of his Ministers but for the purposes of -

Mr Howard:

– His own survival.

Mr KILLEN:

– … for the purposes of his own survival he will dismiss Mr Khemlani; for the purposes of personal culpability Mr Khemlani is an unfavourable, an unaccepted witness; for the purposes of getting rid of one of his own Ministers he is a completely acceptable witness? Mr Khemlani said that he expected the Prime Minister would support one of his own Ministers. The only support the Prime Minister will give to any of his friends, and indeed to any of his Ministers, is the same sturdy support that the gallows will give to one of its victims. I go a little further in the matter of asserting that the Prime Minister knew that this authority still continued. Again it is not my contention, it is the contention of none other than one of his own Ministers. What I am asserting to this House is that this dishonest Government has deliberately misled this House as to the full ramifications of this loans scandal. I come to the present Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron), who said on 9 July -

Mr Duthie:

– Not one cent changed hands. What a scandal!

Mr KILLEN:

-I think that the honourable member for Wilmot needs to be put under a little sedation. The truth hurts him when it comes out. His will be one of the first electorates to which I will go down and tell the truth. On 9 July 1975 the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, Mr Clyde Cameron -

Mr Duthie:

– Fancy Khemlani- a bankrupt he is.

Mr KILLEN:

– I remind the honourable member for Wilmot that Christ drove the money lenders from the temple. The Government which he supports would have them in control of the Cabinet room. On 9 July 1975 Mr Clyde Cameron said:

The honourable member is complaining only that it is not there. I can tell this House that I am certain that the money is there and I am certain that before very long the Minister for Minerals and Energy will be vindicated; he will be able to come into this House with the $4 billion in his hand, obtained at the rate of interest that I have mentioned. I believe that he will bring it off.

So the position is that one of the Ministers on 9 July- not on 20 May, not on 10 June, but on 9 July- believed that the Minister for Minerals and Energy still held authority to negotiate loans.

Mr Whan:

– He did not say that.

Mr KILLEN:

– What some honourable gentlemen appear to misunderstand is that the Executive Council minute relating to the $2,000m loan had been revoked but a general ostensible authority to raise loans which the Prime Minister had conferred on the Minister for Minerals and Energy still existed, hence the Prime Minister said to the honourable gentleman: ‘Well, if you raise the money we will get an Executive Council minute to cover it. ‘ But on 9 July the Minister for Science said that he still had authority. Which is it to be? Do honourable gentlemen say that on 9 July the Minister for Science was misinformed? Do they say that on 9 July the Minister for Science misunderstood the position? That was the not some chance remark made by some private member of the Parliament; it was made by a very senior and very experienced member of the Parliament. On 9 July this year the Minister said that the Minister for Minerals and Energy still had authority. That is the only conclusion to be drawn from it. One may well ask: Did the Prime Minister send for the Minister for Science and say to him: ‘What is this you say about the Minister for Minerals and Energy being vindicated? There is no scope for or possibility of his being vindicated because he has no authority to raise loans’. The honourable gentleman said at the Press conference on 10 June 1975 that all authority had been revoked, when in fact the authority subsisted.

There are 2 sources to assert that. There is the source of Mr Clyde Cameron, a Minister in the Government, and the source of Mr Khemlani whose evidence was acceptable to the Prime Minister to the extent that he was able to hang yet another of his Ministers in the sake of expediency, in the sake of convenience. If this were a matter of dealing with great constitutional principle that would be enough to attract our vigour and our attention, but the issue facing this country at this time is whether Australia can tolerate for another 18 months a government that is deeply steeped in dishonesty.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Administrative Services and Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– The speech of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) must be amongst the most remarkable ever made in this Parliament. We are debating one of the most reprehensible acts that any Senate or any parties have ever perpetrated in this country, yet the honourable member made a speech without mentioning it. And why should he not make such a speech? He is a significantly unfortunate choice as a speaker for the Opposition on this matter. The Senate has stopped Supply. It has not voted against it; it has deferred it. There is very little courage on the other side. What little there is has been pepped up and hounded along by the members of the National Country Party who will do anything for political survival. I shall quote an article of the honourable member for Moreton published in the Australian on 19 October 1973. This is what he said about governments in this place.

Mr James:

– Who said this?

Mr DALY:

– This was written by the honourable member who has just spoken. I quote him:

While it commands respect in the House of Representatives a government has a right to be granted supply. And this applies to all governments no matter what their politics.

He then went on to say:

The Senate has a right to reject Bills which enable the provisions relating to a double dissolution to take force. A supply or appropriation Bill is not in that category.

He then said:

If, in their anxiety for power, men lose sight of great principles they can put at risk the safety of their institutions.

On 22 July, again in the Australian, he was reported in an article headed:

Senate has delusions, says Killen.

He was pretty right. He said:

I have made my attitude quite clear, that refusal of Supply to force an election is not the Senate ‘s right.

Is this the gentleman we just heard speaking? We have another article. The honourable member is like all writers. They write too much, and fellows like me save up the articles. An article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 1 April 1974, alongside the honourable member’s beautiful smiling countenance giving gravity to the situation, in a way. The honourable gentleman said:

The Senate has the power to force the House of Representatives to the people, but the House of Representatives cannot force the Senate to the people. Such a notion was never within the contemplation of the founders of the Commonwealth Constitution. It is a proposition which the overwhelming majority of Australians would regard as absurd.

This was said by the shadow minister for defence, the honourable gentleman who has just spoken. In another article which appeared on 3 January 1975 in the Australian-! have become a contributor to the Australian because these articles are so valuable to me in debates of this kind- he said:

A Senate rejection of supply would place at risk the maintenance of constitutional government in this country.

Is this the gentleman who just spoke? Why did he not mention the measure we are debating? Why would he not avoid it if he could? In this article he wrote:

Surely the role for the Liberal Party in 1975 is clear. It is to proclaim its basic philosophic conviction that the importance of the individual is not diminished by the power of the State, to assert the essentials of its association -

And so on and so forth. Now, in a most contemptible way- I am sorry to say it- he is singing for his supper to keep in the shadow ministry. Why would he not sing for his supper? The other night in this Parliament he said that the last Prime Minister who patted him on the head sacked him. That was the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon). I warn the honourable member, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) patted him on the head the other night and history may repeat itself. So I say to the honourable gentleman: ‘Be careful. You have spoken from experience. A gentle pat like one would give to a tabby cat may spell doom and destruction for you’. The honourable member would know all about sacking because his Party started it in this country. The present Leader of the Opposition, with others, destroyed the Prime Minister of the day, the right honourable John Gorton, who still stands as the best Liberal in this Parliament, even though the Liberals will not have him.

The Liberals know all about the use of knives because the Leader of the Party opposite trains on the use of knives. It is said that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a golden dagger in his hand. The Liberal Party changed its Ministers so often that they got pass-out checks to get in and out. These are the people who talk about changes of the Ministry. The honourable member for Moreton completely destroyed the Liberal’s case today. He is a front bench member and one whom we thought had political integrity and who would stand up and support the constitutional process of Australia. But now those people who sit in the National Country Party corner have the Liberals fearful of the things that they could do. We see the spectacle today of the Liberals out in this country organising meetings with the lovely ladies with their balloons, the dear old souls of the knitting circles who love Malcolm Fraser, the wealthy squire.

Outside Parliament House today they regimented them in their hundreds- or their thousands as they say- but when the Liberals got to the meeting they found that the people were all in support of the Labor Government and the constitutional stand we are taking. The 5 Liberal speakers, aided and abetted by the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) and others, could speak for only 40 minutes to an audience that, if they had been good speakers or if the audience had been with them, would have waited for a couple of hours. Then those speakers sneaked like poodle dogs back into the House, sent by their masters to come in here to try to put up a case for the actions of the Opposition.

The Liberal Party does not have support on its side. Think of the 20 000 people who lined up to hear the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in Melbourne, the thousands in Adelaide and the thousands in Sydney and other places who are clamouring to support the cause. The people outside this House ought to remember that this is not a new idea. The Opposition has never realised that it is not the Government. At 2 elections in 18 months it was beaten. From the very moment the people spoke in 1972 the Opposition plotted to stop Supply in an unconstitutional way in the Senate. In relation to the first threat to block Supply which resulted in a double dissolution, Senator Withers said that the action had been plotted 12 or 18 months before. The right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden) as Leader of the Opposition tried and failed- he was forced into it by the National Country Party- as this Leader will fail who blithely follows the philosophy or the stand over tactics of the National Country Party.

The honourable member who leads those opposite was elected as a man of principle. He is on record as saying that he favours a 4-year term of office. But history has shown that he is not a man of principle. The right honourable member for Higgins knows full well the qualities of the Leader of the Opposition for what they are. He had to put up with the present Leader of the Opposition for years. He had him in the Ministry. I do not have to state this side of the matter. When the former Leader of the Opposition said his followers would walk over hot coals for him, this gentleman is not one who walked over hot coals; e would not even walk over wet grass at Randwick at the rally that the previous Leader of the Opposition had there.

The Opposition says it has a majority in the Senate. Australian Labor Party candidates at the last Senate election got more votes than candidates of all the other parties. Twenty-nine Labor senators, 29 Opposition senators and 2 Independent senators were elected. The Opposition does not even control the Senate in its own right. As Senator Steele Hall said, Opposition senators are walking with a dead man’s vote in their pockets and trying to force out a constitutionally elected government. Even the honourable member for Moreton said that while we have a majority in this Parliament we should not be forced to face the Australian people at the behest of the Senate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you know as well as I do that members of the Opposition are defying all conventions in another place by rejecting Supply. The casual Senate vacancies were filled by people who according to the manner in which they were appointed, have no more right to be members of the Senate than any person in this House has. In real anarchical style members of the Opposition are now advising the various State governments not to issue writs for a half Senate election. I suppose one could not blame our forefathers. Nobody could ever have realised that an individual like Bjelke-Petersen would ever be elected as a premier. One could not blame our forefathers for what is happening today. But had they known that that type of individual would ever gain power in a government I am certain they would have rewritten the Constitution.

We are not supported in this great issue only by Australian Labor Party members of Parliament or the great majority of the Australian people. Senator Steele Hall, who boasts that. he is the only Liberal in the Senate, a former Liberal Premier, supports us. The right honourable member for Higgins, a former Liberal Prime Minister, supports the Australian Labor Party in its attitude today, and Senator Bunton also supports us. These 3 individuals have condemned the Opposition throughout the length and breadth of this country as destroying the very institution of Parliament. Let us have a look at the newspapers. As was mentioned today by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), the Liberal Party is spending $30,000 a day in newspaper advertisements to put its case over. The Liberal Party says that it must do what it is doing to revive Australia- the editorials of the Courier Mail, the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Advertiser, the Australian and the Melbourne Herald say so. My heavens, we are going to have a government that will change its policy every time a leading article in a newspaper changes.

I will tell honourable members opposite why they are following the papers’ pattern: Because they are paying the newspapers $30,000 a day, or nearly $lm a month, to destroy a government unconstitutionally and they are giving support to that action. As the Prime Minister stated a moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition rang every newspaper before he would even speak on these issues in this Parliament. Consequently it is no wonder the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) condemns the action of the Liberal Party when it says that it has a mandate to destroy a government. Senator Steele Hall condemns this action. No wonder 20 000 or 25 000 people in Melbourne condemned it. No wonder the only ones in this country who think honourable members opposite are right because they will come at anything are that coalition section, the National Country Party, in this Parliament. If as the Prime Minister said, honourable members opposite were to read today’s Melbourne Herald and other newspapers they would find that they have completely miscalculated the temper of the Australian people. The Australian People do not want an election every time a Senate seems to be different from the Government of the day in the House of Representatives. They do not want an election every 6 months. They are not prepared to accept that type of policy which was never intended by the founders of our Constitution.

Today we heard in this Parliament one of the most bitter and hateful speeches that I suppose has ever been delivered with bias and venom in every word spoken against the Prime Minister by the Leader of the National Country Party. The Leader of the National Country Party never realised that the people do not want him in government. He has been beaten on 2 occasions in 18 months. I think he stays awake at night wondering and pondering how he can destroy this Government irrespective of the will of the people. The National Country Party will stop at nothing to gain power. Members of the National Country Party think that they have a divine right to rule. The tame, docile members of the Liberal Party- I congratulate them- every time the National Country Party speaks, run like rabbits to their burrows because for some reason or other they are scared stiff of a selection of people who get 10 per cent of the votes and have 20 per cent of the power in this Parliament. Last year the Leader of the National Country Party took credit for the double dissolution election on 18 May. But when the result of the election finished up in mid-air and Labor was returned to power, he said: ‘Do not blame me’. The National Country Party claims to represent the country people when in fact it represents mineral cartels and huge multi-national corporations. National Country Party spokesmen in this Parliament are nothing better than paid lackeys for the huge oil companies in this country as well as the multinational organisations. The Party which is trying to force this issue today exists on rigged and loaded electoral boundaries. It is opposed to the principle of one vote one value. Honourable members opposite sell their principles, like the honourable member for Moreton in order to seek power by any means no matter what that does to the Australian people.

This constitutional issue transcends all politics. That is proved by the people who are flocking to Labor Party rallies and the acclaim given to the Prime Minister today. Why should we organise meetings- (Quorum formed). No matter what might happen to the Australian people on this issue, the full responsibility lies with those opposite. If pensions are stopped, if the pay of people is stopped, if debts cannot be paid, those who sit opposite can remedy this by passing the Budget in another place. Honourable members opposite are the guilty men. Let them stand up and be counted and not be dominated by the National Country Party, of which they are so afraid.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-During question time, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) insinuated that I was lending myself to a task. I suppose that he was saying that I was lending myself to a task which I was not behind. After I ceased to be Solicitor-General of this great nation and became a member of this House I quickly learned about the incompetence of this Government. For many months I watched the Government’s incompetence. I watched it last September; I watched it into March. I watched a Minister dismissed and I watched another Minister dismissed. Then came the events of 9 July last. That was when I resolved, in no uncertain terms, to throw myself behind the throwing out of this. Government as soon as possible. That day and the documents produced revealed the greatest dishonesty that one could ever find in government. I saw the situation then, I said so then and I made a charge then. I appealed to honourable members opposite to set up a ,royal commission because I wanted some questions answered. I did not want a government that was disreputable or dishonest. I wanted a government that was decent. I would not mind a little bit of incompetence, but I did not want dishonesty for a moment. I wanted a royal commission. No trumped up situation in the Senate did I want. I wanted a royal commission where people and Ministers could appear and give thenevidence and clear up this terrible mess.

I do not lend myself to this task except for the purpose of throwing out a government that is dishonest and disreputable. Let me say this: It did not end last Tuesday, and honourable members opposite know that it did not end. Do Government supporters want us to go on dragging out the evidence day after day? I tell them that it will go on because this affair is the most rotten thing that has happened in this country since Federation. A Minister was dismissed last week- and Government supporters should not talk about resignation because there is no doubt that he was dismissed. The Prime Minister said:

I advised the Governor-General to accept the Minister’s resignation because I do not believe in the accuracy of the assurance which the Minister gave me that all communications of substance between him and Mr Khemlani were tabled by him on 9 July last.

Those telexes have been accepted by the Prime Minister. I hope that every Government supporter has read them and has a series of dates written down as to when various things happened, because one of the telexes shows that either the Prime Minister knew what was happening or the former Minister for Minerals and Energy was party to a shabby fraud.

If Government supporters do not believe me, I shall read what I mean. Mr Khemlani sent this telex to Mr Connor on 23 May 1975: . . . yesterday the Financial Times’ published the following article on page six ‘that the Government Executive Council had revoked the authority to borrow money’

The truth was out in London, in other words.

This caused the owners and the Prince a bit of upset and his advisor informed him on the phone in Saudi Arabia and therefore some special questions and demands were made in the meeting and I informed them of my position and my sure answer was that the Government -

Listen to this: . . . is ready to borrow and that this article had nothing to do with the particular transaction and that this was the matter of transaction with Moscow bank.

Every one of us knows that that is not true. He went on to say that he was going to put in a bank guarantee in order to assure those lenders that there was authority from the Australian Government. The Minister stood by and allowed that to happen, and that guarantee was given, as these documents show. I do not for one moment lay a charge against the former Minister for Minerals and Energy, because I believe that what the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) said was true. I believe that on 23, 24 and 25 May the Prime Minister knew well that these discussions were going on and that there were matters passing between Mr Connor and Mr Khemlani. Yet this morning in question time he hedged about, would not answer and said that he had answered. If we take his answer at its face, it says: ‘I did not know anything after 20 May’. It is a pretty serious thing if the Prime Minister did in fact know of these discussions. I want it answered.’ I wanted it answered on 9 July and I have wanted it answered since. I do not want a disreputable Government, but believing that it is and feeling that it is, I will lend my weight to every attempt to throw it out.

The Prime Minister said in question time that I was not born in 1911. He thought that I might not have heard of Asquith. But I had heard of Asquith when I was a little boy. What I learned about Asquith was that Asquith had the courage to face the people. When the House of Lords rejected the finance Bills in 1907 or 1909, or whenever it was, he went to the people. That is the thing that honourable members opposite have to do now- go to the people. Let them have no doubt about it- they are going. I say to honourable members opposite: Do not imagine that any man behind me or any man in the other place is going to let our side down, because he is not. You are going to the people in this sorry situation. The longer you delay and the longer you allow the demagogue to control you, the worse it will be for the Labor Party, and have no doubt about it. I believe that sitting on the Government front bench are honest men who have doubts in their minds about all this, who are asking questions and who will look at the documents to which I have referred. There are men, if I can use the statement of the old poet, who can stand before a demagogue and damn his treacherous flattery. That is what the Prime Minister is doing to you now- flattering you. You will damn his treacherous flattery, if you take my advice.

Let us go on to something else. Throughout the last few days we have had nothing in this country but people on the other side, on public platforms and in this House, creating a situation of grave fear and grave crisis. There is no crisis whatsoever.

Mr Cohen:

– You mealy-mouthed hypocrite.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– There is no constitutional crisis in this country at all.

Mr Cohen:

– You puffed up phoney.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– The Constitution provides -

Mr Cohen:

– You are a pain in the arse.

Mr ELLICOTT:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I heard something:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! I ask the honourable member for Robertson to withdraw those words.

Mr Cohen:

– What should I withdraw?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I do not intend to repeat them.

Mr Cohen:

– I withdraw them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think the honourable member for Robertson should also apologise to the House.

Mr Cohen:

– I apologise to the House.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– We have had enough of Labor Larrikinism It also took place on the Senate side of the building last week with the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. If he comes into this House he will be up for contempt if he says the same thing here as he said there, have no doubt.

Mr Whan:

– But the senator would not say outside what he said about him.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Let him say it in the precincts of this House and it will happen, too, my friend. What I am saying is that honourable members opposite have been creating fear in this community when there is no constitutional crisis. The fact quite clearly is that the Prime Minister has a role to perform now. He knows quite well that in the other place the Budget has been in substance rejected. Honourable members opposite know it. This is just a play. This is just a game. Every day the Prime Minister delays the closer he puts the people of this country and the public servants in peril. The Constitution provides a process that can be followed. That simple process is for the Prime Minister to get in his car, go out to Yarralumla and sit down and discuss the matter with the Governor-General. There is only one piece of proper advice for him to give the Governor-General, and that is to dissolve this House or to have a double dissolution. There is no question about that. There is no question whatsoever that that is the proper thing for the Prime Minister to do. I have little doubt that he will not do it. We know that by the way he has been going on here and on television- the irrational stance, these eyes that flash in defiance of the Australian Constitution. That is what is happening. Day after day it has been happening. He is implanting fear into our people when there is no need for fear. The Prime Minister has it clearly in his hands to go to the GovernorGeneral at any time, to give the right advice and let us go off to the people. That is all we are asking. We are not asking for the seats opposite. What we are asking is that this dishonest government go and account to the people.

As I said before, I will not let a stone be unturned until the Government goes to the people. But in the whole of that I will stick to what is proper and what is right. Nothing that has been done so far on our side is not proper, is not right. The Governor-General clearly has a power to dismiss his Ministers. The Prime Minister says: ‘The Governor-General has to do what I say’. If I wanted to I could quote 10 or 15 leading constitutional authorities. They are all quoted in Dr Evatt’s book. They are all there. The Prime Minister knows they are there. They all say that the Governor-General has a reserve power in these circumstances. What a terrible disgrace it would be if the moment has to come in our country when the Governor-General is even forced into thinking about asking the Prime Minister to hand in his commission. There is no need for this embarrassment to the Crown. The Prime Minister is the one who is guilty in these circumstances. He is the one who is leading this Government, who has allowed this shadow of dishonesty to descend upon it, and he is the one who must take responsibility for the burden that the Australian people are apparently at his hands going to bear.

Honourable members opposite say that we have no charges. Let me read out a petition that was lodged in this House today. May I say that it was not prompted by me, although I presented it. It just happened to come in the mail. Let me read it. I shall not read all of it. Honourable members can read it themselves tomorrow. It refers to the events of 13 December 1974. It refers to section 86 of the Crimes Act, which provides that a person who conspires with another person to effect a purpose that is unlawful under a law of the Commonwealth or to effect a lawful purpose by means that are unlawful shall be guilty of an indictable offence. The petitioner says that he wants to take proceedings against 4 peopleEdward Gough Whitlam, Reginald Francis Xavier Connor, James Ford Cairns and the Hon. Lionel Keith Murphy. Those were 4 Minister who were present on 13 December. That petition is an attitude on the part of some members of our community. They are seeking that the documents which were laid before this House on 9 July be available in proceedings in a court of petty sessions. What a disreputable situation in which to find a government when a petition of that character has to be presented to this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Phillip · ALP

– One could listen to the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) but one could not hope to glean much from what he said. One listened with great intent when he said that he wanted a decent government and did not want a government of dishonesty. Where was he when the former Government hed and lied? Where was he when the former Government, which he now supports, lied to the Australian people on Vietnam? He owes allegiance to that Government although he was not part of it. He was one who supported the concept and still supports the concept that it was the right of the then Government, based on a he, to conscript our youth to die in the jungles of Asia, and that Government would do it again.

Mr Sullivan:

– Ha, ha.

Mr RIORDAN:

-The honourable member for Riverina laughs. He regards this matter as being funny. He is undoubtedly proud of the fact that the previous government lied, yet these are people who say they uphold the tenets of decency. Their hands are dirty. They are in no position to talk about decency. They are people who have no concept of decency or ethical standards. The honourable member for Wentworth said: ‘No man on this side will let us down’. That shows a reckless disregard for Australia, for the Australian economy and for the Australian people. All that honourable members opposite are concerned about is a cynical and ruthless snatch at power. It ill behoves those who tear up every constitutional convention and every tenet of political and constitutional decency to have the gall, the nerve and the colossal hide to talk about Labor larrikinism Surely if there is any larrikinism in this Parliament it has been shown every day of last week -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! I call the honourable member for Griffith.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I simply draw your attention to the state of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-You do not ‘simply’ draw my attention to the state of the House; you draw my attention to.the state of the House. The honourable member has been warned before.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member has been warned previously about making a speech when he draws attention to the state of the House.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I did not make a speech. Who do you think you are?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I withdraw it. . (The bells being rung)

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Griffith should rise when he addresses the Chair. If he is to withdraw a remark he should at least pay the Chair the courtesy of rising and addressing the Chair and making his withdrawal in a manner which is audible to all in the chamber.

Mr Sinclair:

– You cannot proceed while there is a quorum being called.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I thank the honourable member for that advice. (Quorum formed)

Mr RIORDAN:

-These people who lied and lied to justify the immoral conscription of Australia’s youth now say that they want a government of decency. Where are their standards? They are double standards. But they will not fool the Australian people. The honourable member for Wentworth said that the Government is implanting fear where there is no need for fear. Surely even he could not be serious in that proposition. Does he seriously suggest that the contractors who are running out of funds and the workers who are facing dismissal because of the Opposition’s wanton economic vandalism have no need to fear? He will see what their reaction is. If he has not seen it already he will see it in the near future.

The Liberal-National Country Party coalition members are guilty of political gangsterism in the extreme. They are engaged on a course of economic vandalism, and they wash their hands of it They walk away. They tried to get away with it by simply heaping abuse on the Government. They will find that they cannot snatch power in Australia and that the only way to gain election to the Government benches is to wait their turn and to submit themselves at the proper time for election by the Australian people. Their proposition is that the Government should make it easy for them and that the Government should deny those who elected it and should now give the Opposition the opportunity, if it can, to mislead the Australian people.

I was interested to note that the learned member for Wentworth, a former Solicitor-General, was very careful indeed not to become involved in the legal argument. The most significant thing about his speech is that he left out the basis of constitutional precedent for his argument. He did so because he has not got one. The Constitution simply does not contemplate a double dissolution because of a Budget rejection. He knows it; we all know it. It is about time that those people who talk about honesty show some honesty in their speeches in this Parliament. It is impossible and it is impracticable for the constitutional provisions for a double dissolution to be implemented in terms of a Budget. How could the country wait 3 months while the Senate decided that it would again reject the Budget? How could the country wait while the Parliament was dissolved and an election was held, which would take perhaps 3 months to determine? Does he seriously suggest that the founders of the Australian Constitution intended that there should be a period when the country would go a full period of 6 months- half a year- without there being an appropriation of funds? It is so ludicrous to be stupid in the extreme. The situation was not contemplated.

At the original Convention the founders of the Australian Constitution did not contemplate that there would be a rejection of a Budget by the

Senate in this Parliament. I use for the basis of that view the fact that the original Constitutional Convention had before it a specific proposal that the Senate should have power to reject a Budget. It is not in the Constitution. It was deliberately and calculatingly left out of the Australian Constitution because the founders recognised that to include such a provision would be to give a powerful and improper weapon to the House which was not the popular House.

What is the precedent that is quoted by others -not by the honourable member for Wentworth? It is said that it happened in Victoria. My attention has been drawn to section 56 of the Victorian Constitution Act. That Constitution Act provides that the Legislative Council has the right to reject a money Bill. Like the Australian Senate it has no power to alter but, unlike the Australian Senate, it has the specific power to reject. That power was specifically not included in the Australian Constitution for the Senate. I suppose we can see how clever lawyers and other people twist, weave, turn, dodge and shuffle to try to make things say what they do not say. This afternoon we have seen two eminent lawyers on the other side dart, weave, shift and shuffle in an attempt to make the Australian Constitution say what it does not say. The fact is that the Australian Constitution does not provide for, does not allow and does not specify in any way the right of the Senate to reject a money Bill. All the evidence is in favour of the proposition that it was never intended that the Senate should be able to reject a money Bill. What the Australian public is faced with is that the Australian Constitution and the conventions surrounding it have been kidnapped by the Liberal-National Country Party coalition. What have been held to ransom are the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. That is why the Australian people are turning out in their tens of thousands to voice their opposition and their disapproval of this wanton vandalism which the Opposition is trying to perpetrate on the Australian community.

Let there be no doubt about who is responsible for the suffering which is about to descend on the Australian public. Honourable members opposite said in their advertisements- paid for undoubtedly by foreign interests- ‘We must do it’. Let there be no doubt that in every newspaper in which a full page advertisement appeared the Liberal and National Country parties have taken full responsibility for the action which is to occur. We know that this campaign is very expensive. There used to be a time, whenever Labor suggested social reform, the Liberals would say: ‘Where is the money coming from?’ Now we can ask where their money is coming from to pay for this campaign. We know where it is coming from. They refused and voted against legislation in this Parliament designed to allow the Australian community to see where the money is coming from. They are the guilty men. They are the men who oppose legislation to require the disclosure of funds. We see the reason why. They said in effect that their donors were ashamed of them just as they are ashamed of the donors of their funds. They refused to disclose their donors because they are financed by foreign owned corporations which cannot wait to get their grubby, avaricious hands on Australia’s natural resources. They want to plunder Australia the same as they did when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in control of this country.

Prevarication, fabrication, distortion and suppression of truth are no enemies of the LiberalNational Country Party coalition. They are not weapons that honourable members opposite shy away from. Honourable members opposite will say or do anything to try to discredit this Government. Even this afternoon in this Parliament the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made a false accusation, an accusation which is stupid, against me. He misquoted a former Minister, a man who is no longer alive, as saying that Australians should not become a nation of little capitalists. He went on, having made that calumny, to attack me, saying that I said: ‘We are going to make them a nation of littler capitalists’the Leader of the Opposition did not learn much at Oxford- ‘6 squares is enough’. He falsely attributed that statement to me. It is a false and malicious statement without any foundation in fact. He might be interested to know that no building authority in Australia will allow the construction of a dwelling smaller than 7½ squares. I forgive him for his ignorance, but I would hope that he would at least give me credit to know that much. I never made that statement or anything that resembled it but that presented no difficulty or inhibition to the Liberals of this country. They will falsify, misrepresent, prevaricate and fabricate in order to suit their miserable purposes.

The Liberals said that under Labor home ownership had fallen from 72% per cent to 68.7 per cent. The figures are right but the period is wrong. Those figures referred to the fall in home ownership between 1966 and 1971. They will say anything and do anything to try to discredit this Government. This Government has been elected twice by the Australian people. This Government was elected in May of last year and more people voted for Labor senators than for senators of all of the other parties combined. That is a fact that honourable members opposite and this Parliament must face up to. The Liberals do not have a mandate to misuse the Senate. The Liberals, by conniving, by distorting the ballot papers and by arranging for excess numbers of candidates, with no possible hope of and no interest in being elected, were able to get an increase in the informal vote thereby gaining a better position. Then they break every convention to try to manipulate a majority. Let there be no doubt that these are the people who are responsible for any chaos which ensues.

Australians, if they want leadership, will not turn to the bikie grazier. They know his form. He is now entering the valley of death. He will find himself in a dark gully before long and he will find that the assassin’s dagger which he wielded so efficiently himself will transfer to other hands. He is a man who destroyed others and he himself will be destroyed, if not by his own party, by the Australian people who will not tolerate vandalism and will not tolerate irresponsibility.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 58

NOES: 55

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Malcolm Fraser’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 58

NOES: 55

Majority…….. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the motion (Mr Whitlam’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 58

NOES: 55

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

page 2329

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr Morrison) proposed:

That orders of the day Nos 2 to 6, Government Business, be postponed until a later hour this day. (Quorum formed)

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 53

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2330

LOAN BILL 1975

Senate Resolution

Consideration of Senate ‘s message No. 275.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That the House of Representatives having considered Message No. 275 of the Senate asserts that the action of the Senate in delaying the passage of the Loan Bill 197S for the reasons given in the Senate resolution is contrary to the accepted means of financing a major portion of the Defence Budget of this country and therefore requests the Senate to reconsider and pass the Bill without delay.
  2. That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution.

It is significant that the first Bill associated with this year’s Budget that the Opposition, in its grab for power, should seize upon to achieve its purposes was a Bill for an Act to authorise the raising and expending of moneys for defence purposes. It has, by its actions, deliberately sought to sabotage Australia’s defence.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Get out.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member for Griffith interjects again when walking around the floor of the chamber he will not be warned. He was warned about it the other night and that will not happen again.

Mr MORRISON:

-I repeat that the Opposition by its actions has deliberately sought to sabotage Australia’s defence. Senator Withers, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, made this clear on 15 October when revealing the Opposition’s tactics. On that occasion he said:

I speak on this Bill rather than Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) because the Loan Bill 1975 presently before the Senate is inextricably linked with Appropriation Bill (No. 1). In view of the announcement made by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Fraser, this afternoon I thought I ought at the earliest opportune time in the Senate put down the Opposition’s view on the Loan Bill 1975, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) 1975-76 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76.

The method implicit in the Bill for funding defence expenditure has been used by a succession of governments for decades. The Bill is in similar form to that introduced into this House by previous governments in 1968, 1969 and 1970. I would like to quote to the House what was said by no less an authority than the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) when he was Treasurer. In introducing the Loan (Defence) Bill 1968 he said:

It is our usual practice -

That is the usual practice of the Liberal and Country parties- to charge part of our defence expenditure in the Loan Fund when loan proceeds are not adequate to finance the excess of expenditure over receipts.

Loan Bills have never before been questioned or challenged in this House or in the Senate. The Bill should be seen as a mechanical measure to meet the legal and constitutional requirements associated with financing the Government’s defence transactions. The Opposition has not only chosen to disregard previous practices -

Mr Innes:

– I rise on a point of order. I ask for your ruling, Mr Speaker. Is it the prerogative of the Deputy Opposition Whip to direct people out of the chamber whilst a member is on his feet speaking?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is not in a position to know that the honourable member is directing people, but I think it is not a proper practice.

Mr MORRISON:

– The Opposion has not only chosen to disregard previous practices which it accepted and implemented while in government but also it has sought by its actions to jeopardise the most effective method of funding a large proportion of the defence vote. The Opposition by its action- by its deliberate action- is holding to ransom the defence preparedness of Australia. One of the great deceptions, one of the great misrepresentations, which members of the parties opposite have attempted to thrust on to the Australian public is that they are the people genuinely concerned about the defence of Australia. But this myth is now exposed by the actions of the Opposition in the Senate. By thwarting the passage of the Loan Bill and the Supply Bills in the Senate the Opposion parties are causing the defence of this nation to grind to a halt. The Department of Defence estimates that by 30 November there will be no money for the defence force. We will be unable to pay the weekly wages and allowances- a weekly bill of $20m. The 70 000 men and women of the defence force will be without pay.

I have no wish to be over-dramatic but any Minister in this position has to face up to the realities. Today I asked that the following message be widely promulgated through the Departments of Navy, Army and Air. The message reads:

  1. . The Minister for Defence wishes all Service personnel to know that the present position is that there are sufficient funds only to meet pay and allowances until 30 November 1975.
  2. If Supply is not granted before this date then there will be no funds for further payments. If this extreme situation appears likely then certain measures will have to be considered including leave being granted but with pay being deferred until funds are available. Should such action appear to be necessary then further information will be signalled.
Mr Innes:

– I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Opposition Whip is in the process of vacating the House of Liberal and National Country Party members. He has spoken to every member on the Opposition side, of whom most have gone. I hope that you will indicate, Mr Speaker, just what is the role -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume bis seat. He will show the House sufficient courtesy to remain in his seat until I have heard the point of order.

Mr Innes:

– I am asking for your ruling, Mr Speaker, as to whether it is proper for the Whips of either side to order members out of the House for the purpose of calling a quorum?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair has no authority in respect of whether honourable members leave or remain in the chamber. Similarly it is not possible for the Chair to anticipate what the honourable member may be telling Opposition members.

Mr Armitage:

– It is obvious.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Well, the Chair is not in a position even to see the obvious.

Mr Lucock:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Melbourne said that the honourable member for Griffith had spoken to every member of the Opposition. That is not correct. He has not yet spoken to me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I hope that the honourable member does not feel offended.

Mr MORRISON:

-I think it is significant that in a debate concerning the defence of Australia there is one member of the National Country Party and 4 members of the Liberal Party among us. I think that is symptomatic of the interest they show in this matter.

Mr Cope:

– I take a point of order. I think that the Deputy Opposition Whip is deliberately obstructing the business of the House by walking about whilst the Minister is speaking. One can understand a member or even a Whip walking around occasionally but the honourable member is making a farce of the House tonight. He has been continually walking around the House while the Minister is on his feet speaking. I claim that the honourable member is infringing the Standing Orders by deliberately obstructing the business of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not think I would be in a position to rule that way. I call the Minister. (Quorum formed)

Mr MORRISON:

– Even after the calling of a quorum there are now 2 members of the National Country Party and 4 members of the Liberal Party present. I would again like to underline the urgency with which they regard a very serious question- the defence of Australia. Let me point out that if funds are not available by 30 November there will be no fuel for the Army. The Army will be immobilised at Holsworthy, Singleton, Puckapunyal, Enoggera, Townsville, Canungra, Woodside and Swanbourne. The Air Force will be grounded. The Fills at Amberley, the Neptune maritime patrol aircraft at Townsville, the Mirages at Williamtown and the Orions at Edinburgh will be grounded. The surveillance of our coastline will cease and there will be no protection against foreign fishing vessels encroaching on Australian territorial water. It will be an open day for smugglers and drug runners. The patrol boat base in north Queensland will be closed down. The ships of the Royal Australian Navy will have to tie up. The naval dockyards at Williamstown and Garden Island will close down.

The work of the natural disasters organisation will cease- one would think that honourable members from Queensland would pay some attention to this- as the cyclone season in northern Australia will be reaching its peak. Training exercises and programs will have to be cancelled. Joint activities with our allies will come to a halt. Defence co-operation programs with Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore will be devoid of funds. The re-equipment of the Services will cease. Payments on contracts to overseas suppliers will not be able to be made. In some cases contracts may have to be renegotiated or cancelled. Through the irresponsible actions of the Opposition we could fall two or three years behind on the highly competitive waiting lists for essential equipment from overseas.

Briefly, that will be the impact of the decision by the so-called defenders of the nation- the Opposition- to block this Loan Bill and to block Supply. This is one tactic of the Opposition. It is trying to defeat this Bill and our Budget. But what is it proposing instead? The Opposition’s avowed and declared aim is to reduce Government expenditure. This has been stated explicitly by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his response to the Budget in which he indicated that the Opposition would cut expenditure to reduce the deficit by $ 1,000m. In their fundamental misunderstanding of the economic management of the country honourable members opposite are now proposing to cut Government expenditure even more. This is the dominant reason given by the Leader of the Opposition for inducing the present crisis atmosphere. He claims that the economic conditions demand a reduction in public expenditure. The opposite will ensue. It will destroy the economy.

If we analyse the claims of the Leader of the Opposition we see that what the Opposition is demanding commits it to reducing Government expenditure by about 12.5 per cent which must necessarily be concentrated in the second half of this financial period. A reduction in the defence budget of 12.5 per cent would correspond to approximately $235m. Since the vast majority of defence expenditure is already committed, the $235m cut which the Liberal and National Country Parties are demanding would result in the following circumstances: First, some manpower reductions would have to take place, contributing to the unemployment situation for which the Opposition has sought to blame this Government. Assuming that such manpower cuts are kept to the minimum, the following actions would have to be taken to achieve a cut of$235m

I quote here advice that I have received from the Department of Defence. The results of the $235m cut over the period would be: Cessation of all recruitment, involving a reduction of service strengths of about 6000 men; cessation of all ordering of major equipment and most minor equipment, including replacements of the CI 30s, the Hercules, additional tanks and the destroyer program; the cancellation- this is precisely what the Opposition’s budget would involve for defence- of defence facilities and housing programs; reduction of Service activities well below ordinary peace time training levels; the elimination of operational training and probably all Australian and international exercises; consequent reductions in repair overall, with resulting effects on dockyards, factories and industries; further substantial restrictions on travel, almost to a zero level; and a nearly complete reduction of the administrative activities which incur significant expenditure. All that adds up to about $175m.

But in order to reach the $235m, which is the amount that the Liberal and National Country Parties have indicated they would cut right across the board and which necessarily involves the defence vote, it must also include cancellation of existing commitments to capital expenditure which would involve financial penalties and create problems in factories and industry. It would involve a massive retrenchment of personnel, probably in excess of 10 000 servicemen and civilians. As a result the peacetime operating capability of the forces would almost vanish. The problem of redevelopment of the force structure to reduced levels for the future would be enormous. The re-equipment program which this Government has introduced would cease. The Labor Government has had great difficulties in overcoming the monumental neglect of the Liberal and Country Parties in their last years of Government in failing to make decisions on new equipment. In this Budget we have increased the new equipment programs. But the damage that the Opposition has set out to do by its statements in this House and in the Senate would take years to rectify. Australia cannot afford such gross irresponsibility. This Government will ensure that Australia is not made to stand and deliver by the political banditry of the Leader of the Opposition. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I suppose the most refreshing part about the speech of the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) is that at long last we have a Minister for Defence in a Labor Government who has expressed a concern for defence. The honourable gentleman’s massive display of perturbation and concern can be put to rest very quickly. All that the honourable gentleman has to do is to seek to use his powers of persuasion upon his colleagues and to arrange for an election to be held.

Mr Keogh:

– You will have to do better than that, Jim.

Mr KILLEN:

– It is all very fine for the parakeet from Bowman to interject -

Mr Keogh:

– I thought you were going to say ‘Mortein’.

Mr KILLEN:

– At least they would be on a good thing.

Mr Garrick:

– They would not stick to it.

Mr KILLEN:

-Oh yes, they have-for 20 years. If the Minister for Defence has such a desperately genuine concern for the defences of the country all he has to do is to go to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and say: ‘Look, we have been together for a long time. I am very concerned. It has been pointed out to me that if we do not get this Bill through we will be faced with a manifest variety of problems’. I appeal to the Prime Minister to let the matter be resolved. But at least it is refreshing to find the Minister expressing a concern for defence. I remind the House that it is only a few months ago, when there was no political confrontation- call it what you will- when the Government of which he was a member cancelled camp after camp, movement after movement of personnel on account of economy.

Mr Stewart:

– One example.

Mr KILLEN:

– I will give example after example to the Minister for Tourism and Recreation.

Mr Katter:

– You are worth ten of him, so it does not matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warned the honourable member for Griffith about speaking when walking around the chamber. I warn the honourable member for Kennedy about the same thing.

Mr Katter:

– I apologise. I was trying to be a walkie-talkie.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I accept the apology. I will accept even more so the honourable member’s failure to do it in the future.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am immensely indebted to you, Mr Speaker, for your protection and understanding. I am dealing with the simple and central argument as put to us this evening by the Minister for Defence, that by holding up this Bill the Senate’s action will have some effect upon the Services which, put shortly, could be described as disastrous. It is a rather curious argument Last year- I am indebted to the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) for the information- a fuel strike in the Northern Territory grounded a squadron of Mirage aircraft. Did the Minister for Defence say ‘Oh, this is a matter of tremulous moment’? Not at all. We have seen unit after unit of the Royal Australian Navy put in a position of not being able to sail because of industrial trouble. Did the Minister for Defence, the honourable member for St George, beat himself into a fit of fury and say: ‘Oh, this is disastrous’? No. The honourable gentleman sat in his place sopping wet with satisfaction.

I shall come to the central feature of this Bill. It was exposed in the Senate. All members of the House of Representatives should be indebted to the sense of pertinacity, to the sense of inquiry, shown by members of the Senate. The short effect of this Bill is to seek to conceal from the country the enormous deficit Budget of the Government.

Mr Duthie:

– That is kindergarten stuff.

Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable member for Wilmot, who poses as an enraged mouse, of course has some difficulty in understanding this. Before the Budget was presented we were told the deficit would be of the order of $2,800m. This is peanuts compared with the $4,000m which can be raised at barbeques in the Middle East these days. Before the Budget was presented the Treasurer said with, I thought, a beckoning sense of modesty: ‘Oh, one must tack another $700m on to it’. That is a deficit of $3,500m before we get to grips with the problems. I am reminded of the fact that in a variety of votes the prospective wage increases have not been taken into account. So as presently advised, on the evidence before one, one could reach the conclusion that this Government faces a Budget deficit of the order of $4,000m.

The whole purpose of this Bill, used as it is, is a ruse, a device, a subterfuge to seek to conceal, to hide, to screen from public scrutiny and indeed in ultimate terms from public indignation what this Government is doing to this country.

Mr Duthie:

– You will have us howling in a minute.

Mr KILLEN:

-That is all very fine. The honourable gentleman is in the amateur class of insulters

Mr Chipp:

– He is a Methodist preacher.

Mr KILLEN:

-He is a Methodist preacher? I think it is about time that some of the founders of Methodism came back from the grave.

Mr Garrick:

– I thought on your side they were there.

Mr KILLEN:

– Oh no, by any means. Let me turn further to the argument advanced by the Minister for Defence this evening. He has fled from this chamber as though he were taking to his heels on judgment day. Let us deal with the argument pressed by the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia- that is, the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean), the one-time Treasurer. One has to keep a log book of changes in the Ministry. In a matter of the last 24 hours the Deputy Prime Minister said: ‘Oh, we will take no notice of the fact that there is no money there. We will just write out the cheques. It may be a breach of the Constitution but we will just write out the cheques.’ I do not know whether there is any substance in that point of view.

Let me make the assumption that there is substance in that point of view. The cheque would be written out for the Minister for Defence. The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) could say: ‘There you are, William Morrison. Go and cash it. ‘ If there is substance in that point of view the fears of the Minister for Defence are to no avail and he has come into this House this evening complaining upon meagre, improper grounds. But if on the other hand there is substance in the view of the Minister for Defence he is rebuking and repudiating his Deputy Leader. For which does he have a preferment, to repudiate his Deputy Leader or to say that there is substance in the point of view offered by his Deputy Leader? He can take his pick. But if he likes he can say: ‘You have swept me into this position. I can no longer take one or the other. What am I to do?’ The advice we offer from this side of the House is simple, it is uncluttered and it is completely unworried. The Senate and this side of the House indeed would approve of the Bill unanimously if the honourable gentleman would say to his Prime Minister who puts himself above all others in this country -

Mr Keogh:

– That is political blackmail.

Mr KILLEN:

– It is all very fine to’ talk about political blackmail. That is a rather sharp term. I do not object to acerbity of language. The Prime Minister takes the view that there are 2 classes of people in this country, the Prime Minister and others. We may travel economy class but the honourable gentleman travels VIP class. When it comes to dissembling I must say of the honourable gentleman that he is most certainly in the VIP class. The position is clear. It is- simple. The Minister for Defence can use his powers of persuasion upon his colleagues. When this Bill was before us last we proposed a form of words and I invite the House to reconsider what is now before us. I move as an amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the House of Representatives endorses Message No. 275 of the Senate, in particular, that the Bill be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people’.

Mr Garrick:

– I will bet you get done, Jim.

Mr KILLEN:

– If my honourable friend had a clear conscience, a firm sense of purpose, were unworried and untroubled by what may lie ahead he would say: ‘Killen, there is nothing in this world that I would more readily agree to than to go to the people’. If the Government takes the view that we on this side of politics have behaved wantonly, indiscriminately and capriciously it could be vindicated in the greatest forum in this country- before the forum of the people of Australia. The Government could be vindicated. It could be the Government which will be put upon the pedestal. It could be us who will be swept to oblivion. That is the challenge.

Any person in the Government ranks with any sense of fibre would say: ‘That is a challenge to which I will reply and reply willingly. I will go’. These are the frightened men of Australia. When the frightened men and women of Australia are submitted to the will of the people of Australia they will be the ones, the members of the Australian Labor Party, who will be swept to utter oblivion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Sinclair:

– I second the amendment, Mr Speaker, and reserve my right to speak.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

- Mr Speaker, you must have heard the story of the person who, about to deliver a guest lecture, stood up and said: ‘Before I commence my prepared speech I would like to say something’. Tonight we had a classic example of an honourable member speaking for 15 minutes in a debate that is supposed to be an important debate and not saying anything. I remind this House that this Bill was introduced on 20 August this year and was debated and passed through in one day on 27 August. So I am now in the position where I cannot exactly state what the members of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party in this, the people’s House, thought about the Bill. I have to go to the Senate to find out the attitude of the LiberalNational Country Party Opposition towards this Loan Bill.

Mr Katter:

– If you remember, we were gagged on the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-Order! I call the honourable members for the Northern Territory, Kennedy and Bendigo to order.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not say a word.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-You did not say a word on that occasion. I am just indicating that the Minister will be heard in silence. If there are further interjections I will name the member concerned.

Mr Peacock:

– Retrospective, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It will be retrospective to you, the honourable member for Kooyong. (Quorum formed)

Mr STEWART:

-This is a Bill that was rejected by the Senate to delay Supply to the Defence Forces of Australia and the attitude of the Liberal Party and National Country Party members in this House in calling quorums is another example of the despicable and reprehensible double standards that are followed by the Opposition. In the Senate, where most of the debate went on, Senator Cotton said on 10 September:

As most honourable senators know, Bills similar to this Bill have come in at varying times in past years. A similar Bill has not come in every year, nor has one come in at the same time in various years.

He went on to say:

A Bill of this type was introduced in March 1962. In other years such a Bill came in November or September and not at all in the years 1964-65, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, and apparently 1973-74. Therefore, one can see that this type of legislation is irregular both as to amount and timing.

There was an -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the chamber. If honourable members want to have personal conversations they should have them outside.

Mr STEWART:

-There was an official document -

Mr Calder:

– What about those on your right?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I warn the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

Mr Calder:

– What about sitting down some of your members?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I name the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:

That the honourable member for the Northern Territory be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr Peacock:

- Mr Acting Speaker, may I suggest that there be an opportunity perhaps for the honourable member to apologise to you. I suggest that having in mind the circumstances of the confusion in the House at that moment he be given that opportunity.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I will give the honourable member for the Northern Territory the opportunity to apologise to the Chair. If there is any repeat of this performance by any honourable member I shall name him.

Mr Calder:

– I apologise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I call the Minister.

Mr STEWART:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I have just quoted Senator Cotton who suggested that these Bills had not been introduced in certain years. An official document was presented to the Opposition, the first paragraph of which states:

The Bill is a machinery measure, differing in no significant respect from similar bills introduced by the then Government in 1968, 1970, 1971 and 1974.

I repeat that Senator Cotton said that there was no Bill of this sort in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and probably 1973-74. I ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this document be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– Leave is granted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

page 2336

POINTS ON THE LOAN BILL

The issue of securities to the public The issue of securities (probably Treasury Bills) to the Reserve Bank

Investment of Trust Fund balances (especially Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve balances) in such securities.

Mr STEWART:
ALP

– I go on to quote Senator Baume speaking to this Bill in the Senate on 15 October. Senator Baume stated:- . . . Less money is available for local government and less money is available for the other arms of government which have legitimate calls upon loan funds.

I remind the House that for the first time in the history of Australia the Grants Commission made available in 1974-75 to local government untied grants of $56m and in 1975-76 approved $80m in untied grants to local government. Yet here is Senator Baume saying that this Bill, which is clearly entitled ‘A Bill for an Act to authorise the raising and expending of moneys for defence purposes’ is taking away money from local government. He cries about local government but for 23 years the previous government did not make those millions available to local government throughout Australia. Let us look at what Senator Carrick said in the Senate. He stated: . . . the Senate is debating the Loan Bill 1975. It is not, as the Government would like to have us believe, a minor machinery matter. It is a vital part of the overall strategy of the Federal Budget, and the testing of this Bill is a primary testing of the authenticity or the validity of the Budget itself.

But we need to look at a debate that took place on 7 November 1968 when Mr Freeth, the then honourable member for Forrest, Minister for Air and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, introduced Loan Bill (No. 2). He said:

The purpose of this Bill is to obtain authority for any borrowing that it may be necessary to make from the Reserve Bank during 1968-69 to complete the financing of the Budget deficit. The Bill departs from the practice of seeking authority to borrow up to a specified upper limit. That practice has proved unsatisfactory. The difficulty with specifying an upper limit is that such a limit needs to be set high enough to ensure that, whatever our receipts and expenditures and our borrowings for the year might turn out to be, it will be adequate to cover the final cash deficiency at the end of the year.

He went on to say:

The borrowings for which authority is now sought will be made for defence purposes and the proceeds will be applied to finance expenditure from the Loan Fund on defence services.

He went on further to say:

It is proposed that, of the estimated expenditure on defence services authorised by the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1968-69, an amount to be determined by the Treasurer should be charged to Loan Fund where it will be financed from funds raised under the authority being sought in this Bill. Provision for charging part of our defence expenditure to the Loan Fund has been made in previous years when the net amount available from loan proceeds and other financing transactions has not been adequate to finance the deficit.

So in 1968 a new open-ended Loan Bill was introduced by a Minister of the previous Government. In the Senate in the last week or so three or four Opposition senators have said that this is unprecedented, that it has never happened before.

Mr McMahon:

-It is too.

Mr STEWART:

– It is not unprecedented. You might have been the Treasurer when Gordon Freeth introduced that Bill.

Mr McMahon:

– I introduced the 1966 one.

Mr STEWART:

– I tell you that you are only acting on double standards. The 3 senators I have quoted are all honourable men. In the light of what they have said in the past few weeks and what the right honourable member for Lowe approved for Gordon Freeth to introduce in 1968-69 he stands condemned. He has forgotten what he was doing. He did say that funds would be used for defence purposes. Can he deny, or can any of those senators deny, that when they were talking the other day they were speaking honestly? Did they know the intent and purport behind the Bill that the right honourable member had Gordon Freeth introduce in 1968-69? ( Quorum formed)

The Bill that we are debating, which has been delayed and rejected by the Senate, is entitled ‘A Bill for an Act to authorise the raising and expending of moneys for defence purposes’. I do not know the motives of the Opposition. Were they to put fear into the minds and hearts of all Australians that our defence forces would be allowed to run down, or were the motives even more sinister? Did the Opposition want to put fear into the men and women in our defence forces so that they would believe that their salaries, their allowances and other expenditure would not be made available to them? I think I have shown quite clearly that in 1968-69 an open-ended Loan Bill such as is this Bill was introduced by the then Government. It has been repeated on other occasions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

-The constant regurgitation by the Government that this is a Bill solely for defence purposes and that it is akin to legislation introduced when the Opposition parties were in power simply is not true. Let me state the reality. If the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) is able to speak on this he will speak with infinitely more authority. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) quoted from the preamble to the Bill, saying that this is a Bill to authorise the raising and expending of moneys for defence purposes, but he does not recognise the fact that the preambular passage to the legislation that was introduced by the former Government stated the amount of money itself. But more to the point, I refer to the application of moneys borrowed clause in this piece of legislation, namely, clause 4. When the previous Government provided funds to be expended by way of loan for the Department of Defence it was put on that basis and that basis alone. Into clause 4 the Government has put the following words:

Moneys borrowed under section 3 shall be applied only for the expenses of borrowing and for services specified under the heading ‘Department of Defence’ in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1975-76-

Then we have the following interesting passage: . . . or in an Act passed after the commencement of this Act and appropriating the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the service of the year that commenced on 1 July 1975 . . .

This is a fraud. This is a subterfuge. This is a ruse to supply moneys allegedly for defence purposes to be appropriated elsewhere should the Government so desire. Honourable members opposite know that this has been one of the objections to the Bill itself. The dishonesty of the Government, the deceit of the Government in the presentation of the Budget itself, has oft been quoted and referred to since the Budget was introduced. But more to the point, the so-called crisis that we face today has been brought about because of the constant deceit, because of the running away from reality, because of those who sit opposite who will not face the fact that there are persons, if not one very important person, party principal to the negotiations. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) sacked others for alleged deceit, delinquency or misleading the House, he is not prepared to take action against himself.

The reality is that the way in which the Government is seeking to apply funds elsewhere is symptomatic of its behaviour not merely during its period in government but also since the Budget was introduced. Honourable members opposite talk about a constitutional crisis provided for by the Senate. It is provided for by the Constitution. It is the right of the Senate to take the very action the Opposition has been engaged upon. Do not let honourable members opposite come into this House and start berating the Opposition for the attitude it takes on a piece of legislation which is akin to the very worst behaviour of any government during the period since Federation. If the Government wants the money for defence purposes let it state the amount and relate this Bill solely to that. Do not let it give itself the option, the let-out, the subterfuge that is akin to so much of its actions at the present time. The reality is that the Minister tonight has talked at great length- I refer not to the Minister who has just spoken but to the Minister for Defenceabout the way in which the defence services will be run down. That is a most extraordinary -

Mr Killen:

– Disgraceful.

Mr PEACOCK:

-It is disgraceful, as the Opposition spokesman on defence says. It is the most extraordinary statement relating to defence preparedness that I have heard. We know that during the period of this Government ships have been unable to sail because insufficient funds were allotted. We know that during the period of this Government men have been unable to train because of the lack of concern by and the lack of funds from this Government. We know that aircraft have been unable to fly because the Government could not have cared less whether proper and effective action was being taken. We know that since Labor came into power officers are voting with their feet in the greatest numbers ever in the history of this Federation. They are leaving the defence forces in unparalleled numbers.

Government supporters should not start talking to us about the confusion and concern that they feel. They should not tell me that the rejection of this legislation on the basis on which it was put by the Senate will bring about the disaster about which the Minister for Defence has talked. He is the living repository of disaster in the defence field. It is only now that he is starting to mouth cliches that relate to some form of security and to notions of strategic bases that should have been accepted and analysed by this Government before today. They should not come in here under the guise of legislation being rejected and tell us of their intrinsic interest in the defence preparedness of this country. The Government swept aside the only realistic strategic assessments that ought to have been made. It has given undertakings around the world and broken them before any pieces of legislation such as this came in. What does the Government think it has done in the United Nations where it is praising its supporters for what great men they are with their so-called influential and independent foreign policy? The Government will be the first to offer peace-keeping forces if there is a need for them and the moment its bluff is called and it is asked to provide them it scuttles, just as it scuttled the defence forces of this country.

Mr Morrison:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your advice? Is there any way that the House can require statements of fact rather than emotion from the honourable member?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-There is no point of order. I call the honourable, member for Kooyong.

Mr PEACOCK:

– A few weeks ago I gave details of the lead-up to the undertakings offered to the United Nations for peace-keeping forces and the retreat which was made, which is consistent with the retreats that have been made in every area of defence expenditure since this Government came to power. No government ever made such a firm commitment and carried it out with the very antithesis of action. During their election campaigns Government supporters said there would be the same percentage of defence expenditure as under the previous Government. That expenditure has been eroded daily as the Government’s credibility has been eroded.

So they should not say that this legislation, which is so open-ended in regard to the application of the moneys to be borrowed, will not have such a dire effect on the defence forces of this country. By its very attitude to defence expenditure since it has been in office this Government has brought about that effect- not only by this piece of legislation, this open-ended commitment, this subterfuge and operation which it wishes to implement.

When the Government tables documents relating to interim defence arrangements between Australia and Papua New Guinea it should’ not sweep aside the reality that for 2Vi years it was warned that upon Papua New Guinea’s independence it ought to have firm arrangements to determine the relationships between the 2 countries and should not wait until after independence. What we have is a mere set of interim arrangements that at some time in the future the 2 countries may conceivably come together. So whether it is in the area of strategic assessment, in the area of application of funds for the Army, the Navy or the Air Force or between our closest independent neighbour, Papua New Guinea, and ourselves, the defence expenditure does not stand up to the analysis that Government supporters were putting forward tonight. They know that this Bill is a ruse. They know that it is a fraud and that it is akin to the actions they have been taking throughout their period in government and more particularly, that it is along the lines of the loans affair and loans crisis with which we are faced today.

The short address that I am making tonight is to point out not merely the deception and the frauds but also to show that the contrast between the legislation for which the right honourable member for Lowe was responsible in the past and this legislation is stark. Simply to say, ‘We introduced defence Loan Bills and will apply the money solely for that purpose’, is just not on and is just not acceptable. Because there are a couple of minutes remaining and because these matters are related to what is transpiring in another place, I should like to make some reference to a statement which was made today.

Mr Killen:

– By your distinguished predecessor.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I am very happy to be reminded that it was made by my distinguished predecessor in my seat. The statement has been quoted around the corridors of this building with great frequency. Sir Robert Menzies, who has been so frequently quoted by the man who is the Prime Minister at the moment and who would seek to be the mirror image of him but who would shatter it by his very performance, said:

As is well known, I have for a long time abstained from entering into any current political controversy, but the circumstances today are such as to compel me to break that silence for, quite simply, I think more nonsense has been talked about the constitutional position of the Senate than I can comfortably listen to or read.

Under the heading ‘Powers of the Senate’ he said:

If we desire to know what are the powers of the Senate over money Bills we find them expressly set out in the Constitution. The draftsmen of the Constitution included these provisions because they knew- and this is a matter of historical fact- that the smaller States, that is smaller in population, would not vote for Federation unless they have some protection given to them in the Senate and they got it. They still have it. The relevant provisions of section S3 are as follows:

Sir Robert quotes them. I will not have time to deal with the entire statement but he said:

It would be absurd to suppose that the draftsmen of the Constitution conferred these powers on the Senate with a mental reservation that they should never be exercised.

Why are matters written into the Constitution if it is not a living embodiment of the laws that govern the nation? Are they there simply for the sort of subterfuge in which the Government engages or are they there to have life and breath and to exercise some influence in the community? A constitution is not a mere written document from which nothing derives. The Constitution is the sort of living spirit of the law which governs our institutions today and allows its provisions to be utilised. That theme is echoed throughout Sir Robert Menzies’ statement. As he said:

Nobody has any doubts about this legal position, about the reality that the conferring of a power on the Senate does not connote some reservation that it ought never be exercised, that it ought never be utilised.

So the reference to this debate is quite specific. This is part of the subterfuge, part of the fraud and deception. This Bill does not specify that the money will be used solely for defence purposes but gives a leverage to the Government to get around the legislation and to get around its own budgetary problems. For that reason the Opposition has taken its proper stand on this matter.

Mr KERIN:
Macarthur

-We have just heard a very elegant speech from the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and I suppose that quite a few of us on this side of the House would have believed half of it if he could have stopped laughing. First of all, he tried to give us some very elegant arguments that this was not a Loan Bill for defence. (Quorum formed).

And then the honourable member for Kooyong quoted a letter from Sir Robert Menzies. The question of the power of the Senate is not under debate. What the Senate has is power but no responsibility; power but not the right to do what it is doing at this time. As Baldwin once observed, power without responsibility is the right of the harlot through the ages.

I rise tonight to defend the people in my electorate and particularly the people in the Fleet Air Arm in Nowra. I rise to defend the pay of those 1700 men and to defend their wives and their children. I rise to defend the economic health of that town. I am sickened to see mirth coming from honourable members opposite when they start talking about the problems in the armed Services last year which were caused by industrial stoppages, as if in some twisted way they can show that 2 wrongs make a right. What we have seen over the past week are statements by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) which are verging on the neurotic. We heard him say that the Budget has not worked. Of course he avoids the fact that the Budget has not even been passed. How it can work without having been passed I do not know. The Leader of the Opposition has been making these constant dishonest charges which he cannot make stick. He made the same sort of charges last night when he said that he believes public servants are having their telephones tapped. When he was asked how he knew this he said that he thought some of them thought they were having their telephones tapped.

The Leader of the Opposition continues to make these gaffes and in so doing he is destroying the Liberal Party. What the Opposition has to live with is that this Opposition looks like being the first Opposition in 75 years to oppose Supply. Over the weekend the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony)- the NCP- said that the Prime Minister’s lust for power was getting the better of him. This is one of the greatest examples of double think we have ever heard. If you have power you do not lust for it. Surely the Leader of the National Country Party is the one who is lusting for power. We then had the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that the Governor-General will have to intervene and throw out Australia’s elected government. That statement is not just merely neurotic; it is almost hysterical. Supposedly the reason for the Senate’s actions and attitudes during this period is the Government’s attempt to raise loans overseas, which is exactly what the previous Government did. No one has told the Australian people what is wrong with trying to raise money overseas. This is why the Opposition has not got the guts to censure the Government. This is why the Opposition has not even yet used the forms of the House to move a censure motion in relation to this matter. The Opposition has not even used all the forms available to it. The reason for this is that the Leader of the Opposition has not the courage to take on the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in a debate on this issue. He has not the courage of his convictions.

The great debate is about the Senate and its role. As we know every 6 months since we came to office there has been a constant threat of denial of Supply. I have here a transcript of an Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcast of 21 September 1974. Senator Withers, Mr Snedden, Mr Gorton and Senator Townley were interviewed. It was this constant speculation which led Mr Fraser to eventually axe Mr Snedden. In that interview Mr Snedden said clearly that the Senate was not a governing House. What he did at that time and what he did again earlier this year was to speculate on denying Supply. This is one of the reasons that the present Leader of the Opposition moved to kill him off.

The parliamentary system is being undermined, yet the present Leader of the Opposition, when he came into power earlier this year, made some fine speeches on the rights of the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Withers, constantly bleats that the Senate is a democratically elected House and that it has certain powers. The Senate is not a popular House. It is elected on a State basis. It claims to be a popular House because everyone casts a vote in a Senate election, but the act of casting a vote does not mean democracy. Votes are cast in Russia. The mere act of casting a vote does not necessarily make the Senate a democratic House, and it is not. The Senate is elected by the most complex and fanciest of franchises, imbued with so much mystery as to confuse the greatest enthusiast. Members of the current Senate are supported by more than a quarter of a million fewer people than are members of the House of Representatives. At the last Senate election 200 000 more people voted for the Australian Labor Party than for the other parties combined. The situation in the Senate of course has been compounded by the Bunton and Field appointments. The reason that the Opposition has the numbers in the Senate is the death of Senator Bert Milliner.

The Opposition’s idea of convention and tradition is to follow them when it is to the advantage of the Opposition but to wheel in the strict legality when it is not to the advantage of the Opposition. What is happening is a blatant, unmitigated, unabashed pursuit of private party interest. Let us take the facts as they are. The Senate has chosen to exercise powers over finance. This is seeking to restore a status quo ante. It is a reactionary House. Consequences of the Senate’s doing this, cannot be ignored. There is simply no way that any self-respecting government in the House of Representatives can tolerate the situation where the Senate can throw the House of Representatives to the people without going to the people itself. If the Senate wishes to act like a popular House let it be stripped of all the props which sustain its dignified posturing. If it is to be a popular House let an end be put to the fancy franchise by which senators hide from the voters. They should stand in a clear and direct relationship with the electors, as do the members of this House. Each senator should be known to his electors and by bis electors and not be hidden away on a ticket almost as long as some biblical scroll.

Where is the responsibility of a senator? It is elusive, deceptive, interminate and unenforceable. No senator has the clearly defined accountability to the public that a member of the House of Representatives has. Like all multi-member shows each hides behind and obscures the other. These are the shadowy, grey, misty and unknown people who, according to the statecraft of honourable members opposite, would determine the direction of the government of this nation. The government of this nation is determined in this House. If the Senate is to so behave let us make it a popular House, a House whose members are readily known and identified by the electorate. The only way to deal with such a chamber is to reform its electoral basis and bring its members into the open. The Senate’s objections to the present Appropriation Bills are not based on British precedent. That would be ridiculous. Obviously the Opposition has no regard for British precedent or tradition. It is but trivia in the eyes of the Opposition. A former distinguished leader said he was British to the bootstraps. This was not so, and I am afraid that his statement, to which reference has been made tonight and which saddens me, is further evidence of this. No parties are so anxious to throw British parliamentary tradition to the wind as are the Liberal and Country parties. Traditions of Magna Carta, Bill of Rights and Parliament mean nothing to them, other than ancient his.torial interest.

The issue of the Senate is one of responsible government. Governments are responsible to the House of Representatives; only the House of Representatives can make government operational. The Senate cannot. The Senate cannot keep a government in office. It can only throw it out. It has purely a negative position. All selfrespecting politicians expect to have positive roles. But not the Senate. It relishes in the negative role. It exalts in it. It is at its finest hour in politics. Such are the aspirations and ambitions of the men in another place led by the Leader of the Opposition.

The question is that of responsible parliamentary government. The fatal, tragic flaw of the Australian parliamentary system is that we have a Senate. Senate with power but without responsibility. As I said earlier, power without responsibility, as Baldwin once observed, has been the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.

The Senate only has the power to remove a government, the power to bring the government of the nation to a halt. It has neither the power nor the responsibility to provide Australia with a government. A writer on constitutionality, Walter Bagehot, in 1 860 stated:

No constitution maker nowadays would frame a constitution with two equal assemblies; such a system would create chaos.

His prediction has been fulfilled. The objective of the Opposition is to create chaos. This has been achieved. The Government is responsible to the people; the Senate is not. The Senate is a House not responsible or sufficiently empowered to govern. We cannot have the House of Representatives in a permanent state of election. Hacket earlier this century wrote:

Either responsible governments will kill federalism or federalism will kill responsible government.

The Senate is now doing so. It is killing not only responsibility but also government. The Senate is lolling both responsible government and government of any kind.

This is a constitutional crisis of the highest order. Is a rump House such as the Senate to hold sanctions over the popular House? I reject that proposition not only as a supporter of the present Ministry but also as a supporter of the Parliament, a democratic, responsible Parliament. It is a matter of principle. This is the House that is responsible for providing the Government. It should have the full authority to do so. It is abhorrent that a House with no such power, authority or responsibility should have the power to throw governments out. This is contrary to all our traditions. It heralds the end of responsible parliamentary government. These are the sorts of steps that the Opposition is taking, has taken, and threatens to continue to take.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Kerin) perpetrated a current accusation which is palpably false and on that falls down the whole argument about the role of the Senate. He has accused the Opposition of having the numbers because of the death of a senator whom we also respected. But he knows that this is not so. He knows that both Senator Bunton, who replaced Senator Murphy, and Senator Steele Hall voted with the Government, that Senator Field did not vote, and that the very best that the Government could do in the Senate was to have equal numbers in a vote. Surely the honourable member must know that an equal vote in the Senate is a lost vote.

It was sickening also to hear tonight the Minister who is euphemistically called the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) in a Government which has not cared one iota for the adequate defence of this nation now accuse the Senate of being irresponsible in the matter of defence. The Government prattles on and on about what this and other Bills do. It says: ‘We will not be able to pay our bills’. It paints a picture of absolute disaster. Yet, for weeks and weeks, bills have not been paid by this Government. The excuse being given to department after department is that the Government has run out of money. Supply was granted till 30 November. But the Government’s prodigal spending has already brought it into trouble- not next month, not even next week, but in truth last week and last month.

The resolution transmitted to the House of Representatives by the Senate has the absolute, the total, the undivided and resolute support of every member of the Opposition in this place, as it has in the Senate. The resolution indicts a Government which has gone from deceit to deceit and from scandal to scandal. Scapegoat after scapegoat has been demoted, dismissed and discarded as the thread of evidence leads irrevocably towards the top. At the top is a man who says: ‘Two of my Deputy Prime Ministers who signed the December Executive Council minute with me have lied. They have deceived. They have behaved disgracefully. But I, the Prime Minister, cannot be blamed. I, the only one who signed that Executive Council minute, am the only innocent one. ‘ ‘Mr Khemlani was right’, says the Prime Minister, ‘about all the others but of me alone this man tells lies ‘. The Prime Minister says: ‘ I am the rose among the thorns; the only sweet smell in the pig sty’. ‘There has been duplicity’, he says. He continues: ‘There has been deceit. Parliament has been lied to and the Senate is right. How it grieves me because I am a most righteous man.’ ‘True’, the Prime Minister says, ‘the Opposition asked questions. It produced facts and I denied them, because everybody let me down.’ But did the Prime Minister make any inquiry? If he did not, he is an absolute failure because that was his duty. If he did, how can he stand up now and say that he did not know? It seems that everyone else in Australia knew- everyone but he.

Two men who have sat in the Acting Prime Minister’s chair have been dismissed in disgrace. The accusations stands unanswered and multiply every day. Yet he who says he did not know refused a properly constituted judicial inquiry. I level at him here and now the charge that those are not the actions of an innocent man anxious to elicit the truth. They suggest implication and they are very indicative of guilt.

Here in the Senate resolution the charge of deceit and duplicity by the Prime Minister is laidloud and clear- and it is unanswered. The charge is of continuing incompetence which is evidenced by a trail of broken promises, worthless assurances and answers which later are shown to be false. These charges are echoed by Australia’s army of unemployed and by those whose savings and life’s work have been destroyed, by businessmen who have been forced into bankruptcy and by- those whose only voice is at the ballot box. And now the Prime Minister wants to stifle that voice.

The charge is here that the Prime Minister has failed to control his Ministers and has proved that he cannot lead a government except from scandal to scandal. He is a Prime Minister who lets heads of colleagues roll, with as little compassion and concern as Madame Defarge He is a Prime Minister who condemns a Minister because he affirms that the Minister must bear responsibility for the actions of his staff but dismisses the valid corollary that a Prime Minister is responsible for the actions of his Ministers. He applied his own rule to others and said they deceived, they misled, they disgraced their office, and they had to go. Therefore, by his same yardstick he must accept the responsibility for that disgrace. They paid the price but the Prime Minister welches on his debt and his responsibility.

He fights not to preserve democracy; he fights not because of respect or regard for the Constitution, for convention or for propriety. In 1970 he dismissed that stance and he has scorned the Constitution. He has shown contempt for every convention and he has discarded every concept of loyalty. He fights rather to preserve a government not fit and not worthy to be preserved. He fights to perpetuate not a democratic system, for he has contemptuously ground it under foot when ever it suited him. He fights to avoid a day of reckoning, a day of judgment.

The Prime Minister was able to dismiss the threat of a judicial inquiry by his ruthless marshalling of his yes men, his numbers. He cringes from the bar of justice which will pronounce his guilt and his disgrace- the Australian people and the Australian ballot box. ‘Give us a go’, he bleats. ‘This Budget will work’. Every week we have heard that same nonsense, that same assurance and we have gone from bad to worse. We have heard it every week for 3 years. We have always ‘turned the corner’; we are always being shown ‘clear signs of recovery.’ They have been 3 years of nonsense and of deceit because disaster follows disaster and the road still leads steeply down.

He says: ‘This Budget will work’. But the Budget already has been shown to be deceitful and false and it is now the straw to which the Prime Minister clings. The Senate in this resolution aptly sheets home the charge of continuing mismanagement of the Australian economy. It makes the charge, it proves the guilt and all around this country when we say: ‘How say you?’ we hear every Australian voice saying: ‘Guilty’.

The Prime Minister says that no charges were made. They were made. They were made again and again, a multitude of them, and the only clear, plain verdict that can be pronounced is ‘Guilty’ as charged’. Yet the Government brings back this Bill and asks for a blank cheque. It says: ‘Yes, we have played up. Yes, we have wrecked the economy. Yes, we have shown that we have no idea of responsibility. Yes, we will deceive. Yes, we will tell falsehoods. We do not even know which way is up; but give us a go, we have only just started. We have been dishonest, but we want you to give us the key to the safety deposit box’. The Constitution which the Prime Minister called archaic, which he has condemned clause by clause, word by word, and which he has contemptuously disregarded, he now pleads condones him, protects him and provides him with a sanctuary. He claimed the divine right to do in 1967 and 1970 what he now condemns the Senate for doing.

I support the resolution of the Senate. I support the amendment. I repeat the charges and the reasons. They are- continuing incompetence, evasion, massive deceit, duplicity subversion of the Constitution, bypassing of the Parliament, chaos in a cabinet where there is no control and wrecking of the economy. That is the charge contained in the resolution of the Senate and that is the charge that has been proven in a shocking performance over a shocking 3 years. Day by day another assurance is shown to be yet another falsehood. Bit by bit the truth is wrung out and another sacrificial lamb has to be slaughtered.

The Government of the day is whistling outside of the cemetery because it knows its day of reckoning is looming closely and its fears are well justified because its sins have found it out. It accuses the Opposition of a grab for power. What nonsense! Only the people at the ballot box confer power, and this Government knows full well that they also take it away, and that is what they are now about to do. The deceit must end. The falsehood and the lies must cease. The disaster and the disgrace must terminate. This Senate, this responsible Senate, has forced the Australian Government to the final court of appeal- the ultimate bar of justice- where this Government’s condemnation will be final and complete.

In speaking to this Bill tonight the Minister for Defence talked great words about defence. This Bill also is a subterfuge. It is a blank cheque. It is a dishonest way to appropriate funds. Appropriation for defence purposes was not made in the right and proper way. The money is to be appropriated from Loan Funds. I spoke about that in the initial debate. I accept no precedent. It does not matter whether it has been done in the past, whether it was right or wrong in the past. It is a wrong principle and I do not accept it. I accept the Senate’s resolution and we on this side of the House, no matter how many times this is brought back into this House, will vote to reject completely motions like that which the Minister has moved tonight. I repeat that the Opposition’s amendment is that the House of Representatives endorses message number 275 of the Senate- the message that tells of the deceit, the duplicity and the dishonesty- and in particular that the Bill will be not proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people. I wonder why it is afraid?

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

-The speech by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) has been a very political speech. He has not dealt with the Loan Bill in any analytical sense as a machinery measure, as part of the finance raising program of this Government as Loan Bills of previous governments were. He sought to obtain every ounce of political advantage out of the message which the Senate has sent to the House of Representatives and out of the delaying tactics which the Opposition applies to this Bill. It was an interesting speech. He said that the Government was not paying its bills. He gave no evidence of this. I have had in my office in recent times people who have said: ‘Why is it I am told by the defence service homes people that I cannot have the advance for my home for 1 1 weeks or more?’ How can this Government honestly say to people ‘Yes, the money is available to you’ when the Opposition is refusing to vote Supply? How can we say to these people ‘Yes, go ahead, enter into this agreement to build or to buy ‘ when we do not know, due to the irresponsibility of the Opposition, whether we can meet that commitment? That is the only sense in which the Government at this point in time is not paying its bills.

Of course it is a fact of life that in the future, as it projects before us, the Government may not be able to pay its bills. Supply will run out at sometime in November. If an election were called on- a half Senate election or whatever kind of election in the next few days- it is most unlikely that that election could be held before the first Saturday in December. (Quorum formed) I thank the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) for drawing attention to the state of the House. He came into the House somewhat belatedly and discovered that we were short of numbers. He has given me a rather larger audience than I had before, unhappily not very many of them on this side of the House. I was talking about the Government paying its Bills. I was pointing out that if Supply runs out it will be some weeks before an election can be held and the people in this nation who will be inconvenienced can lay their complaints at the door of the Opposition. The Opposition is trying to prevent this Budget getting into action. It complains that the Budget is not working but it has not passed the Budget or the Bills associated with the Budget. The Opposition is trying to prevent the economic recovery in this country. It is indifferent to the needs of business people, large and small, the working people, the pensioners, all the people in this country, the servicemen and the children attending schools. The Opposition is completely hypocritical on these matters.

It is part of the facts of life that the Government of the day needs to raise loan money. If it were not to raise loan money- there have been many occasions when the previous Government lias not raised loan money or has raised money only to a small extent- then money has to be found from taxation. The Opposition made a great play of tax indexation. The only real tax indexation available to the people of this country is in the measures introduced as part of this Budget which are designed to take effect from 1 January next year, but of course to cover the whole of the financial year. When the Opposition comes into this Parliament and says it supports tax indexation and then votes against loan raising legislation of course it brings about a situation which would make tax indexation quite impossible. I should like to draw attention to the different bases on which the Opposition has made its criticism of this Bill. When it came before us on 27 August the shadow Treasurer raised the question of the record deficit on the basis of figures available as at 1 August.

Mr Garland:

– They are worse than that.

Mr CROSS:

-The honourable member for Curtin might make those comments. The right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon), a very distinguished Treasurer of a former government -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-Order! Would the honourable member for Curtin like to repeat that statement.

Mr Garland:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, are you asking me to repeat that?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Yes.

Mr Garland:

– No, I do not think I will, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I am asking you to repeat it. I warn the honourable member for Curtin.

Mr Garland:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that there is any need for me to repeat a statement. If you insist, I ask what standing order you are relying on.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I am insisting on your repeating the statement.

Mr Garland:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw anything said in case it gives you any offence.

Mr CROSS:

– The right honourable member for Lowe, who sits behind the honourable member for Curtin, knows that you cannot judge the deficit for a whole financial year on the basis of the results of an intervening month or of several months because the Government’s revenue from taxation and other sources does not come in evenly throughout the 12 months of the year. The deficit was the matter on which the amendment was moved in this House but it was the general question of the economic management which persuaded the Senate on 15 October to send message No. 275 back to this House when it returned the Bills.

A lot has been said about the constitutional background to this situation. The Australian Constitution was the product of the British Parliament, the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in 1 900. It preceded by some years the Parliament Act of 1909. It gave the Senate certain powers which in the Westminster system of government were later withdrawn as a result of the actions of the very great Liberal governments of that day when Mr Asquith was Prime Minister and Lloyd George was Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the same way in which Queensland, which got its separation and independence in 1859, had a more democratic constitution than New South Wales, which attained its constitution in 1852, so it was that the Australian Constitution does not precisely enshrine the principle of the exclusive responsibility of the Lower House in the way in which that principle subsequently developed in Great Britain. However, that is a convention which has prevailed through the 75 years of this Federation and it has been brought under threat only by the present Opposition.

The honourable member for Fisher, who just resumed his seat, said he did not accept precedent because the money being raised under this Bill would not be entirely for defence purposes. I want again to mention the right honourable member for Lowe. I would not have thought that he would support that proposition because he introduced measures of this kind. The Government raises money for defence purposes under the heading of Defence because that is a purpose unassailable under the Federal Constitution. If the Opposition says that that is not enough, is it then saying that the other matters for which the Government raises loan moneys are not important? Under the financial agreement the Australian Government raises money not only for its own purposes, for defence and capital works, but also for the States. In the current Budget, under the heading Defence, there is provision for $182m for capital equipment and $123m for defence facilities. Of course the Government also advances money to the States for programs which pay a return; for railways, main roads, irrigation works and the like. If and when there is a change of government, in 3 years or 6 years time, whenever it might be, I do not believe that the government of that day, if it is of Liberal Party and National Country Party persuasion, will be introducing measures any different from this measure because this is the most efficient and most reasonable way in which the government of the day can lay its loan proposals before the Parliament. Therefore on all of these questions the Opposition is being quite dishonest.

I felt very sad tonight when I heard quoted a former Prime Minister, a former honourable member for Kooyong, as I understood it, in support of the reprehensible and contemptible actions of the present Opposition. It is sad that that man, whom we all respect and who is getting on in years after having given good service in this place and elsewhere, should be quoted by the Opposition for petty political advantage in a statement which rejects everything he stood for in his political life. The statement I refer to was one that he placed on record in 1932 when he wrote to Sir Philip Game. I have heard it on numerous occasions. The last time I remember having heard it was in 1968 after he had left this place. I think it contemptible to the nth degree that the Opposition should have taken advantage of this fine Australian at this time in order to try to bolster its weak and contemptible case.

What happens if the Opposition gets away with what it seeks at this time in regard not only to the Loan Bill which is now before us but the Appropriation Bills which I cannot mention but which were dealt with earlier today? The Opposition knows that the Budget brought in by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) sets Australia on the slow road to recovery from an economic depression for which no government has a simple answer. The Opposition has admitted that it could provide no short term answer to these problems and it has talked about needing a 3-year term. Having said that it needs a 3-year term, let it look at its conscience. This Government has got halfway throught its term twice. For the second time the Opposition purports to take this Government before the people. Therefore there is a different standard. The people on the Opposition side are the people with double standards. They need a 3-year term for themselves but they want to give this Labor Government only 18 months. What are members of the Opposition frightened of? They are not concerned because the economy is in a mess, as set out in the Senate resolution; they are concerned that the economy might improve. They are not concerned about any past actions of the Government; they are concerned because the Budget put before the House is a responsible document which lays the basis for economic recovery in this country. They are not concerned about what has happened in the past; they are concerned about what is going to happen in the future. They are concerned because they have taken notice of a gallup poll which indicated that rejection of these measures would result in 3.5 per cent of the people said to be voting for the Opposition changing their ground. Therefore they have decided to take this contemptible action.

Mr Deputy Speaker, they are wrong. They are wrong because they have gone against the system. They have broken convention. They have repudiated all the development of the Westminster system of government of which the Australian Constitution is but a part. They have quoted chapter and verse of that Constitution but let us look at other parts of it. I refer to that section of the Constitution- I think it is section 59- which says that the Queen can reject any Bill passed by the Australian Parliament. That provision is part of the Constitution. However, following the Statute of Westminster, all of us know that it is completely impracticable. At such time as we do meet the Australian people we will not have to meet them on the basis of what happened in 1900 when the Australian Constitution was passed by the British Parliament. The Opposition will meet the results of what it is doing in this Parliament today when it meets the Australian people in 1975, or at some time in the future. It will find that the people of Australia will judge it for the contemptible action it is forcing not only on the Labor Party but also on the people of this nation.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

-I assure every honourable member in the House that I approve, even welcome, the fact that the LiberalNational Country Party Opposition has decided to do all in its power to reject this Loan Bill, together with Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2) which were introduced in this House in the Budget Speech. I say that because I was a bitter opponent last year of the then Loan Bill, and I remain so. I speak with this degree of pleasure because at long last so many people have decided to accept the argument that I put then as to why last year’s Loan Bill should have been rejected. So much has been said that is totally dishonest and unfair about the origin of this Bill that I would like to mention a Bill I introduced in 1966. 1 want to explain the differences between that Bill, last year’s Bill and the Loan Bill 1975 that we are now debating.

In the Bill that I introduced in 1966 I ensured that we stated it as ‘An Act to authorize the Raising and Expenditure of a sum not exceeding One hundred and fifty million dollars for Defence Purposes’. The purpose of the Bill that we are now considering is ‘To authorize the Raising and Expending of Moneys for Defence Purposes ‘. An amount is not set out.

Clause 4 of the Bill that we introduced stated:

Moneys borrowed under this Act shall be issued and applied only for the expenses of borrowing and for the purposes and services expressed in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Appropriation An (No. 1) 1965-66 under the heading ‘XXII-Defence Services ‘.

I am sorry for those people who have made the accusation that the Bill which we are now considering contains exactly the same provisions as the Bill to which I have just referred. They have shown a degree of cowardliness and unwillingness to listen to the truth. They have shown, therefore, that they are not disposed to accuracy when problems like this which involve public accountancy and accountability to the people are involved.

In addition, clause 4 of the Bill that is now under consideration includes the words ‘Department of Defence’, and then states: . . . in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1975-76 or in an Act passed after the commencement of this Act and appropriating the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the service of the year . . .

That is very general in application. It applies not only to defence, which is the reference at which clause 4 of the Bill that I introduced ended. It applies to the ordinary expenditure of the Government as well.

What therefore is the difference? Our legislation was for a specific amount of $ 150m. As I have explained, it was to assist in the payment for the Fill aircraft. We sought a particular amount for a particular purpose- a defence purposeand in respect of a particular part of the defence Services.

But this Bill seeks money not only for defence purposes, as is set out in the preamble, but also for any other purposes for the ordinary services that are set out in various other Acts that can be passed. This is a totally and absolutely deceitful way in which to raise money. A completely unlimited amount of money can be obtained.

I want to take this matter a stage further because so far as I know this matter has not been mentioned by any other honourable member in the House. The method of borrowing set out in the Bill is by the issue of treasury bills under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act. What are treasury bills? I heard the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) come into this House and say that it had been whispered or leaked to him by someone that I had asked what had happened to treasury bills. We gave up issuing treasury bills in 1971 and they have not been introduced since. Just what are treasury bills? Treasury bills provide the simplest kind of transaction. A government goes along with a treasury bill to the Reserve Bank, it discounts that treasury bill with the Bank and it gets an issue of fiduciary currency. This is not the creation of money to balance increased production. It does not go out to the public in the way that T Notes or Treasury Notes go out at the market rate of interest. It goes out at a rate of about 1 per cent and in any amount that the Government cares to borrow from the Reserve Bank. This is an extremely bad way of financing, except when it is being done for temporary purposes or where the end result can be seen. So I am glad that this act of deceit has ended. As I said, I tried to get similar legislation stopped once before but I was not able to do so.

The second point I want to make is that borrowing is not the only factor that is involved. Obviously there is not a member of the Labor Party who understands this. The Government has to ensure that the Appropriation Bill is supplementary to the Loan Bill or it will not be of any use at all. Section 83 of our Constitution rightly provides that no money shall be drawn from the Commonwealth Treasury except under the appropriation laws made by the Parliament. Admittedly there is a difference between appropriation and loan moneys. But it is because of that distinction that I also believe that we are right in ensuring that this Bill restrains or is rejected at least until an accommodation has been made by the Government with the Opposition as to the future course of business in this House. I certainly strongly endorse everything that has been said by members on this side of the House.

Next I want to say that if this Bill were to be administered by people of the same character and integrity as a Liberal-Country Party government I would be in no doubt about it because there would be some control by the statements contained in the second reading speech. But I do not believe in these days and times that one can trust the Labor Party to carry out the promises in any second reading speech or in any other kind of a statement because that Party changes its tune from time to time. Minister after Minister has been dismissed for practising deceit so far as the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is concerned or for other acts that could be regarded as being of a reprehensible kind. I would not give the Government any freedom at all outside the rigid provisions of the law.

I would not give the Government any freedom for another reason. Everyone knows that if by a miracle- and miracles have not really been performed since the year 1 A.D.- the Government is elected again we will move from problem to problem, from disaster to disaster, from stagflation to what could easily be regarded as one of the worst disasters we have ever faced. I will not trust the Government. I do not think that anyone else should do so, either.

The background as I see it is this: Since March 1973 we on this side of the House have been telling the Government where it was going wrong in respect of the money supply and the ways in which it has been financing the operations of the Government. But the Government never listened because it did not understand. So, 2 Treasurers had to be removed from office because they did not understand that one cannot continually go on increasing deficits in order to finance the operations of the Government. They both lost their jobs and no one regrets the fact that they have gone. They showed no ability to operate as Treasurers. They deserved the treatment that was meted out to them by the Prime Minister under the most sordid circumstances.

But let me now just look at one set of facts which is alarmingly important and which ought to be known to everyone. The weekly statement of central banking business, which is published by the Reserve Bank of Australia, shows that in the course of 5 weeks the credit drawn by the Government from the Reserve Bank has been increased from $95 9m to $2,354m. This has been in the form of Australian Government securities mostly of a cash or treasury bill kind. I do not think that any increase of this kind has ever been known in Australian history. This is the clearest possible indication that what the present Treasurer- the momentary Treasurer- said in the House a few days ago that the Government has lost control of the money supply and that it is no longer able to estimate what the deficit is likely to be is correct.

The latest Niemeyer statement of financial transactions of the Government for the first 2 months of the year shows that the Government has used cash balances to the extent of $660m. If those 2 amounts of money are not met by production there can be only one inevitable result. That will be an increase in money supply. Those who know anything about money supply and monetary theory will know that if you increase money supply by a certain percentage almost inevitably over a period of time- probably a 14 to 18 months gap- there will be a comparable increase in inflation and the consumer price index. Then there will be an increase in unemployment. As sure as night follows day we will see the figures rise, as I have said, within a period of 16 to 18 months. It is for that reason that the Opposition has taken the attitude that it has taken. It is for that reason that I strenuously urge the Opposition to do so- to get rid of Whitlam and those who stick behind him but do not support him. If one talks to them privately you find that their private attitudes are different from the ones they express in their votes in this House. If one has the opportunity of talking to them one finds that they express distress because they do not like to see this country of ours- a country with more wonderful prospects than any other country- being taken from a stage of stagflation into what I believe could be a real depression where we will have not only deficit financing but also a kind of desperation which we have never before had to tolerate in this country.

What has happened in relation to the money supply? First of all when we started to crossexamine the present Treasurer about the increase in the money supply he was nice enough to confess that he would like a 1 5 per cent increase. But when we look at the last seasonally adjusted figures, even taking what is called Ml- the tightest of all definitions- we find that the increase is 24 per cent, that is an understatement, and it is bound to go even higher as the months go by. That implies that there will be an inflation rate of that order during the course of the next year. There is nothing that can be done to restrain this unless we put in an alternative government and give it the opportunity to introduce its policies as soon as it possibly can. Above all it must be able to do something which would ensure indexation of stocks as recommended in the Mathews Committee report- something that is already done in the United Kingdom and is roughly proportional in cost to what that would have to be borne in Australia if the Mathews Committee recommendations were adopted. My Party when in government will go only half that distance. So no one can argue that we would be taking a risk. In fact what we would be doing would be taking action to ensure that business remained viable and that the Australian community had a reasonable prospect within a reasonable time of getting affairs back on to a satisfactory basis.

I come back to only one other matter before I conclude. Recently I went on a mission overseas. For the most part I had to pay for it myself because the Prime Minister refused to do so despite agreement before I left overseas that the expenses would be paid. Everywhere I went I found ridicule of the activities of the Whitlam Government- ridicule because the Goverment did not know where it was going, ridicule because even now on the international exchanges there has been a devaluation of a minimum of 7½ per cent. This clearly indicates the lack of trust in the Australian currency under Whitlam. All this can be ended by the actions and the decisions of one man. All he has to do is what he did in May 1 974 and see the great dangers which this country is facing due to the continued occupation of the treasury benches by this Government. He should go to the Governor-General, tell him the problems and ask for an immediate double dissolution-a dissolution of both Houses. If he were a statesman he would do so. If he is a politician of a kind we have never known in our history he will go down in tradition as a man who failed his country in its hour of need. It was not necessary to put the country through trials and tribulations but he could have put us on the road to success under a government led by Malcolm Fraser, who I believe will be one of the great Prime Ministers of this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The right honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BERINSON:
Minister for Environment · Perth · ALP

– The Press, having encouraged the Opposition into its rejection of Supply, is now frantically engaged in encouraging the Opposition into going into reverse. The device being used is the suggestion that the Opposition should search for a compromise. I have to confess that I have never yet been able to sort out in my own mind what practical form a viable compromise could possibly take. But at last tonight we have a positive suggestion from the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon). He was good enough to give us the advantage of his age, his wealth of experience and his many years of participation in Parliament, in government and in Treasury matters. He has come forward with a compromise. The compromise is that he for his part will urge that the Loan Bill and the Appropriation Bills should be passed as long as they are put up by a Liberal government. That is typical of the Alice in Wonderland approach which he has adopted to all these measures and which his Party is crazily following. It would all be terribly entertaining and it would even be enjoyable if it were not for the fact that its consequences have already been so damaging and are so potentially disastrous to the welfare of this community.

Today’s proceedings have shown that there is a limited number of things to be said in this and associated debates on the withholding of Supply by the Senate. The longer the crisis drags on, the more repetition we will inevitably have. There is a serious risk in that, not to the Government but to the country. The risk is that the intense interest, the undoubted current antagonism to the Senate’s irresponsibility will degenerate gradually into complacency, perhaps even boredom. When we say that the country is bordering on the brink of a political and economic crisis, people having heard that so often will tend to brush it aside, discount it, and say: ‘Well, that is merely a cliche.’ Given that possibility, I think it is worth stating the obvious, that the fact that a statement is a cliche does not necessarily make it untrue. On the contrary, the fact that the statement has developed the status of a cliche most often means it is self-evidently true. Certainly to speak today of the country being on the brink of a political and economic crisis is self-evidently true. It is demonstrated by the potential effect of rejecting this Loan Bill which finances the defence effort in this country. It is demonstrated equally by the analagous situations which would arise with a continued rejection of the major Appropriation Bills.

We heard earlier today from the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) of the almost immediate effect on the defence forces which continued rejection of this Loan Bill would involvesalaries for the armed forces unpaid, aircraft grounded, naval patrols immobilised. The Opposition says that none of that would happen if only we for bur part would behave as any decent government should and collapse. We say that they should behave like a decent Opposition and withdraw their obstruction to Supply in the Senate. That proposition would have to commend itself at any time, given the contrast between the nature of the House of Representatives on the one side as the House of the people- the House where the Government is formed, the democratic House- and the Senate on the other side, being the acknowledged undemocratic House within the Australian parliamentary system. That proposition would apply at any time with any Senate simply as a matter of principle. But at this particular time with this particular Senate it applies with even greater force.

In this case we do not simply have a rotten decision by the Senate: We have a rotten decision by a rotten Senate. It has been called a tainted Senate- not by me, not by the Prime Minister. I frankly would have been happy to have thought of that apt description first. It has been called a tainted Senate by a frontbench member of the Opposition side, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). It has been described as a Senate making a sleazy grab for power. It was described in that way first not by me, not by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), not by any member of the Australian Labor Party but by a former Liberal Premier of South Australia. The action has been called wrong, stupid and shameful by a former Liberal Prime Minister of this country, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton). Why? Because the passage of the deferral motion on this Loan Bill and on the 2 Appropriation Bills was made possible only by shameful manipulation of a Senate vacancy created by a senator’s death. All that was done, it is said, in the interests of fair play and morality.

The Opposition says: ‘Let the people judge’. Amen to that. Let the people judge; but let the people judge the Senate. Let them judge the Senate for its extraordinary and reprehensible lunge for power; taken regardless of national security as exemplified by its rejection of this defence Loan Bill; taken without regard to national political stability, without regard to the national economy and without regard to individual welfare either; as exemplified by the salaries which will not be paid to the armed forces, nor to the Public Service; as exemplified by pensions which will not reach pensioners and social welfare payments which will not reach social welfare beneficiaries.

Mr Bourchier:

– Oh come off it.

Mr BERINSON:

– If the honourable member for Bendigo wants to complain that that is not true let him explain, given the admitted, special appropriations for social welfare payments, how he will ensure that those pensions and social welfare payments will reach the beneficiaries given that the requirements of Public Service manpowereven the very postage amounts to something like $100,000 per week- will be met without appropriations. Do not tell me it is not true that these pensions will not reach the pensioners. They will not reach the pensioners, and neither will payments reach small and large business throughout the country in contractual agreements with the Government and which in many cases are desperately anxious to obtain those payments on time. (Quorum formed) The personal and national economic disruption which the Opposition will unleash if it persists in its present irresponsibility is incalculable. Rejection of this Loan Bill providing $ 1,800m alone would deprive -

Mr Garland:

-$ 1,100m.

Mr BERINSON:

– … of $ 1,100m alone would deprive the economy of an infusion of about $20m per week. Together with the Appropriation Bills being stopped, this would deprive the economy of a weekly infusion of something like $200m. Is it any wonder that Liberal supporters are deserting their own party? This madness, this adventure with the nation’s welfare has gone far enough. For the Opposition further to persist in its present course will lead the Opposition not only to defeat but also to disgrace. : Mr GARLAND (Curtin) ( 10.15) - ‘ Speaker- ‘ Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 0

;

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Killen’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 56

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the motion (Mr Morrison’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 56

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2351

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-It being after half past 10 p.m. in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July 1974, 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Daly:

- Mr Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 56

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.41 p.m.

page 2352

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice

Taxation: Retained Profits of Small Businesses (Question No. 3045) Mr Snedden asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

1 ) Is he examining whether taxing the retained profits of small businesses should be abolished; if not, why not.

Is it considered that this would assist small business to overcome difficulties presently being faced.

Safety (Question No. 3113)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which sections of his Department are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. 2 ) What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The right honourable member is referred to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question 3110 (Hansard of 1 October 1975, page 1598).

Departmental Advertising (Question No. 2868)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. What is the advertising budget of his Department for 1975-76.
  2. ) What types of advertising are entailed in expenditure of this amount.
  3. What were the corresponding figures for each of the last 5 years.
Mr Uren:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The advertising budget for 1 975-76 is $86,000.
  2. Departmental recruitment, press advertising of Urban Papers, the Area Improvement Program in the Illawarra region, a photographic competition m connection with the UN Habitat Conference, urban awareness workshop for students.

Budget: 1975-76, $86,000.

Expenditure: 1974-75, $83,399; 1973-74, $38,823; 1972-73, $2,191. were circulated:

Australian Housing Corporation (Question No. 2910)

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. How many persons are now employed by the Australian Housing Corporation.
  2. How many officers have been transferred from Australian Government Departments to the Corporation, and what are the Departments involved.
  3. What are the qualifications of each person employed by the Corporation.
  4. Apart from the administration of the Defence Service Homes Scheme, what other work is being undertaken by the Corporation.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) A total of 9 persons have been appointed to the staff of the Australian Housing Corporation.
  2. No officers have been transferred from Australian Government Departments to the Corporation. However, 1231 positions have been transferred from the Defence Service Homes Division of the Department of Housing and Construction, to the Department of Urban and Regional Development and are presently on loan to the Corporation.
  3. All professional and clerical officers employed by the Corporation and presently on loan to the Corporation possess those qualifications considered necessary to carry out the functions of the Corporation. The academic qualifications of these people are similar to those of the Australian Public Service.
  4. The Corporation is presently developing programs aimed at providing assistance to individuals or groups suffering disadvantages in seeking access to satisfactory housing provisions. Among the specific programs of financial assistance which seems likely to be introduced is the provision of deferred repayment mortgages which might be on either first or second mortgage.

Canberra: Planning Report (Question No. 2999)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he, together with the Minister for the Capital Territory, authorise the publication of a report by the National Capital Development Commission entitled Planning for Canberra’s Future Growth and Development published in the Canberra Times of 13 August 1975.
  2. If so, did this report state that the Australian Constitution (sub-section 51 (xxxi)) refers to the powers of the Australian Parliament to make laws with respect to ‘the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws’ and the compensation paid for land acquired in any area ceded by New South Wales would be based on this premise.
  3. If so, can residents of the area affected accept this as an assurance that any land acquisitions in the area concerned will take place under the Lands Acquisition Act and that no special legislation would be proposed if the area becomes a Territory.
Mr Uren:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Residents can accept the statement as an assurance that the Australian Government intends that any acquisition of land over the A.C.T. border would be on just terms.

The Lands Acquisition Act, under which the Australian Government normally acquires lands for its purposes, provides for the assessment of compensation on this basis.

In the event of any special legislative measures being required to effect the extension of the border, the compensation principles contained in the Lands Acquisition Act would be incorporated in any new legislation.

Growth of Canberra (Question No. 3000)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Government of New South Wales propose a co-operative approach to handling the expected overflow from Canberra into adjacent areas of New South Wales.
  2. If so, was such a proposal rejected; if so, why.
Mr Uren:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is:

  1. Yes, discussions between the Australian and N.S.W. Governments on the growth of Canberra had proceeded on a co-operative basis since 197 1.
  2. 2 ) The joint approach to the resolution of the border situation was rejected by the N.S.W. Premier, Mr Lewis, when he announced his Government’s unilateral decision to establish an independent inquiry into the growth of Canberra in April 1975.

Requests by the Australian Government that the N.S.W. inquiry be reconstituted as a joint Government inquiry and that the terms of reference be widened were unequivocably rejected by the N.S.W. Premier. Subsequently the Australian Government decided not to make submissions to the N.S.W. Inquiry.

Broadcasting: Rural Services (Question No. 3086)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

What progress has been made with the implementation of the Prime Minister’s May 1974 election promise of an additional radio network for the ABC in the majority of rural areas that now receive a single ABC service.

Dr Cass:
Minister for the Media · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to Parts ( 1 ) and (3) of my reply to Question No. 2934 which appeared in House of Representatives Hansard (page 1 707) on 2 October.

Sewerage Services (Question No. 3099)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

Further to question No. 1736, what will be the total cost, at current prices, of bringing sewerage connections in metropolitan dues to 100 per cent.

Mr Uren:
ALP

– the answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

The detailed answers provided in Question No. 1736 (Hansard pages 892-894) were based on information provided by metropolitan sewerage authorities. Since then, in 1974-75 the largest ever annual sewerage works program throughout Australia has been satisfactorily completed. The precise level of costs now involved could only be obtained by again approaching the metropolitan sewerage authorities.

At a recent conference with my State Ministerial counterparts on the National Sewerage Program, we agreed that Australian Government requests for information should be kept to a minimum. I am therefore unwilling to obtain the information sought by the member.

Housing Inspection Service (Question No. 3109)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

Does he intend to pursue a proposal by his predecessor to establish a National Housing Inspection Service; if so, how will the service operate, and what is its expected annual cost; if not, why not.

Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

My predecessor’s statements regarding the housing inspection service referred only to consideration of a proposal to establish such a service. This proposal is currently still under consideration.

Safety (Question No. 3117)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which sections of the Department of the Special Minister of State are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided the following information in answer to the right honourable member’s question:

I refer the right honourable member to the information provided by the Prime Minister in reply to Question No. 3110 (House of Representatives Hansard, 1 October 1975, page 1598).

Safety (Question No. 3128)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which sections of his Department are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. 2 ) What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to question 3110 published in Hansard of 1 October 1975 at page 1598.

Safety (Question No. 3132)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which sections of his Department are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the right honourable member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to question 3110 which appeared in House of Representatives Hansard (page 1598) on 1 October.

Urban and Regional Development (Question No. 3189)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. What projects in each electoral division have been given assistance in respect of each program under his responsibility, and what was the expenditure for each project since December 1972.
  2. What commitments have been made under each program which are not now going to be met.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Because of the time factor involved in the compilation of the information I am unable to supply the information requested by the honourable member.
  2. No commitments have been made under any program which cannot be met.

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3311)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under the Minister’s control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the right honourable gentleman’s question:

  1. to (4) See the answer provided by the Minister representing the Minister for the Media on 4 December 1974 (Hansard, page 4590).

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3318)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. ) What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister in reply to a similar question which appeared on 15 October 1975 (Parliamentary Question No. 3304, Hansard, page 2188).

Tabling of Reports in the Parliament (Question No. 3354)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What are the titles of the reports tabled by Ministers since February 1973 which have not been distributed to Members in the usual way but a copy of which has been placed in the Parliamentary Library for the information of Members.
  2. When was each report tabled.
  3. What is the situation relating to reports in the corresponding preceding period.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) (2) and (3) To attempt to compile the information requested would involve time and expense that I am reluctant to authorise. As it is the usual practice of Ministers tabling reports to indicate instances where they have not been distributed to Members, reference to the Hansard should provide reasonably complete information.

Preservation of Government Documents (Question No. 3357)

Mr Wentworth:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Having regard to the concealment and destruction of public records which has happened elsewhere, for example, by the former President Nixon in relation to Watergate, will he ensure that all records in connection with the ACTU-Solo oil deal and attempts by his Ministers to arrange loans from overseas are carefully preserved and made available to all proper inquiry.
  2. Will he take special care to include in such records any material which would indicate the extent of his own participation in these matters, and his own knowledge of relevant events as they transpired.
  3. What persons, other than Ministers, who have been connected with these matters would be best qualified to give an objective and unbiased account of what actually occurred.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) This government’s policies on the preservation of archival material do not differ in essentials from those of its predecessors, but we have pursued these matters more actively. As a result, we intend to enact legislation in the near future which will, inter alia, ensure that Australian Government records are properly preserved and accessible to the public as appropriate.
  2. I agree with the implication in the honourable member’s question that Ministers would be best qualified to give an objective and unbiased account While I would hesitate to attempt to compile a list of others who might be able to do so, I doubt whether such a list, if it were compiled, would include any members of the Opposition parties.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751021_reps_29_hor97/>.