Senate
22 April 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1185

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Willesee, is attending the ANZUS Council Meeting in Washington and will be absent from Australia until 30 April. During his absence the Prime Minister will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs until his departure overseas on 23 April when the Minister for Science, Mr Morrison, will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

During Senator Willesee ‘s absence, I will represent the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs in this chamber and also represent those Ministers normally represented by Senator Willesee. I also inform the Senate that the Treasurer, Dr J. F. Cairns, is attending the 1975 annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank in Manila and will be absent from Australia until 30 April. During his absence, the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, Mr Stewart, will act as Treasurer.

page 1185

PETITION

The Clerk:

– The following petition has been lodged for presentation:

Hobart City Council: RED Scheme Grant

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of residents and land owners of the area of Ridgeway-Hobart, Tasmania respectfully showeth whereas:

  1. Ridgeway was one of the early settled areas of the City of Hobart and is situated in close proximity to one of the city ‘s sources of water supply.
  2. That we have suffered bush fires and a lower standard of living due to no reticulated water supply being available.
  3. Inflationary increases in estimated costs of servicing our allotments with a reticulated supply.
  4. Stagnation of our land due to only rain being available.

Your Petitioners request that your Honourable Parliament takes immediate action to:

Make available to the Hobart City Council a Special Grant under the “Red” Scheme for urgent labour intensive works such as the laying of a water main to Ridgeway.

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

Petition received.

page 1185

NOTICES OF MOTION

Telecommunication Services

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the provision of telecommunication services within Australia, between Australia and places outside Australia, and between certain external territories and places outside those territories.

Postal Services

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the provision of postal services within Australia and between Australia and places outside Australia.

Postal and Telecommunication Legislation

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to enact certain transitional provisions consequential upon the enactment of the Postal Services Act 1975 and the Telecommunications Act 1975.

page 1185

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1185

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, who represents the Attorney-General, whether he is able to confirm that there are currently at least 10 cases before the High Court of Australia in which Commonwealth legislation or its administrative procedures are under constitutional challenge. Is he able to confirm the report published today that the constitutionality of sections of the Trade Practices Act also are to be challenged before the High Court? Will he obtain from the AttorneyGeneral information as to the constitutional challenges pending in the High Court and the stage which the challenges have reached, and place that information before the Senate? Is he also able to inform the Senate whether the Government acts in accordance with legal advice tendered to it as to the constitutionality of its measures before it adopts them?

Senator JAMES McCLELLANDAnswering the last part of the honourable senator’s question first, I have no doubt that that is the practice followed by the Government. As to the number of matters in which the constitutionality of governmental measures is challenged in the High Court, I do not have the exact details but I shall ask the Attorney-General to supply them and I shall then let the honourable senator have this information. If I caught an inference in his question that the fact that legislation is challenged raises a presumption that the Government acts without legal advice, I am sure that his own experience as a lawyer and a moment’s reflection will tell him that that is an absurd proposition.

page 1186

QUESTION

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION: INSURANCE COMPANY

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to an article which appears in today’s ‘Age’ which states that the Prudential Assurance Company Ltd has set stricter policy conditions for nonwhite, non-Europeans applying for insurance than for white Australians of European origin? This article also indicates that the conditions under which non-whites can be insured are set out in a confidential company book distributed to company representatives. Will the Minister examine this matter and advise whether such practices would be in conflict with the proposed Racial Discrimination Bill?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My attention has been drawn to the article to which the honourable senator refers. It appears from the report that instructions to the representatives of this company are that white Australians of European origin may be insured for up to $35,000 without medical examination but that a medical examination is required in all cases where the applicant is a person who is not of British parentage and has resided in Australia for less than 2 years, or is a full, half or quarter caste Chinese, Indian, etc., that is, a person other than of the European race. The company claims that discrimination is not involved but that it is a question of correct underwriting because nonwhite, non-Europeans have a lower life expectancy than Europeans. In the light of the report of the instructions that the company has issued, it may be thought doubtful whether this explanation is a true one.

Section 13 of the Racial Discrimination Bill which, I think, has reached the second reading stage in the Senate, provides -

Senator Greenwood:

– I hope that the Minister is not anticipating debate in contravention of the Standing Orders.

Senator JAMES McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I am about to quote what is in the Bill. I am sure that the honourable senator will be glad to hear it if he has not already read the Bill. Clause 13 provides:

It is unlawful for a person who supplies goods or services to the public or to any section of the public-

to refuse or fail on demand to supply those goods or services to another person; or

to refuse or fail on demand to supply those goods or services to another person except on less favourable terms or conditions than those upon or subject to which he would otherwise supply those goods or services,

If by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that other person or of any relative or associate of that other person.

In clause 3 of the Bill, ‘services’ are defined as including:

  1. . services consisting of the provision of facilities by way of banking or insurance or of facilities for grants, loans, credit or finance.

Accordingly, conduct of the kind reported would be made unlawful by those provisions of the Racial Discrimination Bill.

page 1186

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF THE MEDIA

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for the Media seen the reported statements of a Mr Marcus Conn, one of America’s top lawyers in the broadcasting field? I quote one such statement:

Australia’s Ministry for the Media is a frightening concept because of its great potential for abuse and power.

I ask the Minister whether he has also seen the further statement:

We’ve seen what political control has done through manipulation of the media in Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union.

What steps has the Minister taken to make sure that there will be no such abuse of power in Australia?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am aware of the reports to which the honourable senator has referred. I am informed by my Department, which arranged the seminar at which Mr Cohn spoke, that the remarks as reported and attributed to Mr Cohn were taken out of context. The simple fact is that the Labor Government has brought in many new policies which are mind-boggling to conservative minds. This was a point that Mr Cohn was making. Mr Cohn was making no implication, as was implied by the newspaper articles. In fact I am given to understand that he was very complimentary about the concept of a department of the media. I am told that he saw the Ministry of the Media as being a breakthrough in democratic countries as a means of co-ordinating, not centralising, media activities.

So far as political control of the media is concerned, I remind honourable senators that the Department of the Media has no regulatory or legal power to exercise control. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which is an independent statutory authority set up under the Broadcasting and Television Act, is responsible for reporting to Parliament through me as the Minister for the Media or through any other Minister who might be responsible for the Board from time to time, as was the PostmasterGeneral in the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. If the honourable senator is suggesting that there is any regulation or censorship of news items by the present Government I merely suggest that he listen to or read the reports of last week concerning my own activities as Minister.

page 1187

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES TEACHERS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration: Is it a fact that the Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, conferred with the New South Wales Teachers Federation recently on the action of the New South Wales Government in compounding teacher redundancy in that State by seeking to usurp the role of the Australian Government by engaging in migration excursions overseas for teachers, a function which should be solely that of the Australian Government?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The only information I can give to the honourable senator at present is that I know the Minister for Labor and Immigration is aware of the situation. I think he has responded by making some points to the New South Wales Government. I shall endeavour to get some more up to date information for the honourable senator.

page 1187

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE BOUNTY

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for Agriculture will recall informing the Senate at question time on 13 February that the Industries Assistance Commission report on the restoration of the superphosphate bounty for Western Australian new land settlers was expected within a month or so. As 2 months have elapsed, can the Minister say whether there has been an unexpected delay? If so, what caused it? When does the Minister now expect a decision? Does he still expect that the IAC report on the superphosphate bounty general reference will be available in May or June?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The reports of the Industries Assistance Commission of course go to the Special Minister of State. It is true that in February we expected that the report on the new land settlers inquiry in Western Australia would be available by approximately the end of March. I must confess that since then there has been, as indicated in the question, a general reference on superphosphate to the Commission. I am not sure in my own mind as to the effect this has had on the Commission’s work on the new lands inquiry. I assume that much of the evidence that was taken in respect of the earlier inquiry is being used by the Commission in its findings for the general inquiry. I will have to ascertain from my colleague the Special Minister of State the position regarding the earlier report. It was my understanding that those rcommendations would be brought to the Government separately from the report of the general inquiry. If the Minister can advise me of any further detail I will let Senator Drake-Brockman know.

page 1187

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction: Can he indicate the earliest date on which applications approved for loans under the provisions of the defence homes legislation will be serviced by the Department?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yesterday Senator Bonner asked a similar question of the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. The Minister did not answer it because the question should have been directed to the Minister for Housing. I did not volunteer an answer on that occasion because I noticed that question 5 1 1 on the notice paper was similar and I thought the question was out of order. I now have an answer to question 5 1 1. It will be supplied at the relevant time. I suggest that, rather than dispute whether I answer this question, I supply the honourable senator with a copy of the answer when it is presented to the Senate.

page 1187

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I address my question to the Minister for Agriculture. Has the Minister seen newspaper reports that the Government is considering new subsidised interest loans for the beef industry? Can the Minister confirm that the proposal is to provide $20m at 4 per cent interest? In relation to the loan finance for the beef industry that the Government made available last year, can the Minister confirm a further report that of the allotted $20m only $6m has been advanced in 5 months? Would the Minister agree that the low demand for those funds reflects that the conditions under which they were offered, particularly at high current interest rates, made them inappropriate for the currently extremely depressed beef industry? Will the Minister therefore undertake to initiate whatever steps are necessary for the renegotiation of those loans, already approved, at a lower rate of interest?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Yes, I did see those Press reports and they are partly accurate. The Government, as the Senate would know, made available $20m last year to assist the beef industry. It was the first Government in Australia to do so. We heard, for example, a lot of criticism, especially from Queensland, about Government assistance to beef producers. But the beef industry was in difficulty for months before the Queensland Government decided to take any action whatsoever. It was only the Federal Government that decided last year to assist the industry; and to assist it on the terms and conditions that were sought by the National Cattlemen’s Association. That point ought to be made clear. Since then, as a result of decisions taken by State governments to offer finance at interest rates lower than those obtaining under the original loan provided by the Federal Government, I had discussions with State Ministers at a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, and the Australian Government has agreed to provide matching finance at matching interest rates, but not below 4 per cent, to those States which are prepared to enter into a joint Commonwealth-State scheme. The important factor is to ensure that the resources that we have available to us in Australia, both Federal Government resources and State Government resources, are used in the most rational manner to assist the widest range of beef producers in the country. I would hope that no State, or anyone representing a State, would quarrel with that principle. I shall be meeting the State Ministers again, I hope next week. I have endeavoured to call them together in Melbourne next week for the purpose of finalising details.

Approximately $8m of the original $20m appropriation has been approved for loans and the conditions of those loans will remain unaltered. The balance of approximately $12m will also remain available to those producers who qualify under those conditions. It should be borne in mind that under the arrangements we enter into with the States it is not a matter of any person, any beef producer, simply making an application under any of these schemes; a person has to be denied a loan by the normal banking processes before he qualifies. That, I would suggest, is nothing new under this Government. It has always applied. The balance of that $20m will remain available to beef producers who qualify under that scheme.

page 1188

QUESTION

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION: INSURANCE COMPANY

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, follows and is germane to the question asked by my colleague Senator Poyser concerning the report in this morning’s Melbourne ‘Age’ on the Prudential Assurance Company Ltd. I ask: Will the proposed Australian Government insurance office be using racial origin as a criterion for deciding who will be offered insurance policies? Further, does the Minister propose to take any action to ensure the elimination of racist attitudes in the writing of insurance business in Australia?

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

– I have seen the statement, as has the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. I have also seen a statement which is attributed to a Mr Sharpies, a spokesman of the Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd., who said that all insurance companies take account of the racial origins of people in the provision of life assurance policies. Apparently not only do they do that, but the Prudential Assurance Co. also uses such outmoded and objectionable terms as ‘halfcastes’ and ‘quarter-castes’ in its intructions to its agents. I believe it is appalling that life assurance offices which receive substantial financial benefit from the taxation policies of the Government, supported by all the people of Australia, should discriminate against those people of Australia who do not happen to have the pallid complexion that Mr Sharpies has. Certainly the policy of the Australian Government insurance office, when it is established, will be to see that all residents of this country are treated equally. I know Senator Greenwood finds this amusing. I am sure this will be reflected in his attitude to the Racial Discrimination Bill and other legislation which comes before the Senate. We on this side of the Senate do not find it amusing. I can assure all honourable senators that the Australian Government insurance office will see that there will be no racial discrimination in the provision of policies for any resident of this country who applies for them.

page 1188

QUESTION

BEEF: EXPORTS TO JAPAN

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, relates to the export of beef to Japan following the news release yesterday by the Japanese agriculture ministry of approval of a price support system for domestic beef which it is claimed will open the door to a resumption of imports from exporting countries such as Australia. Can the Minister indicate the likely amount that Australia may export to the Japanese market? Can he indicate the benefits to the export price of beef which may result from subsequent exports?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I have seen a Press report only this morning that the Japanese agriculture ministry, not the Japanese Parliament, has approved a plan of support to the Japanese beef industry. Presumably it will have to pass the Japanese Parliament. Assuming it does, it is to operate from 1 May. This information is all from Press reports. The effect, I understand, would be a reintroduction of a very limited quota for Australian exports. Apparently under the system which the Japanese have been considering, a lot depends upon the floor and the ceiling prices. So I would not anticipate any marked effect on our exports. At present any additional outlet for our exports of beef would be welcome. I would not think that it would have a great impact on the price situation because the amount involved would probably be no more than perhaps 5000 or 10 000 tonnes of beef, which would represent less than 10 per cent of the amount of beef which we were shipping to Japan last year before that market closed.

page 1189

QUESTION

WOOL MARKETING SCHEME

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Agriculture had his attention drawn to statements to the effect that there is some uncertainty in the wool industry at the moment about marketing arrangements for the 1975-76 selling season? Can he indicate when an announcement might be made on this matter?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The Government has been considering this matter for some weeks. I was hoping that by the end of this month I would have been able to make an announcement concerning the floor price for 1975-76. Unfortunately the Government has a great many matters currently under consideration. As yet there has not been time to deal with this matter. However I can assure the Senate that it is receiving active consideration by the Government and that within 3 weeks or so I will be able to make a definite announcement concerning Government policy.

page 1189

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMS: AUSTRALIAN CONTENT

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for the Media aware of Gallup poll and other findings published this morning which show that most Australians are opposed to the proposal that 75 per cent of prime television time should be given to Australian-produced programs and record opposition to further government controls on television and radio? If he is, does he propose, in the light of these expressed opinions, to recommend changes in the Government’s expressed legislative and administrative intentions in these areas?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would suggest that Senator Missen look at the type of question that was asked in the Gallup poll and compare it with the platform of the Labor movement. The honourable senator used the expression ‘75 per cent prime television time’. The platform of the Labor movement is that there shall be ultimately 75 per cent overall Australian content, without reference to prime television time.

page 1189

QUESTION

LONG-RANGE RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: Did the Minister observe a reference in last week’s Press concerning the replacement of the long-range reconnaissance aircraft currently in service? Can he advise the Senate whether, in fact, the Orions, now used for long-range reconnaissance purposes, are to be replaced?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The newspaper report to which the honourable senator refers, I think, was based on speculation. The Minister anticipates that he will make a decision some time during May and then make a statement. At present negotiations are still proceeding. The number of contenders involved in the negotiations has now been reduced to two. Honourable senators might remember that the Boeing company requested the Government to reconsider its application. After the mission which went overseas in September last year had made further inquiries and after investigation of the proposition put forward by the Boeing company, the Government decided to consider that proposition. The Government has now resolved that 2 contenders will be considered.

page 1189

QUESTION

PROPOSED NATIONAL COMPENSATION SCHEME

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation concerned that the estimate of the overall cost of the proposed national compensation scheme has gone up in recent months by $200m? Can a further upwards revision be anticipated in view of the Government’s refusal to cut its expenditure to check inflation? Is the level of cost a consideration in the Government’s plan to introduce the scheme?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I was unaware that there had been any increased estimate of $200m in cost. Senator Sheil seems to be privy to information that I do not have. Of course, the Government is concerned about cost. This is indeed one of the reasons why we are proposing a national compensation scheme- so that we can eliminate the costs that are at present involved in litigation, the administrative costs and the costs of conducting tribunals and so that we can eliminate the costs in human suffering, which is more important still to all of those people who are at present suffering severe disabilities and are completely uncompensated under the existing law.

page 1190

QUESTION

TELEPHONE INTERPRETER SERVICE

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I refer the Minister to recent comments of the Australian Government’s Special Consultant on Community Relations, Mr Al Grassby, in relation to the number of migrants living in the Melbourne metropolitan area. I ask: To what extent is the telephone interpreter service in Melbourne being used?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The Minister instructed that the service be set up in February of 1973. 1 understand that at the time it was established it was proposed that it would be used mainly for emergency situations. Since that time, because of the calls upon this service, it has been decided to make it a general welfare service. It is presently staffed by about 10 multi-lingual officers and operates around the clock. I am told that about 50 000 people have used the service. Since that service has proven so successful, it has been extended to Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide.

page 1190

QUESTION

PENSIONS: MEANS TEST

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security able to state whether the Government has changed its mind about the rate at which it will abolish the means test for pensioners, so that it will not now honour the Prime Minister’s promise to remove the means test during the life of the present Parliament? Will the Minister tell the Senate and the pensioners of Australia just when they can expect the means test to be abolished?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-The Government has not changed its mind about the abolition of the means test. In fact legislation will shortly be coming before the Senate to lower the age at which the means test is applicable. I might comment in passing that I find it rather curious that Senator Townley and other honourable senators who on the one hand wish to tell us that the Government is engaging in excessive expenditure, within the very same breath tell us that we ought to be spending more money on something else. I wish they would make up their minds what they want us to do. Do they want us to save money or abolish the means test?

page 1190

QUESTION

ALLEGED COMPANY MALPRACTICE

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether he has seen a report that Mr R. A. Turner, a former State manager of the National Bank of Australasia Ltd and a director of the Millaquin Sugar Company Ltd, will receive $30,000 and a seat on the board of the Bundaberg Sugar Company Ltd should the latter ‘s take-over bid for Millaquin be successful. Is this practice of offering sweeteners as inducements to directors, and their acceptance of them, an abuse of their office and one appropriate for investigation by the Department of the Attorney-General?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not heard of the alleged facts as stated by the honourable senator and, of course, I pass no judgment on the truth or falsity of them. If the facts are as stated by the honourable senator there would seem on the face of it a matter which should be investigated by the corporate affairs commission or whatever body is charged with the superintendence of the affairs of companies and the conduct of directors in Queensland. I know that in New South Wales AttorneysGeneral have been in recent years notoriously slow and even dilatory in the investigation of alleged company scandals, but I know nothing of the practice or reputation of the Queensland equivalent of the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission. All I can say in passing is that the existence of a practice such as that alleged, if these practices are in fact occurring, underlines the necessity for an Australian companies Act to be passed by this Parliament at the earliest possible moment.

page 1190

QUESTION

PARSONS LTD OF WHYALLA

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Manufacturing Industry aware that Parsons Ltd of Whyalla recently lost a contract worth $ 1 .6m to a Scottish firm due to tariff cuts applied by the Government? Is the Minister aware that, according to a Press statement today by the manager of that company at Whyalla, the work force of 1 15 will be halved in 6 months unless finance can be assured to bridge the period before the next major contract is obtained? As an approach has already been made to the Department of Manufacturing Industry for assistance, can the Minister say what action is being taken by his Department to alleviate the problem? If he is not aware of this approach, will he make urgent inquiries about this matter?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have heard something of this matter and I understand that it is being investigated by my Department. I am unable to pass any opinion on whether it is a fact that this company lost a contract due to the tariff policies of the Government. But I do know that my Department is regularly processing claims based on allegations that the difficulties of various companies are due to the conduct of this Government and that on investigation many of the difficulties of many of these companies turn out to be due merely to the mismanagement of their directors.

page 1191

QUESTION

IMPORT OF MOTOR CAR TYRES

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Science aware that some new 6-cylinder cars in Australia are being sold fitted with cheap 2-ply tyres imported from the United States and that these tyres, although complying with Australian standards, do not comply with United States standards for tyres? In view of the opinion of motoring experts that these tyres are unsafe and inadequate, will the Minister cause to be made a review of Australian standards for tyres and investigations of the customs regulations which allow tyres of this standard to be imported?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not aware of the facts stated by the honourable senator, but I will draw his question to the attention of my colleague the Minister for Science and let the honourable senator have a reply.

page 1191

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY IN SAIGON

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it the intention of the Government to withdraw all staff of the Australian Embassy from Saigon? If it is, when and why? If the Government is convinced that it has pursued an even-handed policy with Hanoi and Saigon, and if the Government’s relations with Hanoi are as good as it alleges they are, what has the Embassy to fear by remaining? Are there not in existence effective air-raid and other shelters to ensure the physical safety of the minimal staff involved? If the Embassy withdraws, will this not be the end of all prospects of further evacuation of people to Australia and of any oversight of the day-to-day events? Is it not therefore imperative in the interests of humanity that Australia should have an official presence in Saigon in the vital days immediately ahead? Might not such a presence be a restraining influence against wholesale murder and retribution? If this is at all a possibility, would not the risks involved be more than justified? Finally, since this matter is of vital importance, will the Minister discuss it immediately with the Prime Minister?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-On 21 April the Minister for Foreign Affairs approved recommendations by the Australian Ambassador in Saigon to make an early beginning on the evacuation of Australian Embassy staff and non-official Australian nationals. On that day, a final warning letter was issued to Australian nationals. It is hoped that all non-official Australian nationals will avail themselves of the Australian Government’s offer of Royal Australian Air Force transport. The timing of the final withdrawal of mission staff is under continuing examination. Factors such as whether the mission can continue to play a useful role will be given proper weight, but the safety of Embassy staff and of RAAF air crew engaged in the evacuation will be the deciding consideration. As to the last matter raised by Senator Carrick in his question, I would need to refer it to the Prime Minister to obtain a suitable reply.

page 1191

QUESTION

CYCLONE TRACY: COMPENSATION PAYMENTS

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour and Immigration · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I direct my question to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Can he inform the Senate whether there is likely to be any delay in compensation payments to residents of Darwin for loss or damage to real and personal property arising out of Cyclone Tracy?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I do not believe that there should be any delay provided that the Bill that is at present before the Senate is passed with some dispatch. The longer it takes to pass the Bill, the longer it will take before the Government will be able to make payments to those people who suffered loss or damage to personal property in the cyclone. I hope all honourable senators take account of that fact when the Bill comes before the Senate once again for debate.

page 1191

QUESTION

BEEF PRODUCERS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Will he indicate what the conditions will be for eligibility under the new loans made available for the beef industry? Will they be available to most producers in the form of carry-on finance, rather than as a means of off-setting existing debts or of restocking? If so, will the loans be made direct to the producers through the Development Bank or the State instrumentality? Has the Government received requests for the deferment of income tax assessments that are due, in view of the tight financial situation that exists in this industry? If it has, will the Government give favourable consideration to those requests because, if graziers have to sell stock in order to pay tax, this will only aggravate the depressed conditions by a further lowering of cattle prices as a result of over-supply?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The arrangement under the present proposal that I will be discussing with State Ministers is that this scheme will operate through the regional reconstruction authorities which are, of course, State instrumentalities. The conditions vary as between the States. Basically they are the same, but they do have marginal differences in their provisions for qualifications for loans. I am not able to state precisely the details of those conditions, because the State governments themselves are normally responsible under the general terms of loan arrangements. But in the broad there will be carry-on finance which will be available only to those producers who, as I indicated earlier in my answer to Senator Bessell, have been refused finance from normal finance sources such as the trading banks and the pastoral houses. There will be no minimum income qualification in so far as the proportion of their incomes from beef is concerned at present but it will be necessary for a limit to be imposed on the amount which any one producer could obtain under the scheme. I am not aware of any request about the taxation deferments. If such a proposal has come in- it has not been brought to my attention- I am quite sure that it would be given every consideration depending on the actual material contained in the submission. But I think it is fair to say that the Government, by taking the step that it took last November with the first appropriation to assist the industry, and now with this new scheme, has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that those producers who are in need of finance will be able to get it.

page 1192

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation and follows the question asked earlier by Senator

Brown. Will an Australian Government insurance office use ordinary actuarial methods in determining premiums to be paid for life assurance policies? Will known and measured morbidity experience of groups with certain characteristics- for example, a history of elevated blood pressure- be used in such actuarial calculation and premium loadings? Do Aboriginal people have an excess mortality measured simply on a basis of race and would this be a valid factor for actuarial calculation? If the Australian Government insurance office elects not to use all known factors affecting morbidity in determining life assurance premiums will it need subsidy payments or other arrangements to cover trading losses likely to follow such a policy?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I am very pleased that Senator Baume asked me this question. I think that he has asked it for the purpose of supporting those private insurance companies which have imposed these restrictions in the past. I think that before he did this perhaps he should have had a word with Mr Sharpies of the Prudential Assurance Company Limited. I do not think Mr Sharpies would agree with Senator Baume. In his statement Mr Sharpies said that the clauses which referred to racial origin were drawn up in 1969 and he went on to say: ‘They should not be in the book and they will not be there in the next reprint’. So apparently Senator Baume thinks that racial restrictions ought to be applied which the spokesman for the Prudential Assurance Company has said should not be applied.

I do not know whether it is a fact that Aborigines have the characteristics to which Senator Baume referred. Certainly the Australian Government insurance office will conduct itself on the normal actuarial basis. But I say this: I do not believe the proper approach to questions of differences within society is on a racial basis. I do not believe the pseudo-scientific drivel that was produced by the Nazis about Jews having long noses and all the graphs that were produced to show how they were inferior to gentiles. I do not believe that the same ought to be applied to what the Prudential Assurance Company describes so elegantly as half-castes, quarter-castes, and so on in the booklet which it distributed. I can assure Senator Baume that so far as I am concerned there will be no restrictions based on the racial origins of any person with regard to the granting of policies by the Australian Government insurance office, that any applications for policies made by any persons will be judged on the characteristics of the applicants themselves. If there are any particular characteristics about an applicant’s family which are of some medical interest they will be studied. But certainly it would be completely abhorrent to this Government, and something which would not be done by this Government, to start off with the presumption that half-castes, quarter-castes and people of coloured complexions and so on are going to be ab initio placed in some underprivileged or deprived position as compared with their white fellow citizens of Australia.

page 1193

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I ask: Is it not a fact that, under the terms of the Constitution, the Australian Government consists of the 6 States, with limited defined powers residing with the Commonwealth Government? How then, and under what constitutional warrant, has this Commonwealth Government assumed the title, ‘Australian Government’, and imposed a series of ancillary titles denying the correct constitutional Commonwealth title and status in the Australian federation?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I must confess that I have some sympathy with the feeling behind what the honourable senator has said. I have always liked the term ‘Commonwealth’ and, had it been left to any initiative of mine, I would not have readily thrown it out. However, I suggest that it is primarily a matter of preference and not a matter on which any great constitutional matters turn. Certainly the word ‘Commonwealth ‘ occurs in the Constitution.

Senator Missen:

– Many times.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, but the Prime Minister and those advising him have decided in the fullness of their judgment that the term ‘Australian’ is preferable. It is not something about which I feel strongly, but I must confess that I, too, feel some regret at seeing the word ‘Commonwealth’ disappear from many places where I have found it appropriate.

page 1193

QUESTION

WHEAT: ADVANCE PAYMENT

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question to the Minister for Agriculture by saying that the Minister would no doubt be aware that the Australian Wheat Growers Federation is campaigning for an increase in the first advance payment for wheat to $1.80 a bushel for the 1975-76 harvest. Does the Minister accept the claim that, without the increase, the viability of the wheat industry is threatened and acreage will decline substantially?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I should have thought that one of the last rural industries that could currently be considered to be under any kind of threat would be the wheat industry. Last year, the 1973-74 season payments were very highindeed, almost $500m- whereas this year total payments to the industry are $900m. Despite that, there are moves to ask for further increases in the first advance to wheat growers. I have already announced that there will be an increase this year from the $ 1 .20 of last year to $ 1 .50 and, as that figure has traditionally been based on a cost of production assessment, it appears to be a reasonable figure and sufficient incentive to growers to put in their crops for this year. From reports I have received, as quotas have been lifted for 1975, all things being equal, particularly the weather, we shall probably see a record crop of wheat in Australia in this season.

page 1193

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION OFFICE: CAPETOWN

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-1 address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade and ask whether he will confirm that the Government has decided to close down the Australian Trade Commission Office in Capetown, South Africa. If so, does the Government propose to justify this measure as a reduction in government spending. If not, will the Minister explain what benefit will flow to Australia from closing down a trade commission office in a country with which we have expanding trade relations?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I ask that the question be placed on notice for reference to the Minister himself.

page 1193

QUESTION

CRUELTY TO LOBSTER

Senator McLAREN:

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has his attention been drawn to a letter in the Canberra Times’ of 18 April in which it was claimed that ‘crabs’ were struggling to stay alive in a shop window in Civic Centre, Canberra, and that when the writer complained to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the police she was told that there was no law against torturing a lobster to death in a display window? Will the Minister confer with the AttorneyGeneral with a view to enacting legislation to prevent this type of cruelty?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator was good enough to pass to me before asking this question an extract from the ‘Canberra Times’, headed ‘Cruelty to a Lobster’, consisting of a letter to that paper written by a resident of Queanbeyan drawing attention to the circumstances which the honourable senator described. In some gourmet restaurants it is possible for diners to select live fish for their meals but at least such fish are kept in conditions of comfort, even bliss, up to the moment before they become somebody’s meal. However, it seems to me that the circumstances described by the honourable senator do constitute some cruelty to the fish in question. I will draw the Attorney-General’s attention to this fact and ask him to make provision to prevent the repetition of such practices.

page 1194

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO STATIONS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I seek further information from the Minister for the Media on today’s announcement by Mr Grassby, the adviser on community affairs, relating to the setting up of ethnic radio stations to communicate with migrants. What are the conditions of control of these stations and who will devise the programs? Can the Minister state for how long these stations will operate and what is their future?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Some time ago an interdepartmental committee consistingI speak from recollection- of representatives of the Government’s adviser on community affairs, the Department of Immigration, the Department of the Media, the Department of the Prime Minister and the Department of Urban and Regional Development was set up to consider this question. It had been brought to the Government’s attention that there was quite a problem amongst sections of the migrant community because of their inability to speak the English language, the fact that the children of migrants were at school during the day and that the husbands were at work. For these reasons many people were unable to communicate with one another in the outer urban areas of Sydney and Melbourne in particular. The interdepartmental committee was appointed for the purpose of considering the establishment of ethnic community broadcasting. If I recollect correctly, it was decided to recommend that lowpowered transmitters be established, if possible, in Sydney and Melbourne for non-profit community broadcasting purposes at this stage. The matter was referred to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to see what frequencies would be available for low-powered transmitters. I understand that when details of this nature are worked out further discussions will take place to see how the types of stations contemplated might be controlled and operated.

page 1194

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Is it not a fact that the Australian Government has advertised that its free legal aid service is available to give legal opinions on matters appertaining to the Trade Practices Act? If so, will he seek information from the Attorney-General and inform the Senate how many requests for legal advice on this Act have been made to legal aid offices in Tasmania, and how many, if any, persons have been given legal opinions requested?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will be pleased to obtain that information and pass it on to the honourable senator.

page 1194

TELEPHONE INTERPRETER SERVICE

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) I wish to correct an answer I gave to Senator Melzer earlier concerning the telephone interpreter service in Melbourne. I referred to extensions to the service. I should have stated that since the Melbourne service has been installed services have been installed in Sydney, Adelaide and Perth.

page 1194

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF THE MEDIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In answer to a question earlier in question time today from Senator Young I referred to the remarks of a Mr Cohn, who had been reported in the Press as having criticised the concept of a Department of the Media. I am now informed that Mr Cohn has been in contact with officers of my Department to explain that the remarks he made in this context were entirely peripheral to matters he was attempting to explain in a Press interview. But Mr Cohn, I am told, has gone further than this, and has indicated that at the time he was discussing this question he was unaware of the essential differences between the Australian and American political systems, and misunderstood the Australian system of government- in particular the concept of ministerial responsibility to the Parliament. I understand Mr Cohn has said as much to other representatives of the Press today and I thought I should take this opportunity to provide further clarification of the context in which he made his original remarks.

page 1194

SECONDHAND RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVES

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I present for the information of honourable senators the report on secondhand railway locomotives of the Industries Assistance Commission dated 20 February 1975.

page 1195

CONSUMER ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I present for the information of honourable senators a report by the Temporary Assistance Authority on consumer electronic equipment and components.

page 1195

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)Pursuant to sub-section 7 (7) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974 I table the following documents:

A determination by the Remuneration Tribunal of remuneration payable to the Director of the Australian Development Assistance Agency and the Chairman and members of the Development Assistance Advisory Board, together with an explanatory statement issued by the Remuneration Tribunal; and

A determination by the Remuneration Tribunal of remuneration payable to the Chairman, Deputy Chairman, General Manager and members of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission.

These determinations have effect from the dates of appointment of the holders of these public offices to 1 March 1 975 when the relevant determination contained in the Remuneration Tribunal’s 1975 review superseded them.

page 1195

HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Hospital and Health Services Commission entitled: A Report on the Integration of Health Services and Health Education Facilities in the Illawarra region.

page 1195

CITIES COMMISSION

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by PA Management Consultants Pty Ltd for the Cities Commission entitled: Moreton Regional Employment Base Study Report. Due to the limited number available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. Copies of a synopsis of this report can be obtained from the office of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development.

page 1195

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I present the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on the 58th series of proposed variations to the plan of the layout of the city of Canberra and its environs.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator MILLINER:

– I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MILLINER:

– This report, tabled on behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, involves 2 variations to the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs. The series, the 58th, was referred to the Committee on 5 January 1975 together with the 56th and 57th series which were the subject of an earlier report to the Parliament. The report on those series was tabled in the Senate on 6 March 1975.

The. Committee decided to report separately on the 58th series because it involved the proposed Molonglo Arterial, a new urban arterial 4-lane road which had been the subject of continuing objection in some quarters. In fact the original proposal for a 6-lane parkway was the subject of an environmental impact inquiry by Mr Commissioner Lawrence, a well qualified engineer experienced in arbitration, in September 1973. As a result of the Commissioner’s inquiry an alternative proposal for a scaleddown development- an arterial road- was formulated by the National Capital Development Commission and presented in a document entitled: Technical Paper 2, Molonglo Arterial, Canberra. The amended plan took into consideration as well as the Commissioner’s findings a new transport policy evolved by the NCDC and the Department of the Capital Territory in which emphasis was given to the encouragement of the use of public transport. The Committee in February 1975 began hearing the proposal for the 58th series of variations, using the amended proposal of the NCDC as its basic document.

The Committee made a site inspection and also took the unprecedented step before making a decision of calling representatives of 2 objector groups who were opposed to both the original scheme and the modified scheme. While not rejecting some of the proposals in Technical Paper 2, the Committee expressed concern at some of the possible ramifications which could follow the in toto approval of the amended scheme.

As a result of this, the NCDC made a number of design changes, particularly in the area of West Basin and the Canberra Hospital. As a result of these proposals, the public recreation area in West Basin adjacent to the hospital access road, Lawson Crescent, will be 5 hectares. This compares favourably with the existing 7 hectares, some of which cannot be used because of drainage problems. The initial NCDC proposal would have reduced this area to 2 hectaresa figure totally unacceptable to the Committee. This area has now been preserved as a public recreation area and will be available for any public entertainments, including the annual Canberra Day aquatic carnival.

The approval of this proposed variation has therefore not been decided upon without serious and lengthy consideration. The Committee did not wish to harm a particularly attractive area of Canberra. Equally it did not wish to disadvantage Canberra citizens in denying them an improved means of access to and from the Belconnen area, Tuggeranong and the city. Other factors including both air and noise pollution and the retention of the tourist road were also considered by the Committee.

Finally, on behalf of the Committee I express appreciation of the help given by the officers of the NCDC who, on every occasion, met requests made to them by the Committee for further amendments to the proposal. The Committee also appreciates the time and effort the objectors whom it called before it put into the preparation of their cases. I commend the report to the Senate.

page 1196

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Drake-Brockman nominating Senator Shiel to be a member of the Joint Select Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament in place of Senator Webster.

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

That Senator Sheil be appointed a member of the Joint Select Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament.

page 1196

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Bishop) proposed:

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

Question put:

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 30

Majority……. 4

In division.

AYES

NOES

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Webster, you have not been counted.

Question so resolved in the negative.

First Reading

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

page 1197

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1 949- 1 973 provides for a Commissioner and 2 Associate Commisioners and that these be fulltime officers appointed for 7 years. The Act also provides that an Acting Commissioner may not continue in office for more than 12 months. These provisions relating to the top management structure of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority were enacted in 1949 when there was a vast construction task to be put in hand and carried to a successful conclusion. Construction of the Snowy scheme is now virtually completed.

Under the direction of the Snowy Mountains Council, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority will be left with functions of a residual kind such as manning the scheme- other than manning of generating stations which is the responsibility of the State electricity commissionsand financial administration. The top management structure that was appropriate for the construction phase of the scheme is thus not required in present circumstances. Accordingly, this Bill will amend the principal Act to provide flexibility in the top management structure of the Authority consistent with its changing role.

The Bill provides that the Commissioner and Associate Commissioners may in future be appointed on a part-time basis and that appointments may be for periods of less than 7 years.

Appointment of 2 Associate Commissioners will no longer be obligatory. The Bill also provides that an Acting Commissioner will not be limited to a tenure of office of 12 months. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 1197

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Sales Tax Bills (Nos 1 to9) 1975.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill 1 975.

Australian Housing Corporation Bill 1 975.

Australian National Railways Bill 1975.

Australian War Memorial Bill 1975.

page 1197

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee B

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee B relating to the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1974-75, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee C

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee C relating to the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1974-75. together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee D

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee D relating to the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1974-75, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee E

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee E relating to the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1974-75 together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee F

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee F relating to the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1974-75 together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee G

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee G relating to the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1974-75 together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee A

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-I bring up the report of Estimates Committee A relating to the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1974-75 together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1198

QUALIFICATION OF SENATOR

Debate resumed from 2 1 April on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the following questions respecting the qualification of Senator James Joseph Webster be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns-

whether Senator Webster was incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator; and

whether Senator Webster has become incapable of sitting as a senator.

Upon which Senator Withers had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add “, but the Senate is of the opinion that a Judicial Committee of Inquiry should be appointed to enquire into and report upon-

the types of circumstances in which the receipt by Members of the Parliament of moneys, fees and other benefits might constitute a breach of section 44 (v) and/or 45 (iii) of the Constitution;

any other questions relating to Members of the Parliament which, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, as a result of its considerations under paragraph (i) above, could properly be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns; and

whether sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution are appropriate provisions in present day circumstances and conditions.”

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator DrakeBrock man.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I would like to know the Government ‘s attitude first.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I understand the position was that after Senator Withers proposed the addendum to Senator Wriedt ‘s original motion, Senator Wriedt explained what the Government’s attitude might be and asked for the adjournment of the debate. I understand that Senator Wriedt is in continuation on behalf of the Government as a result of that debate being adjourned.

Senator Steele Hall:

– A point of order, Mr President. Do I understand that if the mover of the motion speaks again he closes the debate?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Wriedt will now be speaking to the amendment moved by Senator Withers. Senator Withers moved the amendment yesterday and the motion for the adjournment of the debate was taken by Senator Wriedt. That is the position today. I call Senator Wriedt now.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I would indicate that subsequent to the amendment being moved yesterday by Senator Withers the Government has had time to consider the amendment and will not oppose it. I do not propose to canvass any more of the issues to which I have already addressed myself yesterday. Before resuming my seat I would say that I trust that the Senate will treat this debate in the manner in which it has already been treated by both Senator Withers and myself.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– I am very pleased to know that the Government will support the amendment calling for a judicial inquiry into particular aspects of sections of the Constitution relating to pecuniary interest. I think the Government has taken a very wise attitude but I regret that the decision was not taken in the first instance.

Senator Wheeldon:

– It was only moved yesterday and we are accepting it today.

Senator DRAKEBROCKMANGovernment senators have taken the wrong meaning from what I said, and I hope they will look at my remarks later on. Like Senator Wriedt, I do not want this debate to develop into a Donnybrook. The Government’s motion requires that Senator Webster’s case be brought before the High Court. In these circumstances, any actions by me or by my Country Party colleagues would, I believe, be misinterpreted, if we attempted to prevent the course proposed in the motion from being taken. Personally, I should have liked to see the case delayed until the judicial inquiry had concluded its examination and reported. I believe the Senate is responsible for the clarification of its own problems. To me, Senator Webster’s case is no exception. However, the matter has been decided otherwise.

I wish to bring several points to the attention of the Senate, My colleague Senator Webster is charged with a technical breach, not with impropriety. His honesty and integrity are not being questioned, and his good name is not at stake. It has never been alleged or implied, before either the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament or the

Senate, that he has deliberately taken advantage of his position in the Senate to gain Government contracts. Senator Webster himself has declared in this chamber that he believes he has not violated the Constitution. He has told the Senate that the contracts of J. J. Webster Pty Ltd with the Government were gained in open tender. He has said that the company has the qualifying 25 shareholders. He has pointed out that the Australian Government Gazette announced the letting of those contracts. 1 repeat that there has been no underhanded work and no attempt to gain unfair advantage. There has been no conflict between Senator Webster’s private interests and his duties as a senator. Obviously, the Government entered into the contracts because it was to its advantage to do so; presumably the Government benefited by the contracts. A question arises from this issue that must be clarified for all members of Parliament. If it is not clarified, none can feel free of challenge, either free within the Senate or outside. The community wants clarification, too, now that a spotlight has been played on this matter. The question is: What actions amount to breaches of sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution? I submit that this question would not have been answered fully merely by determining the particular allegations made against Senator Webster. Even now that his case is to be examined by the court in isolation, we are guilty of having forced on him a large share of the burden of the matter. He has been singled out, and that clearly is grossly unfair.

Already Senator Webster’s case has been pursued in such a way that some people automatically believe that there has been some impropriety. Distress and harm have been caused. I certainly have no intention of initiating or contributing to a witch hunt in respect of members of Parliament. If any could be the target of similar allegations I believe the alleged breaches would be technical only. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) yesterdaydrew out the arguments for a judicial inquiry. I do not propose to go over that ground again but I draw the attention of the Senate to one additional important consideration. Today the Government is becoming increasingly involved in areas which hitherto were the sole domain of the private sector. I do not wish to debate or to initiate debate on the rights or wrongs of that involvement in this context.

The point is that, as the public sector rapidly expands, the private interests of more and more members of Parliament will be brought into possible conflict with the requirements of the relevant sections of the Constitution. Of course doubts exist as to whether the Constitution is being breached by a variety of present agreements between senators and members and the Crown. Of course clarification is necessary and the way to gain clarification is through an inquiry as required by the amendment. I would expect all honourable senators to support the amendment.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

-In the first place might I say on behalf of the Government to Senator Drake-Brockman particularly and to Senator Webster that there has never been any thought in the minds of any senators on the Government side of adjudging whether or not Senator Webster were guilty. I make that perfectly clear. I have heard the issue discussed on innumerable occasions. Every time it has been stressed that we will not in any circumstance determine by word or deed whether Senator Webster is guilty. Rather do we say that it is such a serious matter that the Senate has no alternative but to refer it to the Court of Disputed Returns. The acceptance of the resolution put forward by Senator Wriedt and the amendment moved by the Opposition is, I believe, indicative of the fact that every member of this Senate is conscious of his responsibility to the people of Australia to see that we do not hide behind the fact that we are members of Parliament.

I assure honourable senators sitting on the Opposition benches that I speak with the authority of all Government supporters when I reiterate that we have not attempted to judge the merits or demerits of the case. We have not attempted to judge whether the informer was justified in making his accusations. We believe that the informer having submitted his proposal we had no alternative but to take the action and I hope -

Senator Steele Hall:

– You believe Senator Webster should be judged?

Senator MILLINER:

– I believe we have no alternative as a Parliament but to refer the matter to the Court of Disputed Returns. I believe the unanimous decision of this Senate will disclose unanimity of thought in that direction. Perhaps we would say that it is repugnant to us to have this matter before us today and of course we would say with a great deal of authority that it is unfortunate that this thing has occurred at all. But there is an old saying: ‘There is nothing new under the sun’. I propose to show the Senate where on at least 2 occasions to my knowledge something of a similar nature has occurred.

First I refer to the case in Tasmania of Mr John R. Orchard. He was an Independent member for the seat of Cornwall but was formerly a Liberal member of the Legislative Assembly. Mr Orchard was forced to resign from the Tasmanian Legislative Council on 17 September 1968 as a result of a 10 to 8 vote of the Council because he was performing printing work for the State Government through the Telegraph Printery Pty Ltd, Charles St., Launceston, a printing business of which Mr Orchard was the sole proprietor or part owner with his wife. I repeat that Mr Orchard was in a similar position to that which we find ourselves considering today. The Tasmanian Legislative Council had no hesitation in declaring the seat vacant and appointed another Independent, Mr R. W. Shipp. Here was a member of the upper House of Tasmania sitting in Parliament and he was performing work for the Government whilst he was a member of the Tasmanian upper House. He was found guilty, apparently, by the Legislative Council which at that time was comprised, I am informed, entirely of Independents. No party political issues were involved. It was a straight-out Independent Council. It said that Mr Orchard would have to go and he was dismissed from his office and another Independent, Mr Shipp, was placed in his office. I believe that is fairly important.

The second case to which I wish to refer occurred in Victoria. I refer to the Victoria Parliamentary debates of the 1970-71 session, volume 299, pages 1 to 1396. On page 73 of the debates of 30 June 1 970- that date is fairly significantthe Hon. R. J. Hamer raised the question of the qualification of a member and moved:

That this House requires the Court of Disputed Returns to hear and determine whether the Honourable Ronald William Walsh is a person capable of being elected a member of the Legislative Council or of continuing to be a member, pursuant to the qualification requirements of section 73 of The Constitution Act Amendment Act 1 958 (No. 6224).

Mr Hamer went on further to say:

I now remind the House of the constitutional situation. I suppose ‘remind’ is the wrong word because most honourable members have never come into contact with this sort of thing in their time, and perhaps I should say that I shall explain the constitutional situation. So far as I am aware, such a matter has not arisen in this Chamber for 40 years or more; certainly it has never arisen in the present form because the Act was amended in 1961 to set up the Court of Disputed Returns for just such an eventuality.

Mr Hamer then went on to say:

The motion refers to section 73 of The Constitution Act Amendment Act, and 1 think I should start from there. Section 73 appears under the heading ‘Qualification Etc. of Members ‘ and reads-

Any natural-born or naturalised subject of Her Majesty, who is of the full age of twenty-one years, shall be qualified to be elected a member of the Council:

Provided that no person shall be capable of being elected or continuing to be a member of the Council who-

is a judge of any court of Victoria;- paragraph (b), which refers to a minister of religion has been repealed-

has been convicted of treason or any felony or infamous crime in any pan of Her Majesty’s dominions;

d ) is an uncertified bankrupt or insolvent.

Therefore, there are three provisos to the general provision. Section 74 follows-

1 ) If any person who is not qualified to be or nor capable of being elected a member of the Council is elected and returned as a member of the Council such election and return may be declared by the Court of Disputed Returns to be void to all intents and purposes.

If any person so elected and returned contrary to the provisions of this Part sits or votes in the Council, he shall be l iable to a penalty of Two hundred pounds to be recovered by any person who sues for the same in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Having referred to that £200,I suggest that later we shall know something more about that. The part about qualifications and vacancies states:

Any question respecting the qualification of a member of or respecting a vacancy in the Assembly or the Council may be referred by resolution of the Assembly or of the Council (as the case requires) to the Court of Disputed Returns and the Court of Disputed Returns shall thereupon have jurisdiction to hear and determine the question.

Honourable senators will realise that that situation arose in Victoria. If I say to you that I am reminded of the date of 30 June 1970 it is because a lad named Walsh had, some 20 years previously, been charged in a Children’s Court with, I believe, assault. But he was not convicted and fined or gaoled. He was placed on a bond to be of good behaviour in the future. We have the 2 situations to which I have referred, and I believe it important that we note those matters. Mr Hamer referred to certain matters and then said:

This is the legislative background to the matter. I am proposing that this chamber find that there is a question as to the qualification of a member and that it should take the action laid down under the Act to have the matter determined.

That is, by a Court of Disputed Returnsprecisely what the Senate proposes to do.

I suggest that, should we attempt to do anything other than refer the matter to a Court of Disputed Returns, we could be charged by the people of Australia with showing some degree of leniency or sympathy to one of our own. I believe that the Senate had no alternative but to act as it is doing. One might ask what the Australian Labor Party’s attitude was at that time. The records show that we opposed the proposition on the score that this incident had happened 20 years previously when the lad was tried in a Children’s Court. Mr Tripovich, in the debate on that occasion, said that what had happened in the Children’s Court should never have been brought into Parliament.

I come now to the attitude of the Country Party and of the honourable I. A. Swinburne, representing North-Eastern Province, who said:

Tonight, we face a position unique during the 24 years in which I have been a member of this House.

He continued by saying that the Country Party was going to support the proposition. He later said:

The Country Party has examined the position. Its members were given a copy of the brief provided by the Crown Solicitor, and have studied it. As Mr Tripovich has said, there are arguments for and against. This is probably something which both he and I, as non-legal men, do not fully understand. Legal practitioners seem to be able to argue both ways and to come down on one side or the other, or in the middle, and this often intrigues us. My Party has decided to support the motion for one reason, that the qualification of a member has been challenged and it believes that the right and proper body to determine that qualification is the Court of Disputed Returns of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court is set up for that purpose, and this House is not.

I believe that we are on very strong grounds when we adopt a similar attitude concerning one of our own. I repeat: Should we do other than act in accordance with the motion moved by Senator Wriedt we could be charged with favouring one of our own. The Opposition believes that the motion should be widened and that all members of the Parliament should be subjected to some kind of investigation if warranted. We do not oppose that proposition, because we believe exactly the same, namely, if any of our members on the Government side are in default of the Constitution they will have to face the situation. But I am not altogether happy about the amendment, because it appears that it could lead to a witch hunt. Nevertheless, to prove the bona fides of the Government, we accept the proposition of the Opposition, with all its deficiencies, believing that it will indicate to Australia at large that no favouritism is shown to any member of the Australian Government party or to any Opposition member if that member is acting contrary to the Australian Constitution. I commend the proposition.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-In referring to the speech to which we have just listened, it must be recalled that all these matters depend on the particular terms in which the ground for disqualification is drafted. The case in Tasmania has real relevance, whereas that in Victoria has relevance only from the point of view of showing that, when there is a Court of Disputed Returns, it is the proper tribunal to hear a proper case. I say at the outset that, as far as I know, in the whole of this case not one word of suggestion has been made that Senator Webster has taken advantage of his position to procure government contracts for the benefit of his business. There is not the slightest degree of dishonesty, impropriety or corruption imputed to him, and that accords with my experience of Senator Webster, whose character, both as a man and as a politician- that is to say, exercising the rights of a politician throughout the time he has been here- has been one of unsurpassed integrity. The question is whether there has been a breach of the clause of the Constitution that says that any person who:

Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons: shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

Section 45, which is relevant, provides that:

If a senator or member of the House of Representatives-

Directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State: his place shall thereupon become vacant.

In this case the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament sat to investigate the question of whether it was desirable to have a register of the interests of members of Parliament to enable the public to see and have ready access to a statement of their interests. Arising out of that, so far as we have been informed from that Committee, it was thought that a charge had been made against a senator under standing order 386. Therefore the Committee wrote a letter to you, Mr President, incorporating part- I emphasise that it was only part -of the evidence, but it was some evidence which directly alleges that Senator Webster’s company has had contracts with the services of the Commonwealth Crown- the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, I believe- for some years.

The first thing to be noted about that is that those contracts, according to all the evidence that we have, are on public record. They were notified in the ‘Gazette’ and they were procured in competition with all others after public tender. That notwithstanding, Mr President, you will notice the absence in sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution of any words such as ‘corruptly’, or dishonestly’, or words implying that the section requires dishonesty. Therefore it appears from the material before us, prima facie, that there is a case fit to be considered by the proper tribunal.

What is the proper tribunal? In my opinion this Parliament recognised that there was only one answer to that question years ago when it inserted in the Commonwealth Electoral Act a provision that questions with regard to vacancies occurring in the Senate in circumstances such as this might be referred, by resolution by the Senate, to the High Court sitting as a court of disputed returns. I think that nobody with political experience would think that a committee of this chamber, or the whole Parliament, with all the political pressures and interests there are from that scene, could adjudicate with any degree of propriety upon a matter such as this, requiring as it does an acute understanding of the law and a fair exercise of justice in temper and spirit. Therefore in my opinion, a prima facie case appearing, this case, if it were isolated and alone, would be proper for reference to the High Court. But there are some enigmas when it goes before the High Court. It is yet to be explained to my satisfaction what is to be made out of section 193 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which states:

The Court shall be guided by the substantial merits and good conscience of each case without regard to legal forms or technicalities, or whether the evidence before it is in accordance with the law of evidence or not.

That is language which, so far as I know, has not been used often to over-ride specific terms of clauses in relation to a disqualification, but there it is and it is a provision which is expressly incorporated into a Division of the Act dealing with qualifications. I mention it so that when the record of proceedings goes before the High Court it will be brought expressly to notice.

The other thing I desire to mention, Mr President, and it may concern you and the Senate from the point of balance, is that you will notice that the Court is not bound directly by the laws of evidence. I have not been able to find any High Court rules- I think they exist but in the limited time available to me I have not been able to find any- which say how this matter shall be tried. I imagine it will be tried upon oral evidence as a trial of the action. But section 204 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, under which we are proceeding, provides:

When any question is referred to the Court of Disputed Returns under this Pan . . . , the President if the question arises in the Senate, . . . shall transmit to the Court of Disputed Returns a statement of the question upon which the determination of the Court is desired, together with any proceedings, papers, reports or documents relating to the question in the possession of the House in which the question arises.

Only part of the record of the Committee out of which this matter arose has come before us and it would be proper for you, Mr President, and for the Senate to give consideration to putting into the possession of this House the whole of the records of those proceedings so that that portion that has been sent to us can be considered by the Court in its proper context.

The next point I want to make is that some question has been raised- I heard it indirectly, on the rebound- as to my position and whether I or my firm has received legal fees. I resigned in 1969 from the firm that still practices in the name that I practised under and I have received no fees under any Commonwealth legal aid scheme, nor do I have the slightest interest in any such fees. Having mentioned that, I want to say as to a reference of a case such as this that justice must be applied equally, and justice is always on a very delicate balance. It is justice according to law- according to law, but fundamentally justice. The essential quality of that is some balance and no discrimination, and certainly not preference.

Senator Georges:

– What do you mean by that?

Senator WRIGHT:

-I mean by that that it makes very pertinent the amendment that the Opposition moved in this place in relation to this matter. That amendment states: but the Senate is of the opinion that a Judicial Committee of Inquiry should be appointed to inquire into and report upon-

Senator McAuliffe:

– We know all that; you are only rehashing it.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am making my speech and it is going on record. I attach some importance to views which I express on a matter of such importance as this. Therefore, I would like even such illogical minds as those of honourable senators who interject to bear with my logic. The amendment states:

  1. . that a Judicial Committee of Inquiry should be appointed to inquire into and report upon-

    1. the types of circumstances in which the receipt by Members of the Parliament of moneys, fees and other benefits might constitute a breach of section 44 (v) and/or 43 (iii) of the Constitution;
    2. any other questions relating to Members of the Parliament which, in the opinion of the Judicial Committee, as a result of its considerations under paragraph (i) above, could properly be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns; . . .

That is to say that a judicial committee of inquiry should survey the field and, answering any other questions as to any other members of Parliament and the questions arising in relation to these sections, report upon matters that could properly be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns. Therefore, it is appropriate in my opinion that the motion seeking the reference of this matter to the High Court should be accompanied by the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers).

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government has said that it does not oppose the amendment.

Senator McAuliffe:

– The Government supports the amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I am reminded that, after an adjournment which was quite proper, the Government has announced that it will not oppose the amendment. Therefore, we will have a judicial committee which, I take it, will include a number of judges. I suggest that they will scrutinise the cases and the sections and, on proper interpretation, say whether there is evidence in those cases that could properly be submitted to the Court of Disputed Returns.

I instance 2 cases out of many. There is the case of yourself, Mr President. It is on record that you were the shareholder, director and manager of a company that acquired leasehold property in the Australian Capital Territory and still hold an interest in it, having acquired a unit of the property built upon that leasehold. I do not -

Senator Georges:

– I rise to a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! What is the point of order?

Senator Georges:

– Is this the right way to proceed in this debate; that is, to go from the general to the particular, which in fairness to all honourable senators would lead to the declaration of other particular cases and which might even lead to my standing on my feet and answering certain accusations that a senator made in the corridors? I suggest that perhaps in this debate, bearing in mind the spirit of the 2 Leaders in the Senate, we should be careful not to go into particulars. Surely, Mr President, you ought to rule in that way.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Ruling on the matter that Senator Georges has raised, I point out that the Leader of the Government in the Senate when he indicated his support of the amendment moved by Senator Withers said that he wished to keep the debate on the highest possible level without any recriminations or personalities intruding. I hope that that will be the level that is maintained in the debate.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Yes, if Your Honour pleases. If it was simply a matter -

Senator McAuliffe:

– We are not in the High Court yet.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I was indicating courtesy. That should not be scoffed at. I was using language of another jurisdiction. If I were to follow my own personal predilections, I would not be making reference to these 2 cases- I have selected two out of a whole number- but in a public position I cannot escape information which is on record. That information having been handed to me, I cannot escape the duty of stating that information for the same degree of public understanding as the information in relation to Senator Webster has been presented.

The other case to which I refer concerns the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns), who in February of this year took a lease of a flat, at $20.80 a fortnight, that flat being a lease from a Crown agency in the Australian Capital Territory. These matters raise the question that was referred to fairly much on the surface by my Leader in introducing his amendment yesterday, when he referred to telephone agreements and the purchase of postage stamps. I have mentioned these cases because they refer to something of more substance and, on examination, of more relevance to the matter under consideration. I have heard from time to time for many years reference to the interests of members of Parliament in Crown affairs, whether this be by taking leases of flats, purchasing leases, taking loans, or taking fees in legal and/or medical matters and from the Australian Broadcasting Commission or even by a parliamentarian’s wife directly or indirectly. There is authority to the effect that a benefit accruing to a member’s wife in some circumstances is an indirect benefit to the member. To the astonishment of the whole country, the wife of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was appointed a director of a Crown corporation. She still holds that position, I believe.

I do not put these matters forward except on a basis of the greatest restraint and with the greatest brevity. I wish to read from a standard work on these matters of English law which we adopted. In this respect, all the case law has been built up in the local government field. But it is in an area similar to the one in which we operate. It would be difficult to distinguish this law from what applies in the parliamentary field as incorporated into the Australian Constitution is language very like the local government language. I refer to Halsbury ‘s ‘Laws of England’ volume 24, page 447, which says:

If a member of a local authority has any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, large or small, in any contract - in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation, he is incapable of voting. The quotation continues:

For this purpose a person must be treated as having an indirect pecuniary interest ( I ) if he or his nominee is a member of a company or other body with which the contract is made or proposed to be made or which has a direct pecuniary interest in the other matter under consideration . . . or (3) if he or she is the husband or wife of and living with such interested person with knowledge of the interest of such person.

The footnotes to that text show that as recently as 1956 the Court of Appeal in England had before it the case of a councillor who had a tenancy of a council house. In a case where 3 members of the council, contrary to the statute, voted on the subject of rents pertaining to council they voted, I should say, in favour of their having an added liability, but they contravened the statute which prohibited them from voting if they had an interest- the Court of Appeal held that they had an interest as tenants of the house and, therefore, the fine imposed was held to be properly imposed by the court. That was as late as 1956. 1 find also in the footnotes that it has been decided- whether this is applicable to the question before the Senate is a matter for examinationthat a person may be interested in a contract if he takes an assignment of it even before his election or appointment. I quote these cases only because they are the most superficial reference that a lawyer could make. I direct the attention of the Senate to these authorities so that it will be quite clear that my concern in this matter is not based on my own uninstructed opinion.

That being so, the judicial committee of inquiry which will be set up by amendment will have a wide scope to cover. I have deliberately selected references to only a small fraction of those cases where members are on public record as having interests in leaseholds in Canberra and having other interests. The judicial committee of inquiry will be charged under the second head with deciding other questions relating to members, having regard to the interpretation of the types of circumstances that will bring receipt of moneys, fees and other benefits under section 44 (v) and section 45 (iii) of the Constitutionthose cases which could properly be referred to a Court of Disputed Returns. Therefore, if I had the advantage of having considered the matter up to the stage at which I have considered it now, I would much prefer that Senator Webster’s case be considered along with all others by the judicial committee of inquiry and not sent alone to the High Court. But as we are assembled here, and if the prevailing view is to be maintained, I have pronounced my opinion that there is a prima facie case. The appropriate tribunal is the High Court. Therefore I shall vote for both the motion and the amendment.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I believe that Senator Wright has broken the spirit of the debate. I thought he could have referred to the cases without naming people in particular. He cleared himself of some rumour that he may have benefitted from briefs from the Australian Legal Aid Office, but he went on to implicate 2 people, the President of the Senate and the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns). We know that for quite some time there have been all sorts of gossip and rumours in the corridors of this House. Some of those rumours and some of that gossip got very close to intimidation of honourable senators with a view to influencing them either to back off this proposition or perhaps to vote in a way contrary to the spirit of this motion and amendment. Let us be clear. Both sides of the Senate have great sympathy for Senator Webster in the position in which he has found himself. The motion moved by the Government and the amendment moved to it by the Opposition show very favourable support for Senator Webster’s position and for the referral of his case to the High Court.

No one in this Parliament put down information concerning Senator Webster. The person who did so was one who came before the Joint Committee on the Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament. Prior to giving the information or evidence to that Committee the person gave the information to a journalist and the newspaper concerned published those allegations, much to the distress of Senator Webster and much to the distress of other honourable senators. The information was not given from this place; let us make that clear. It has been said that if Senator Webster is in breach of the Constitution so are many others. That is not really a good defence. It is based on information which could be laid against any honourable senator and possibly may be laid against other honourable senators or members of the House of Representatives, and may lead to the same sort of course that has been followed in Senator Webster’s case. I rise to speak because Senator Wright cleared himself of a rumour. Let me clear myself of a rumour. I was a director of a company set up by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs called Applied Ecology Pty Ltd.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Is this confessional hour?

Senator GEORGES:

– It is confessional hour, and it needs to be. I was approached in the corridor and told, in effect: ‘If Senator Webster is gone so are you’. That is a situation that other honourable senators have also faced. The whole thing has tended to become untidy. It possibly would not have become untidy if the example of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt), the Leader of the Opposition in Senate (Senator Withers) and the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate (Senator Drake-Brockman) had been followed. Since people have been named, and since Senator Wright has cleared himself, let me put my own case. I was made a director of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd by the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Gordon Bryant, at a time when there seemed to be some disputation as to the manner in which Government moneys were expended. Myself and another member of Parliament, Mr Ray Thorburn, were appointed as directors. It was clear at the time- we sought advice on this-that we were to receive no fees and no daily expenses, but we were entitled to any expenses which we incurred in carrying out the work of the company. This position is clearly stated in a list of expenses which I obtained from Applied Ecology Pty Ltd after the accusation was made. After detailing the expenses the document states:

Senator Georges was not paid a travelling allowance at any time during his appointment as a Director of the Company, and the above amounts represent reimbursements of actual travelling expenses paid by him while on Company business. Members of the Board of Directors who are Politicians, Australian Government Public Servants, or persons employed by other Australian Government instrumentalities are not paid Directors fees or travelling allowances. Other Directors are paid the fee appropriate to Australian Government consultants namely, $33 per session and the travelling allowances applicable to Second Division Australian Government Public Servants namely, $3 1 .50 per day.

Once an accusation is made the accusation must go before someone. That is why I support this judicial committee of inquiry which is proposed. I most certainly will present my own case to that committee.

Let me make another point to the Senate. For quite some time know I have been aware that an honourable senator on the Opposition side of the chamber, other than Senator Webster, may be in breach of the Constitution, and yet I have never at any time endeavoured to use that information. Let us make the position perfectly clear: Not only honourable senators- this is why Senator Webster must have some sympathy- but also members of the other place have entered into agreements with a Government department to carry out certain services under certain conditions and have been paid certain fees. To me that is a breach equally as culpable as that of Senator Webster. No charge has been laid against any one of those people by anyone. Until such a charge is laid nothing can proceed in this fashion.

Senator McAuliffe:

– A common informer.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am not coming into that particular area. I think that section of the Constitution will be looked at. I think the Government has that in hand and will seek to amend the Constitution to prevent such a thing from happening. Let me try to convince Senator Webster and all other honourable senators that the matter must be clarified. The procedure we are taking is the only way in which it can be clarified. The Parliament intends to support Senator Webster, not only financially but also with the fullest sympathy and understanding. For that reason I think it is not right that any honourable senator should rise and actually name any other person- other than himself if he wants to make an explanation- who he may think is in some way in technical breach of the Constitution. I leave it at that.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I think it is a matter of regret that the original motion was ever presented to this Senate. I support exactly the sentiments expressed by Senator Wright. In fact I could not but notice on reading the transcript of evidence taken by the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament what the Chairman of the Committee had to say to one witness. He said:

At the outset I want to make certain announcements. First of all, the authority to publish your evidence will be determined subsequently. I would like all concerned to understand that that is the position. Secondly, I should make clear to you that the terms of reference of this Committee do not allow it to become involved in a discussion as to whether any member of this Committee or any member of the Parliament is in breach of the Australian Constitution. We are concerned with inquiring into the desirability of there being a register containing the declaration of the interest of members of Parliament, what classes of pecuniary interest or other benefit should be disclosed, whether the register should be controlled or maintained, what arrangements, if any, should be made for public access and what class of person, other than members of Parliament, should be included in the register. We are not authorised and we are not competent to consider whether there has been a breach of the Constitution.

I realise that section 46 of the Constitution comes into this as well. It is my view that it would have been fairer had the Government appointed a judicial inquiry into this whole matter embracing the whole Parliament.

I have known Senator Webster for 8 years and I hold him in extremely high regard. I have met his family and I regard them as my close personal friends. I have met his friends. Wherever I go in his company or among his friends the story

I get is that Senator Webster is a man of extremely high integrity and one who would never contemplate using his position in the Parliament for personal advancement. I am personally distressed that he has been put through such a shocking experience over the last few weeks which has caused him and his family irreparable personal suffering. In my opinion Senator Webster has been made a scapegoat in this matter. He is the unwitting victim of a technical breach of the Constitution, probably not as bad as, and certainly no worse than, those of other members of the Parliament who may also be unwittingly in technical breach of the Constitution.

The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) brought this point out last week in answer to a question posed by Mr Anthony concerning the leasing of houses in Canberra. The Prime Minister in his answer said:

I have heard suggestions from time to time that those members- I have been among them- who have occupied government flats in Canberra might be disqualified under the Constitution from holding their seats or being elected.

There is a case from the Prime Minister’s mouth where other members may unwittingly be involved.

It seems to me appropriate that this Government should set up a judicial committee to examine sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution in the light of present day circumstances and conditions with the object of formulating amendments to these sections and render them more fitting for 1975 and thereafter. However, this Parliament intends to subject Senator Webster to the test of the present provisions of the Constitution which were conceived in the wild colonial days. It has singled him out to be a sacrificial guinea pig on the altar of Parliament or the High Court.

Senator McAuliffe:

– What about your Party?

Senator JESSOP:

– I am demonstrating a point of view that I believe is shared by many in this chamber. Following a judicial inquiry other members may follow Senator Webster and it is conceivable that they could be dealt with under the provisions of an altered Constitution. This is patently unfair to Senator Webster. I hope that the High Court will see fit to delay consideration of this case- I am not a legal man and it may not be possible for this to happen, but I hope it isumi! the report of the judicial committee is presented to this Senate. I would urge the Government to establish this committee as soon as possible as a matter of extreme urgency and that a report be requested as quickly as possible.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I was first made aware personally of possible conflicts of a member of Parliament with the Constitution in the State sphere when I came into Parliament as long ago as 1959. At that time I was a representative of a rural area and as a rural operator I used to grow some very delectable turkeys. I remember the chief of the South Australian parliamentary catering service coming to me and saying: ‘Will you sell me some of your turkeys, perhaps one a week, at the wholesale price? I am paying 7s.6d. per lb from my supplier. Can you sell me turkeys at a lower fee?’ I said: ‘Yes, I will deliver turkeys to you at a concession rate of 5s. per lb.’ She said: ‘Great, I will take one a week and then members of Parliament in our very frugal State can have turkey on their menu every week’.

I brought down, of course, one of the best turkeys and presented it to the caterer. She was wildly enthusiastic, as were all members of the State Parliament when they tasted the fare. The conversation in the refreshment rooms that evening was about this magnificent turkey meat. This was the subject of the conversation until one of the senior members of the Playford Government said to me: ‘If you sell those turkeys to the catering service your seat will be vacant. You will be dealing with the Crown and you cannot do that. However small the practice may be, you have a financial interest with the Crown’. I cannot remember whether I took payment or whether I forwent it on the basis that I might be prejudicing my seat. So to this day I do not know whether I got my £5, but I do know that I got an extremely valuable lesson on the business of contravening constitutions with personal interest. I have never forgotten it.

I may say that those who have been involved in the South Australian Parliament have been acutely aware of the need to be absolutely free of any dealings with the State Government, and it has been a rule of thumb that no one may have a loan from the State Bank of South Australia, no one may rent a South Australian Housing Trust house, and no one may do any other thing that has any financial contract with the State, whether it be the State providing a service to the person or the person providing a service to the State; no pecuniary interest may pass.

It is with that background that I am, of course, intrigued by the actions of the Senate as it is now going through it deliberations. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) referred constantly in his speech to the referral by the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament to the Senate. In straight technical terms, of course, it is not a referral. The

Committee is charged only with acquainting the Senate. The Committee has no charter and no terms of reference to accuse anyone on this matter. It acquaints the Senate only of the charges which are made. The action of the Committee diminishes the responsibilities of the Senate not one whit. It is the Senate which is doing this work today and no one else- not arly committee.

The Committee only acquainted the Senate. So any deliberations that are made on Senator Webster are done by the Senate in this chamber today and no responsibility belongs anywhere else for the actions which the Senate will take. Therefore the Committee is assessing really whether Senator Webster’s case should go before the High Court, and the general opinion of this Senate is that he shall be judged. A serious doubt has been raised, the Senate has been acquainted with the fact and the Senate rightly believes that it should not itself deliberate in such a court. It is the intention of the Senate in some way to refer this question to the Court of Disputed Returns. I agree with those speakers who have taken the view that it ought to be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns, although I will return to the manner of its referral before I finish my speech.

There is also a general area of concern that the whole question of members dealing at any level with the Government be cleared up so that no one shall innocently transgress as well as perhaps deliberately transgress. The statements of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in another place and the statements by Senator Withers on behalf of the Opposition parties in this place yesterday clearly defined this desire to clarify the situation. In seeking to refer the question for the clarification of all members, we tend to paper over or to obscure the real question on which we will vote, that is, whether we are sending Senator Webster to his political execution. That is what we are really talking about. We could decide the other matter any time. On any day we could pass the proposition in Senator Withers ‘ amendment. What we decide will vitally affect the rights of an individual to sit here and the rights of his supporters at the election to be represented here by him. We may well be sending him to his political execution, depending upon the other matters which surround the referral.

I find this a pretty distasteful affair which is all too neatly packaged. We have been told by the main speakers on behalf of the Government that we must not have a witch hunt. Am I to take it from that that the witch hunt stops with Senator Webster? We go as far as that with the witch hunt, and we stop there. We take one step. We implicate one senator. We have that witch hunt. We stop at that point. There is to be no further witch hunt. That is as far as we go. But we do have a witch hunt. Senators on both sides have said that Senator Webster should be judged. That is a witch hunt by any definition and is paralleled possibly by the witch hunt here today. I wish to make it quite clear that in speaking in these terms I am not a member of Senator Webster’s Party, which is evident to everyone in this chamber. I have had some fairly deep political divisions with him. At times we have somewhat virulently crossed swords in the chamber. I see coming in the future the greatest of political divisions with Senator Webster, and that is the proposal to pass the redistribution of electorates in Australia. I want it clear that I am no political friend in the sense that on many main issues we disagree. I share with him a general direction of non-Labor, but I am in no way tied with him. When I speak on his behalf in any way today I do not do so from any political comradeship. I speak on the basis of obtaining justice, which the motion and the amendment are not obtaining today.

The Senate has a ludicrous proposition before it. Faced with all the rumours in the corridors of Parliament House and with the 2 matters which were raised quite properly by Senator Wright today, the Senate is proposing to send one person forward to obtain absolution. Throw him to the dragons and he will be our confession. Then in the following weeks and months we can try to paper it all over so that no one else will come under the sort of scrutiny and sentencing that Senator Webster will come under today. Where is the fairness of this chamber if it passes the motion or the motion as it is sought to be amended? It is true that other members have agreements with the Commonwealth. One cannot have an agreement with the Commonwealth whether it is to supply the Commonwealth with services for which one is paid or whether it is for services which one obtains from the Commonwealth and for which one pays the Commonwealth. The Constitution is rigid about this matter. It has been read a number of times. I read again the relevant part, in the context of the 2-way proposition. It states that any member who:

Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth.

They are the words. We can forget the company structure at the moment. That is another matter which Senator Webster will, I am sure, raise at the right time. He has asserted that there are more than 25 interested people in his company.

He made that assertion recently in the Senate. Let us forget that argument in relation to the application of this section. The Constitution states that any member who:

Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth.

Other members have direct pecuniary agreements with the Public Service of the Commonwealth. Senator Wright mentioned one today. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) has an agreement which is signed on paper headed Commonwealth of Australia’. It was dealt with and processed by public servants of the Commonwealth. He gets a pecuniary advantage which is far in excess of any that Senator Webster has gained. I challenge anyone to deny categorically that the Deputy Prime Minister has had such a pecuniary advantage. The Senate will send one person to the Court of Disputed Returns to obtain absolution for all the Parliament. Senator Georges said that we should keep quiet about it. Senator Wright has done a service to the Senate by raising it. I intend to add to the motion an amendment which will attempt to bring some relative justice. Senator Wright used some very good phrases in his speech. I cannot remember them now. He said that justice must be done.

Senator Cavanagh:

– There is nothing to stop you laying a charge against the Deputy Prime Minister.

Senator McAuliffe:

– You could be a common informer.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-The tone of the interjections is that I could become an informer, that it is some dirty work. It is all right as the basis of the Labor Party’s proposal in relation to Senator Webster, but it is below the dignity of a senator to be involved in obtaining relative justice for Senator Webster. The documents are quite clear for Senator Cavanagh to deliberate on his ministerial colleague. In February this year the Deputy Prime Minister by an agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth obtained a flat at a very advantageous rate- $10.40 a week. Where else could one get a flat in Canberra for $ 10.40 a week?

Senator Cavanagh:

– You say that it is a breach of section 44. No one else, other than Senator Wright and yourself, accepts that proposition.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Will the Minister categorically deny it? Will he say that there is a doubt, or will he categorically deny it?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I am not a legal man. I cannot interpret section 44.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-They are the exact words I wanted from the Minister. He is not a legal man. He is not capable of legally interpreting whether Dr Cairns has broken the directions of the Constitution. Who is? The Court of Disputed Returns is. The decision of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament was to acquaint the Senate of the position in relation to Senator Webster. A process is also available for the Joint Committee to acquaint the House of Representatives, under its Standing Orders, in almost identical terms, of the position in relation to one member of the House of Representatives. That Committee is able to call for papers, call witnesses and find out all things which are pertinent to its inquiry. I suggest that it is derelict in its duty if it sentences one member from this place. It should not send him from here for the adjudication of the Court of Disputed Returns to protect other members. It is all too neatly packaged. It is one of the most sordid moves that I have seen in my political career- to hide one ‘s own or to hide others.

People on both sides are involved. Make no mistake about it. I do not charge Dr Cairns in isolation. I do not intend to name any others, but their cases are freely available and are freely documented. If they are available and documented, why do we attack one man only? There is no answer. There can be no answer. Because an informer has given evidence to the Committee about one man, the Committee will turn Nelson’s eye to all the others. It is a shameful dereliction of duty by this House. I suggest that if Senator Webster’s case is a prima facie case of breaching the Constitution- as I think Senator Wright said it was- certainly Dr Cairns’ case is in the same category. There is no difference in the severity of the breach. I suggest that Dr Cairns’ monetary reward is greater. If one took the possible and probable percentage of commercial profit from the contracts that the Webster firm had with the Commonwealth- in tender and in competition with others- and took the company tax from it, divided it by five, which has been Senator Webster’s personal interest in the past, one would find that the pecuniary increment to Senator Webster would be far below that which accrues to Dr Cairns, who receives a subsidy on his flat and pays only $10.40 a week.

It is pure nonsense to choose one man because he happens to be involved in a shareholding arrangement which has received a positive payment from the Commonwealth and yet to say to another, who gets an advantage by paying the

Commonwealth about one-third of the commercial rate for a flat, that he shall go free. It is pure nonsense and it is totally inequitable. I suggest that Dr Cairns’ -

Senator Georges:

– I rise to a point of order. A charge has been laid in this place against the Deputy Prime Minister by Senator Hall. Is he entitled to make that charge? That charge having been made, is it now the responsibility of the Senate to acquaint the other place of such a charge? I take this point of order because Senator Hall has said that the Joint Select Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament has not taken the initiative in an area in which it was not possible for it to take the initiative unless Senator Hall himself had come or would come before the Committee and make -

Senator McAuliffe:

– Subpoena him?

Senator Georges:

– No, he should not be sub.poened. He should come of his own volition, as he has done in this place, and make that charge. He has not been before the Committee and it is not the Committee’s fault. The point I take, Mr President, is that Senator Hall has made a serious charge, which is equally serious to the charge made against Senator Webster, on which we are making a decision. I am asking now: Is Senator Hall entitled to make that charge? If he is entitled to do so, what then do we do? Do we proceed to notify the other place?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In answer to the point of order that you have raised, Senator Georges, the amendment states in part: . . but the Senate is of the opinion that a judicial committee of inquiry should be appointed to inquire into and report upon-

  1. the types of circumstances in which the receipt by members of the Parliament of moneys, fees and other benefits might constitute a breach of sections 44 (v) and/or 45 (iii) of the Constitution . . .

I rule that Senator Hall is speaking within the terms of that section of the amendment and can continue his remarks.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you, Mr President. I suggest that if Senator Webster’s case is to be referred directly to the High Court another should go with it. We should have some balance. There is some reasoning in this balancing, in political and practical terms. There should be at least one person from each side of politics if we are to be fair. There should be one person from each House of Parliament. There should be one where the contractor supplies the Government and another where the Government supplies the person. In that way we would have a fair test of all the questions which have been outlined before us. We are not willing to have a fair test. We are, indeed, having a witch hunt to throw Senator Webster out to salve our consciences. There is no other way of looking at it.

We do the job properly or we make an unfair example of one individual. We should do either one of those 2 things. We either do it properly or we single out one individual, which is unfair. This motion singles out one person unfairly.

As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) admitted, he is not capable of assessing whether Dr Cairns is guilty of breaking the Constitution, as I say he is. That means that serious doubts exist in relation to Dr Cairns, probably as much doubt as exists in the case of Senator Webster. The matter of Dr Cairns should be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns. The situation of anyone else who is on the list should also be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns. Both matters should be referred to the Court to make sure that Senator Webster is not made the scapegoat in one of the most unsavoury moves that has developed in this place for a long time. I now refer to the question which was raised earlier about giving evidence to the Committee. This information came into my possession only in the last few days. I was shocked, having adopted the early opinion that Senator Webster’s case should go to the Court, to find clear evidence of other breaches. I felt I was placed in a very difficult position indeed- te be expected to vote on this matter today, so joining in a witch hunt that stops at one man. I propose to move an amendment to the original motion. I move:

The motion will then read:

That when the judicial committee has reported the following questions respecting the qualifications of Senator James Joseph Webster be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns . . .

That will in no way deter honourable senators from pursuing the general across the benches desire to have this matter properly cleared up. It will mean- if what honourable senators on this side of the House are saying is correct, if what Senator Wright is saying is correct, and if what I have said is correct- that Senator Webster willnot go alone. That is my concern. It is not my concern to shield anyone who has breached the Constitution. The Minister for Agriculture and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) have said that the Constitution must be upheld. There is no question that it shall be subverted or slid around. There also can be no question that we cannot send one man to carry possibly five or six others behind him or perhaps to shield those behind him. I move my amendment to obtain what I believe is a minimum of justice- to make sure that Senator Webster’s position is quite clear and his case should go to the High Court but not until the judicial committee has reported. We must entertain the possibility that Senator Webster may yet properly defend his position in the High Court. Those who may possibly join him in a similar position of doubt should also face those who will judge him. To do otherwise in this matter is to join in the most unsavoury single minded attempt to subvert justice instead of to apply it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Clerks will require a copy of your amendment in writing, Senator Hall. A decision will then be made on it. I will examine the procedure and make a statement on your amendment later. In the meantime, is there a seconder for the amendment?

Senator Bonner:

– Yes, I second it.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I rise to speak very briefly on this matter. I will be brief following Senator Hall’s remarks which contained an extraordinary degree of histrionic moral rectitude in relation to the Government’s approach to this matter. I would not be surprised if he walked across the lake at lunch time in order to make that speech this afternoon. I should say, in defence of the Government’s positionindeed, in defence of the Opposition’s amendment which I will support- that from the beginning of this matter I believed that members of both sides, until we were informed otherwise by Senator Hall a few minutes ago, have approached the matter with the greatest desire to be fair to Senator Webster and to be fair to anyone else who might be concerned in this matter. Now I, as Senator Webster knows, have not been a political supporter of his over the years. I have had occasions in this chamber to be reminded, when I listen to Senator Webster, of the words of the national anthem:

Confound their politics, Frustrate their knavish tricks.

But that is not the sort of issue which we are debating in this manner. Though I may have that view of Senator Webster and he may have that view of me in political debates in which we have participated, I do not think that either of us believes that the question with which the motion and the amendment deals is related to our respective political views. Senator Hall said that the intent of the Government, and, by implication, of the Opposition, is to throw Senator Webster to the wolves and that that would salve the conscience of the Senate and allow this subsequent judicial inquiry to proceed, Senator Webster already having been made a scapegoat. If that view is correct, I want to look at the alternative. As I understand the history of this matter, it was raised before a joint committee of this Parliament, not by a member of the Parliament but by somebody outside it. It has become an issue of public discussion and concern in the Australian community, and the Government and the Opposition, I believe sincerely, had to consider in this atmosphere what their obligations were in relation to the matter. I think that if Senator Hall’s amendment were passed it might be prejudicial to Senator Webster’s position, and unless somebody could convince me otherwise I would not support Senator Steele Hall’s amendment, simply for that reason. I think that if the main part of the motion were delayed for a further period the situation might be detrimental to Senator Webster personally.

The Government has already indicated that it supports the amendment which has been moved by Senator Withers. I am concerned to say that it does not seem to me to be our function to investigate a whole series of possible circumstances which might fall within the scope of section 44 of the Constitution. That is a function that we are endeavouring, by the proposed amendment, to invest in a judicial inquiry.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Then you will only get a legal opinion.

Senator BUTTON:

-As Senator Cavanagh points out, then it is only a legal opinion that we will get. But it may be a legal opinion which has a greater influence on both sides of the Senate than the legal opinions and the bush legal opinions that have been expressed in the course of this debate. I do not pretend to know what section 44 means but I would draw the attention of the Senate to the views of some authorities on what the section might mean. I refer first of all to Quick and Garran ‘s work titled: ‘The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth’. Their comment on section 44 is in these terms:

This is a disability arising from any contract or agreement for valuable consideration, which any person may have entered into to supply any goods or perform any service to the Government of the Commonwealth. In England, Government contractors are disqualified under 22 Geo. III. c. 43, sec 1. The reason for the disqualification of Government contractors is that they are supposed to be liable to the influence of their employers.

At a later stage they say:

Government contractors, being supposed to be liable to the influence of their employers, are disqualified from serving in Parliament.

Lumb and Ryan in their work titled: ‘The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Annotated ‘ carry on from that comment in these terms:

This section was based on the traditional English prohibition which was designed to diminish the power of the Crown to exert corrupt influence over Parliament.

Government contractors, Le., persons who deal with the public service by providing goods or services are disqualified. However, the phrase ‘pecuniary interest’ implies that the agreement between the member and the Crown or public service (whether it be government department or instrumentality) must be for valuable consideration. Performance of services gratis is not covered.

The paragraph does not apply to the situation where a member of Parliament indirectly benefits from a government grant, e.g., as a member of an agricultural body which receives government assistance.

That example amongst others has been freely discussed in the passages of this building in the last few weeks.

Senator Webster:

– Before you go to another point, you have not given the Senate the true situation. Contractors are permitted in England at present and your evidence is out of date.

Senator BUTTON:

– I am not giving evidence. Senator Webster may say something about that if he wants to. If they are the sorts of things he wants to go into he is at liberty to do that and he, like anyody else, would be at liberty to give evidence to the judicial committee which the amendment proposes to establish. That course may satisfy Senator Webster in some way and it may satisfy Senator Steele Hall, who is trying to interject. He too might wish to give evidence to such a committee.

The point I am making is that we are talking about a section of the Constitution which dates from the beginning of this century. The only really relevant views on that section of the Constitution that we can take are the views of authorities such as Quick and Garran who presumably knew what was in the minds of the legislators of the time. In 1975 we are confronted with a section of the Constitution which is obviously ludicrous in the context of our current situation of government. That is the other point which I wanted to make in the course of this debate. It seems to me to be very sad that the first occasion on which the Opposition in this chamber takes it upon itself suddenly to discover vices in the Constitution and suddenly to discover that it is an antiquated document and not relevant to the contemporary situation is when the pecuniary interests of members of this Parliament are involved. Time and time again we have been told that the Constitution is an adequate document and that there is no need for amendment of it. Because the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament are involved we are suddenly told that the Constitution, in this respect at least, is an antiquated document. That is a view which I share.

Senator Wright:

– You are not fair to the committee on constitutional review.

Senator BUTTON:

– It is a view which I share. I would not want to be interpreted as being unfair to that committee, particularly if Senator Wright serves on it. Nothing has been done until this moment to point out the inadequacies of this section of the Constitution in contemporary society. I honestly believe that the remarks made by Senator Steele Hall in this debate are misplaced and misrepresent the intentions and the goodwill of people in this Parliament. I honestly believe that on the Government side every effort has been made in the circumstances with which the Government is faced.

As a Government senator I have been asked on a number of occasions what we are doing about the situation. I am sure Opposition senators have been asked also. In the circumstances which we face the only proper course to take is that outlined in the motion which was moved by the Government in this chamber yesterday. I would add that I believed that the Opposition took a proper course in raising the other matters which are dealt with in this amendment. Every member of this chamber and every member of the House of Representatives must be concerned to know the answers to the questions which are specifically set out as matters of inquiry in the amendment which has been moved by Senator Withers, particularly the matters which are raised in sub-clause 3 of that proposed amendment, which is whether sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution are appropriate provisions in present-day circumstances and conditions.

I feel quite strongly that if there is a witch hunt element in this debate- Senator Hall used the phrase- it has been brought about by the sort of allegations which he has made. I regret the circumstances in which Senator Webster finds himself. As a person who tries to be a responsible member of” the Senate, I feel I would have no alternative, in view of the history of this matterwhat took place before the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests, what has taken place in public debate and in the Press- but to support the Government motion, much as I regret any personal embarrassment to Senator Webster who happens to be involved. I also welcome the Opposition amendment because I believe that at least it will bring to light a whole series of answersone hopes- to the questions which are raised in the proposed amendment to the motion. I hope that members of this chamber will continue, as I believe they have done in the past, to approach this matter in good faith and to support both the motion of the Government and the amendment that has been moved by Senator Withers on behalf of the Opposition.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I propose to support the motion that has been moved for the referral to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns of questions relating to the qualifications of Senator Webster, and I also propose to support the amendment which has been moved by Senator Withers and which will have the effect of appointing a judicial committee of inquiry to examine the types of circumstance in which other members of Parliament may have contravened provisions of the Constitution and will enable the Senate and the House of Representatives to be informed of any such instances. I support both the motion and the amendment without reservation, and I do so because I believe that, so far as it is within the competence of the Senate, that will enable justice to be done, the law to be upheld and the institution of Parliament to be upheld and respected.

It is so very easy in circumstances such as these to allow oneself to be motivated by sympathy and, in that course which sympathy might suggest, to avoid doing what is the right thing in the circumstances. Senator Webster is a person for whom I have an intense feeling of sympathy at the present time, not just because he will be facing the High Court and its decision with regard to his qualifications but also because he has been so unjustly singled out as the result of what I regard as a vindictive newspaper campaign that has been seized on politically by some persons within the Government. I believe that Senator Webster has the respect of this chamber; he certainly has the respect of honourable senators on this side of the chamber. I believe that, if fairness would enable supporters of the Government to speak as they really believe, they would also give him respect, because in this chamber he has been an outspoken advocate of the causes in which he has believed.

I think it was simply because he was an outspoken critic of the campaign developed by the Melbourne newspaper in favour of a register in which pecuniary interests could be recorded that he received from the Melbourne ‘Age’ the treatment that any powerful newspaper can inflict on a person if it chooses to do so. It is in those circumstances that he has been singled out. An issue has arisen as to whether or not it is appropriate that the question relating to Senator Webster should be deferred until the judicial committee of inquiry has reported. I do not believe that the law would be upheld or that right would be done if that were the case, because we have before us at present a prima facie case which, in my judgment- and I think that every senator must look at it in terms of how he views those facts- warrants consideration either by this chamber or by the High Court as to whether or not Senator Webster has contravened the Constitution.

Of course, the real issues are the legal questions, and it is not for this chamber to sit in judgment or to cast an opinion upon the legal questions. That is for the Court of Disputed Returns, and that is what the Parliament itself decreed when it passed the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act. Therefore, I believe that if there is a prima facie case the appropriate course is for this chamber to send this matter to the Court of Disputed Returns. If we were to delay in doing that, particularly when the delay was simply to find out if other persons could be sent at the same time, then we would not be upholding the law as we should give an example of upholding it, and we would not be upholding the institution of Parliament, which must not be seen to be or accused of taking a favoured position with regard to one or some of its members who may have contravened provisions of the Constitution.

Therefore, I believe that the appropriate course is to support the motion and the amendment as they have been put forward. I think that it ought to be said and acknowledged that it was what Senator Webster himself told this chamber that provided the basic prima facie case upon which the questions will go before the High Court because, in the material sent to Mr President, there was not the evidence upon which the Senate, properly advised, could have sent a question to the High Court. Of course, I use the word evidence’ in the broad legal sense, but I think a High Court judge who received the material contained in the committee’s report to Mr President would have been sending the material back to the Senate and asking us to give more facts, or the High Court would have found itself in a very embarrassing situation of virtually having to move, of its own motion, to require before it evidence on which it could make its assessment.

It was Senator Webster who, when the issue was raised in this place, rose and by leave of the Senate made a statement which gave the facts upon which I believe the prima facie case can be shown to have been established. That ought to be acknowledged by those who write about this matter outside this chamber, because of what I think it demonstrates. This was demonstrated by his conduct last year when he was questioned about this matter and said that he was very proud about what he had been able to achieve in the business world, and he is entitled to be proud. Equally, it should be recognised that what he said is the basis upon which this matter goes before the High Court. Of course, that is consistent with all that has been said with respect to his integrity by those honourable senators who have preceded me.

I believe that other matters ought to be raised, because they are relevant. I fail to understand how we can be properly protected as a House of the Parliament if our Committees are not prepared to discharge their duties in accordance with the terms of reference that are given to them. Ever since the material came before the President, I have been worried about how the material came before the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament. I was surprised all the more when I read the transcript that accompanied the letter. I refer the Senate to the terms of reference of the Pecuniary Interests Committee, which was established as a Joint Committee in the latter part of last year. The terms of reference were as follows-

  1. 1 ) That a Joint Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the arrangements to be made relative to the declaration of interests of the Members of the Parliament and the registration thereof, and, in particular-

    1. what classes of pecuniary interest or other benefit are to be disclosed;
    2. how the register should be compiled and maintained and what arrangements should be made for public access thereto, and
    3. what classes of person (if any) other than Members of the Parliament ought to be required to register, and to make recommendations . . .

There is nothing in those terms of reference that gave to the Committee any power to inquire into whether or not persons had breached the Constitution or whether persons should have given evidence to that effect. I notice that in the transcript which accompanied the letter that was sent to the President the Chairman of the Committee made the following remarks on the very day that the Age’ newspaper journalist appeared before the Committee:

I should make clear to you that the terms of reference of this Committee do not allow it to become involved in a discussion as to whether any member of this Committee or any member of the Parliament is in breach of the Australian Constitution. We are concerned with an inquiry into the desirability of there being a register containing the declaration of the interests of members of Parliament, what classes of pecuniary interest, or other benefit should be disclosed, whether the register should be controlled and maintained … we are not authorised and we are not competent to consider whether there has been a breach of the Constitution.

Then apparently the journalist was allowed to put evidence before that Committee, because there is incorporated in the transcript a statement which begins as follows:

Submission to the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament, 4 April 1975. My submission to this Committee is that Senator James Joseph Webster has been and is now in blatant breach of the Australian Constitution.

Then there are set out some reasons why that view is held. I cannot understand why the Committee received that submission, why it included it in its transcript, how it justifies its action having regard to the terms of reference it was given, and how, in those circumstances, it reported as it did to the President. There are ways in which allegations of the character which the newspaper wanted to raise can be raised in the Parliament; there are formal ways of doing that. I can only regret that this is one of the curious and, to me, unexplained features of this situation’. I can only say, as I introduced the matter, that it ought to be a matter of concern to this chamber and also to the House of Representatives as to the way in which the Committees discharge the obligations which are conferred upon them. If they are entitled to roam at large one has only to look at recent American experience over the last, say, 25 years to find the sort of problems which can be caused by committees which do not observe their terms of reference.

There is also another factor which I think is tremendously relevant and that is the extent to which we ought to allow the situation to go uninvestigated in the light of the facts which have been brought to bear by the case which has been made against Senator Webster. I personally do not believe that those matters should go uninvestigated. I believe with a fervour which I suppose it might be hard to match that our society depends upon the observance of the rule of law and that laws are passed for the benefit of the community, that when there are breaches of the law those breaches should be prosecuted or, if they are not to be prosecuted, the reasons should be clearly explained and those who would excuse the enforcement of the law must be prepared to justify on sound grounds of public interest why it is so. If we allow a law to fall into disuse or if we depart from it simply because there seems to be a good case then I believe we ultimately break down the law, we break down respect for the law and society is the worse because of the departure from what I believe are necessary standards. If we are to prosecute some for breaches of the law and ignore hosts of others I believe we encourage the same disrespect for the law. I believe that if there is a case that ought to go before a court because it appears that there is a contravention it is appropriate that the matter go before the court. So I say on the material which I see that Senator Webster’s case should go before the court and there should be no reservation about it. But I equally believe that it is totally unfair when there are so many unresolved questions affecting so many other people who could be in the same position as Senator Webster that those matters are not investigated.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Who is suggesting that they should not be investigated? Is that not what your amendment is about?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It is. I am giving reasons why the amendment should be supported. My argument rebuts some of the comments which were made when Senator James McClelland was not in the chamber earlier. There are of course persons- these are areas in which I imagine a judicial committee would look- who are pharmaceutical chemists and who have received payments under the provisions of the National Health Act. Are they in fact persons who, contrary to section 45, have received a fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth? There are medical practitioners who have received payments under the provisions of the National Health Act. Are they persons who may have breached- all this is inadvertent, of course- the provisions of section 45? Are there barristers and/or solicitors who have received payment from the Crown Solicitor or Deputy Crown Solicitor, possibly under the Australian Legal Aid Office? That would be the clearest case of the inadvertent receipt and possible inadvertent contravention of the Constitution. Are there persons who have received payments from the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the fact that they have been interviewed on radio or on television? I would have thought that section 45. (iii.) might well apply. I pass no judgment upon it in those circumstances.

There is the situation to which Senator Wright referred as to whether persons purchasing, leasing or mortgaging premises in the Australian Capital Territory may have any direct or indirect pecuniary interest with the Public Service of the Commonwealth. What is the position of those who receive investment interest from Government loans under the Inscribed Stock Act? What are the circumstances of those who made agreements with the Postmaster-General for the installation of telephones? There is a number of matters, some of which may on the face of them appear to have no substance, others which on the face of them may have substance. The fact is that it is time, because this issue has been raised, that these matters be looked into. Therefore it is proper, simply because to ignore these other matters would be totally unfair, that there should be an appropriate investigation. If as a result of that investigation there appears to be a prima facie case why individuals should have their qualifications as members of either House of this Parliament referred to the High Court, I believe that those questions should be raised, as in this particular case, and those questions should go to the High Court also. But not everyone is as forthcoming, though I hope in due course they will be if a genuine question is raised, as Senator Webster was in raising the issues on which a case is now to be taken to the High Court.

I raise a further matter because I think it is part of the curious story which has led to the situation in which we are now placed. It was the Melbourne ‘Age’ , which over many years has been pursuing this age-old conflict situation between private interest and public duty, which in fact precipitated this motion which we are discussing today. I could not help but draw ce certain conclusions from a statement which was m de by the editor of that newspaper only, I think, last Saturday. Emphasising with some pride the newspaper’s satisfaction that the person who had produced the evidence to the Joint Committee was a member of that newspaper’s staff, he said:

The general subject of conflict of interest has been an important pre-occupation of ‘The Age ‘ for some years past.

That is right. He continued :

We have explored the subject as comprehensively and as consistently as we can. In particular, we have investigated conflict of interest among public servants and members of Parliament.

I think that is a fair comment. The newspaper has done that. But the question I raise is whether it has been done consistently and fairly. I believe that it is entirely proper that we should have alert and activist newspapers. They are the lifeblood of a free society. But when they involve themselves in crusades in pursuit of great principles I think they have an obligation, for all the ardour with which they pursue the objective, to be responsible and, above all, to be fair. I just raise the question as to whether the ‘Age’ newspaper in this pursuit of instances of the conflict between private interests and public duty has found out anything concerning a member of a political party other than the Liberal Party of Australia or the Australian Country Party. There are matters which could have been investigated if only because the result of the investigation would have laid matters to rest. But that has not been done. When one considers the unexplained circumstances arising out of the way in which Senator Webster’s matter came before this chamber I can only wonder at the ‘Age’ newspaper’s partiality because I do not believe it has been impartial on this issue. Of Mr Hills, the journalist concerned, I simply say that in terms of honesty and objectivity from my experience he ought to have his conduct looked at with caution. Mr Hills was accompanied by Mr Evans, an active member of the Australian Labor Party who provided the legal advice which went before this Committee. When circumstances of this character are behind the unrevealed, undisclosed reasons for the presentation of these facts I believe there is an equal obligation that they should be revealed. I mention these things because I do not believe that they should remain undisclosed. The fairness of this overall situation, fairness to Senator Webster, fairness to the concepts that we all are upholding demand that they should be revealed. For the reasons which I have given I support both the motion and the amendment.

The PRESIDENT:

– Earlier when Senator Steele Hall proposed an amendment I undertook to examine it and to have it put into proper form. I shall now read to the Senate the form of the amendment moved. It reads:

At end of amendment moved by Senator Withers add- and the Senate resolves that the questions respecting the qualifications of Senator Webster shall be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns after the Judicial Committee of Inquiry has reported’.

Sitting suspended from 5.50 to 8 p.m.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

– It seems to me, having listened to this debate for some 2 hours, that the public must be puzzled by the fact that, although there has been expressed agreement by the speakers who have spoken so far between the Government and the Opposition, first, that the Government’s motion in relation to Senator Webster should be agreed to, and secondly, by the Government that the Opposition ‘s amendment should be agreed to. It seems to me that any member of the public would be puzzled as to why the debate degenerated before the dinner adjournment to such a low personal level. The tone of that degeneration was set by those senators who, despite the fact there is to be a High Court hearing in relation to Senator Webster which must resolve certain general issues regarding the meaning of the provisions in the Constitution, and despite the fact that there is to be a judicial inquiry on the wide range as set out in the amendment, bandied names across the chamber in a manner which must have disgusted those who are truly interested in arriving at a resolution of this difficult matter.

I thought that the reference to you, Sir, as President of the chamber, was particularly inappropriate, because as President of the Senate you are least able to defend yourself when a personal allegation or accusation is made. It is no secret, because I knew long ago, that some 10 years ago you were a member of a syndicate that acquired a leasehold interest in land in Canberra and thereon proceeded to erect flats for your personal occupation. As you, Sir, have been coming to Canberra for almost 30 years, I thought that reference was most unworthy. Regarding the reference to the Deputy Prime Minister, why he should be singled out I do not know, because one would think that in the course of the 75 years of the existence of these provisions in the Constitution there would have been some Liberal Party or Country Party members who also had been in like case. I thought also that the debate reached the lowest possible level when the Prime Minister’s wife was involved. When matters such as these are raised the debate obviously is set for a very poor level.

Then, we had from the same senator a dissertation on the law, even though the honourable senator knew that the High Court would soon be determining the law in relation to Senator Webster and even though he knew that a full scale judicial committee of inquiry was to be established by agreement of the Government. There was no room at that stage for personal expressions of what the law is or might be. As the word ‘charge’ has been used in relation to Senator Webster, I should like to make the point plain, namely, that the word ‘charge’ is inappropriate in this particular context, because Senator Webster is not being charged with anything by resolution of the Senate. The word ‘charge’ has connotations of a criminal or quasi-criminal character. No such question is involved in this case and, although standing order 386, to which I will refer later for another reason, uses the word charges’ it is used in a completely different sense from that in which the ordinary members of the public would understand it in relation to Senator Webster.

It is not for me to be gratuitous in extending good wishes, but I simply say that I will have no personal pleasure and no party political pleasure if the High Court should determine that Senator Webster has- unwittingly I do not doubtbreached the Constitution. I would not gain any pleasure from that situation. I have referred to standing order 386 and, in view of what Senator G reenwood said before the suspension of the sitting, 1 believe it ought to be read out in full. The standing order states:

If any information comes before any Committee that charges any Senator, the Committee ought only to direct that the Senate be acquainted with the matter of such information, without proceeding further thereupon.

That standing order, it seems to me, is open to 2 interpretations: Either that the Committee has a duty to acquaint the Senate of the information or certainly that it has a right to do so. In either event, whatever the interpretation be, I submit there is no doubt that the Committee acted with complete propriety. Once that situation had occurred, since it has been said that there is a vendetta of a political character against Senator Webster, the Government undoubtedly had 3 choices. First, it could have ignored the matter. I suggest that that would not have been responsible and would have been open to the interpretation, especially when the scenario had developed to a stage once when it was suggested that 17 members of the Parliament were involved, that it was an attempt to shield members of Parliament from the effects of the provisions of the Constitution, and to have ignored the matter would in my submission have been unthinkable.

The second alternative for the Government was to invite the Senate to determine the matter itself if the view were taken, as a majority of the Senate took the view about a year ago in relation to Senator Gair, that the Parliament had not, by enacting the Electoral Act, excluded its jurisdiction under section 47 of the Constitution. As I think that every honourable senator who has spoken and who has adverted to this matter agrees, that would not have been an appropriate course. So the Government was left with a third alternative, and that is the alternative it has adopted- I suggest that there was no other. The third alternative was to take advantage of section 203 of the Electoral Act and, by resolution of the Senate, have the question of Senator Webster referred to the High Court as a Court of Disputed Returns.

I suggest that when those 3 alternatives are analysed, there is no question of doubt but that the Government has taken the right course in relation to the matter that was formally and officially placed on the notice paper, as it were, of the Senate by the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. I referred earlier to one senator who had intruded personal allegations and assertions into his contribution to this debate. I now want to refer to another senator, namely, Senator Hall, so that there will be no misunderstanding, and who, according to my note, said; ‘I have clear evidence of other breaches’. In the context of Senator Hall’s remarks he was involving among others at least the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr J. F. Cairns. Those words were clear and unequivocal. By those words Senator Hall not only asserted to the world that in his judgment Senator Webster had breached the Constitution but also that others, including the Deputy Prime Minister, had done the same.

I suggest that, in the cold light of the morning, when Senator Hall has the opportunity to peruse the transcript of what he has said, he will see fit to realise that, with due respect to him, he went too far. In view of the status of this matter, being on the verge of being referred to the High Court and of the appointment of a judicial committee of inquiry with very wide terms of reference, I suggest that that statement was completely inappropriate. Despite the level to which the debate degenerated I submit that at this stage of the debate we ought to be considering the public interest and what the public thinks and, in that respect, I will make 3 points. Firstly, the public ought to be completely aware that the provisions of the Constitution which are relevant in the context of the issue we are discussing are threequarters of a century old. They were enacted at a time when perhaps the only guide to the framers of the Constitution was the concept of the imperial provisions and some State Constitution Acts. The important point that ought to be made in that respect is that most, if not all, States have found it necessary, with the increased involvement of government in affairs relating to individuals, to depart from the strict position which obtained at the end of the last century and there have been frequent amendments to State statutes to obviate situations which obviously were never intended. That is the first point the public ought to clearly understand.

The second point is that despite what has been said this afternoon, Senator Webster’s case, I understand by resolution of the Senate, is about to be referred to the High Court of Australia, sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns, and the public can be confident that the High Court will interpret the provisions of the Constitution, insofar as such interpretation is appropriate for the determination of Senator Webster’s case, with its normal impartiality.

The third point that ought to be made is that under the terms of the Opposition amendment a wide ranging judicial inquiry is about to be established. The Government has said that it will act upon the amendment of the Senate if that is agreed to. The judicial committee of inquiry, which could be one that hopefully will consist of more than one experienced and eminent judge, will be required to examine the types of circumstances in which the receipt by members of the Parliament of moneys, fees and other benefits might constitute a breach and, secondly, any other questions relating to members of the Parliament which could properly be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns and, finally, whether the provisions of the Constitution in the present day circumstances and conditions are appropriate. As I understand it that means that there would be at least 186 witnesses before the judicial committee of inquiry. During the suspension of the sitting for dinner I worked out that if the judicial committee dealt with 5 witnesses a day, which would not be bad, it would take nearly 6 weeks. In the course of a few months I imagine that we all will be much wiser although some of us may be much sadder persons. I would imagine that those 186 members of Parliament, and perhaps Senator Webster might join the crowd so that he will not be the odd man out at that stage, would welcome the opportunity to appear before a judicial committee of inquiry. I certainly will be happy to do so.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers), when moving the amendment yesterday, raised 2 points of detail; firstly, as to Senator Webster’s costs, and secondly, as to whether a pair would be granted. I am aware that later on formal and official announcements will be made by the Government, if not tonight as soon as practicable. In my view the matter does not require much more elaboration. I simply say that in the haste of some honourable senators to ensnare their political opponents and their wives in a net of constitutional breach they demean the Senate and themselves. The future as to what is to happen so that doubts will be set aside and that clear guidelines will exist, is clear and it ought to be approached without heat- and it certainly ought to be approached without political partisanship.

I stress one point and that is that the provisions of the Constitution do not allow for any plea in mitigation. The provisions are absolute. Either there has been a breach or there has not. If there has been a breach the consequence is beyond doubt- the seat becomes vacant. There is no room in this situation for the putting forward or the acceptance of extenuating circumstances, of ignorance of or a forgetfulness of the law.

As I said when I began to speak, this afternoon there has been a welter of suggestions and accusations against individuals. I suggest that it would be far better if this motion, the Opposition’s amendment and Senator Hall’s further amendment were put speedily and determined by the Senate- I do not say I agree with Senator Hall’s amendment- without further personal vilification because those who are minded to accuse others will have their chance to do so before the judicial committee of inquiry. There they can, if they wish, assail whom they like. Finally I suggest that they will find the atmosphere of a judicial court of inquiry far more dignified that the position they have taken up by assuming the role of common informers, to use the language of the moment, under the guise of parliamentary privilege. I support the motion and I support the Opposition amendment.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I rise to indicate my support for the original motion, the amendment moved by Senator Withers, the Leader of the Opposition, and the further amendment moved by Senator Steele Hall which, I believe, places the matters under consideration in proper sequence. One cannot but be sick at heart at this whole affair. How remiss we, individually and collectively, in this place and in another place, as well as those who have gone before, have been, not to have realised long ere now the absolute need for clarification of sections 44 (v) and 45 (iii) of the Constitution. I say this in the context of the greatly escalated governmental presence in all aspects of day to day business activities and the hidden and unrealised dangers inherent in this situation so far as members of the Parliament might unwittingly act in breach of these provisions of the Constitution.

In the allegations made against Senator Webster it must be noted that no one has suggested that he has used his position as a member of this Parliament for personal gain or that his business interests conflicted with his parliamentary duties. At the initiation of this matter the letter sent by Mr P. C. Brown, of Tecoma, Victoria, to the clerk of the Joint Committee on the Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament stated:

A senator, probably unwittingly, had broken section 44 ( v) of the Constitution by contracts with the Crown.

The word ‘unwittingly’ was used and I have no doubt that Senator Webster had absolutely no idea that sales made to a government department by his family organisation in the normal and open course of business could be in contravention of the Constitution and place him at risk so far as his position in this Parliament is concerned.

Senator Webster is a man of great integrity and honesty. He has risen, by acclamation of this Senate, to the position of Chairman of Committees and, Mr President, he is your Deputy, the Deputy President of the Senate, one of the highest office holders in the land. This has happened because of his acceptance by his fellows in this place. That indicates the type of man that he is. His family business has been in operation for 3 generations and has been marked by a high tenor of honest dealing and service to the public. It has received public acceptance which alone enables any family organisation to carry on successfully from generation to generation. However, we are here pro tern as the custodians of a system of government. We are the custodians of the institution of Parliament; an institution basic and fundamental to our very way of life as a people. Parliament must have the full confidence and acceptance of the nation. Senator Webster would be one of the first to acknowledge this fact. Allegations having been made of breaches of the Constitution, the matter simply has to be clarified. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Withers, set out in very clear, precise and fair terms the requirements of the situation now before us. I support him. But, in fairness, I support equally the amendment moved by Senator Hall. Again I state my complete confidence in Senator Webster.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The record of debate this day, I believe, will stand me in a very good stead. I thank the Senate for it. I thank those who have spoken, particularly those on the Opposition side. I thank members of the Opposition for their support as I thank those members of the Government who have in this instance been as completely fair as is possible in the context of a political debate. I thank Senator Steele Hall for his very impartial approach to this matter. More especially, I thank my Country Party colleagues for their total support in this matter, especially my leader, Senator DrakeBrockman. This is a moment of great importance for me. I submit myself to the will of the Senate.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) ( 8.22)- I only intrude at this stage in order to try to get the debate back to a position from which it should never have departed. But before I begin to address myself to the matter I wish to associate myself with all honourable senators who have expressed their deep sorrow at the situation in which Senator Webster has found himself through, I believe, no fault of his own and certainly not the fault of any honourable senator or any member in another place. I agree with Senator Laucke that Senator Webster has served this Senate honestly and faithfully. But the Constitution lays down certain requirements and this Parliament cannot change them.

Now, let us go back over the track record, as it were, and discover how this matter came into the Senate. The Houses of Parliament- the Senate and the House of Representatives- set up a joint committee to examine matters relating to pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. Every honourable senator in this place without any demur, as I recollect it, agreed that this committee should be set up. In the course of the deliberations of this Committee a man named, I think, Brown and a newspaper reporter of the Melbourne ‘Age’ appeared before the Committee and drew to the attention of the Committee certain matters in which it was felt that Senator Webster, who was my Deputy, Mr President, as he is your Deputy, was in breach of the Constitution, under sections 44 and 45 of that document. At that stage the Joint Committee of both Houses which, I have no shadow of doubt, is composed of honest men was confronted with a situation in which it had to do certain things. The certain things that it had to do were laid down in the Standing Orders of the Senate. That Committee was operating under the Standing Orders of the Senate.

The standing order with which the Committee was confronted was standing order 386 to which you, Mr Pesident, were required to address yourself when you had the most disagreeable experience of doing what it was you had to do. The Standing Orders required you to do so; you were compelled to do it. That Standing Order provides:

If any information comes before any Committee that charges any Senator, the Committee ought only to direct that the Senate be acquainted with the matter of such information, without proceeding further thereupon.

That is in fact what happened. You, Mr President, were informed by that Committee that this allegation had been made. You had no other response than to inform the Senate that you had been so advised.

Two options were open at that stage, either for the Senate to refer the matter to its own committee of disputed returns or to refer it to the Court of Disputed Returns which is the High Court of Australia. It has been the consensus of all honourable senators up to this stage that the matter should go to the Court of Disputed Returns, which is the High Court. I think that it would have been inadvisable, for a lot of reasons, to send it to the court of disputed returns of the Senate, although that was an attitude that I took earlier in this matter.

What has led me to change my mind on this matter simply is the experience of the Senate of the United States of America in such matters. I ‘ have spent the last week sorting through the experiences which the United States Senate has had in dealing with the several occasions when accusations or allegations have been made against honourable senators in the Senate of the United States. I will not refer to the specific cases, but one of these experiences nearly tore the guts out of that Senate. Honourable senators of the United States Senate were being forced into positions in which they were taking political attitudes. This is a simple matter of human nature. It was that reading which convinced me in the final analysis of the need to accept the consensus which exists in the Senate and that this matter should be taken out of the area of disputation amongst honourable senators and sent into an area where the Senate could be informed by the Court of Disputed Returns, the High Court of Australia, whether there exists the case in which Senator Webster had- and I believe unwittinglybreached the constitutional requirements of section 44 and section 45.

The second matter to which I wish to address myself is this: I do not wish to be placed in the situation in which Senator Hall has by allusion placed me or any other honourable senator who holds the point of view which I hold, when he said that Senator Webster has been thrown as a victim, as a sacrifice, as a scapegoat for all other honourable senators. That is quite untrue. Nothing has caused me greater distress in my long experience in the Senate than to have to uphold the arguments that I am upholding at present. My Country Party colleagues, I am sure, will agree that I feel this way.

I should go further than that. My colleague, Senator Wright, has drawn the attention of honourable senators to a whole mass of matters which may disenfranchise nearly all honourable senators here, if in fact the substance of his argument this afternoon holds water. True, he has quoted the laws of England on this matter. But, with no disrespect to any lawyer who sits in this place, I say that the opinion of a lawyer is an opinion which can be finally tested only by the juridical authorities of the land.

So we meet the third condition which is in Senator Withers’ amendment. That is that Senator Webster’s case should go to the Court of Disputed Returns, where the highest court of the land, with all its authority and dignity, will sit in judgment on this matter. There cannot be any certainty as to how the High Court will react or give a judgment. To pursue that matter further, the third stage of the amendment moved by Senator Withers proposes that the Government be asked to set up a judicial commission to examine what are the real matters that could or could not disenfranchise not only honourable senators but also members in another place. I reject as absurd that an allegation should be made here in the Senate and that it should then be taken up in the Joint Committee on the Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament and some other honourable member or honourable senator be named in that Committee, so that the device can be used to translate that allegation back on to the floor of this place or another place. I do not believe that is the duty of the Committee on the Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. It was an error that the Committee accepted the evidence, but once the evidence was put before the Committee the Committee was bound by the Standing Orders under which it operates.

To pursue this emotional path any longer does the Senate itself no good nor does it do good for the Senate in the eyes of the electorate. I think this matter must lie in the hands of the highest judicial authority that is available. It should go to the Court of Disputed Returns in the first instance and to the juridical authority, acting as a commission, in the second place, so that we can all find out what the law is, because the law is not known. I agree with the motion and with the amendment to it moved by Senator Withers.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I wish to speak briefly to the amendment moved by Senator Hall because Senator Hall, together with others, impugned the reputation of the Joint Committee on the Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament of which I am a member. Let me make it clear to the Senate that because of the evidence coming before the Committee from a variety of persons the proposition was put by members of the Committee including, I believe, Senator Webster, that there was no need for a register because the Constitution had certain provisions. We kept on hammering the point that there was no need for a register because there was no case of a breach of this sort; there was no conflict; nothing had ever been proven against a federal member; the Constitution provided a sufficient safeguard. In fact, the Committee threw out the challenge. The challenge was accepted in an extraordinary way. The charge was not against another member of Parliament. If it had been we could have ruled the matter out of order and said that it was not within our terms of reference. The example related to a member of the Committee and it was brought by 2 people.

Senator Greenwood:

– Who were the 2 people?

Senator GEORGES:

– One of the persons was a man named, I think, P. C. Brown. He sent a letter to the Committee saying that he wished to give evidence before it because he believed not only that a member of the Committee was in breach of the Constitution but also- and this has been overlooked- that every member of the Parliament was in breach of the Constitution because he or she accepted the two-third contribution that the Government paid by way of retiring allowance. That was Mr Brown’s submission. I would have thought that the second part of Mr Brown’s submission would have appeared in the evidence that was presented to the Senate. Nevertheless, the Committee threw out the challenge. The Committee was then given evidence. We could not pull away from the evidence that was given before the Committee. That evidence, as it is shown in the transcript, was in response to the challenge. Mr Hills had already appeared before the Committee at a previous stage and the question was put to him about the Constitution. He subsequently came before the Committee. At the same time as Mr Brown wrote to the Committee in order to give evidence he also gave information to Mr Hills. That is the reason why the information appeared in the Age’ newspaper. In fairness to the ‘Age’, it did not go out searching for this case against Senator Webster. It acted on information given by Mr Brown who also wrote to the Committee in order to give evidence.

Senator Greenwood:

– Why did the Committee receive evidence which it was not empowered by its terms of reference to receive?

Senator GEORGES:

-The Committee could not pull away from the evidence. In fairness to Mr Hills- I do not know about Mr Brown- he was saying that if there had been a register and Senator Webster had disclosed his interests in the J. J. Webster company, that disclosure in fact would have been a defence in the case that he will have to face in the High Court. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that what Mr Hills is putting- in fairness to him- was: Here is an example which concerns a member of the Committee, and if the register had been operative the matter would not have arisen.

Another person who gave evidence before the Committee in the same terms was a lecturer in law from the Queensland University. He said that many members of Parliament could be in conflict with the Constitution and disclosure by register would assist. It is quite unfair to be critical in any way of the Committee because the Committee did its best to keep within its terms of reference. Immediately it became clear that there was a charge against one of the members of the Committee the Committee referred the matter to the Senate.

Senator Greenwood:

– The Committee should never have received the charge. The charge was made in quite blatant terms that he had breached the Constitution. Why was it received?

Senator GEORGES:

– The charge was not so much in blatant terms. Mr Hills said that he believed Senator Webster was unconsciously, unwittingly in breach of the Constitution. That was the case Mr Hills was putting. It went no further than that. We asked Mr Hills to come back before the Committee to explain his references in an article which gave examples of X, Y and Z. He gave examples of why there needed to be a register, examples of conflicts in regard to the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. I believe 3 other cases were given. One case concerned Tasmania. I recall 2 cases, one concerning Senator Wood, which has no relevance, and one concerning former Senator Murphy. I think some reference was made to the Morosi Affair.

The Committee was forced into a position where it could not refuse to take the evidence in public. We threw out a challenge and there was a response to it. Four cases were brought before us, one of which concerned Senator Webster. I make it clear to Senator Hall that there is no attempt to make a scapegoat of anyone. There is not the slightest intention to do so. In Party terms we will gain no advantage from Senator Webster’s disadvantage. In fact if we look at what is likely to happen it would be greatly to our disadvantage if Senator Webster’s position in the Senate were declared invalid. Let us cut out these implications that are being made by Senator Hall and others that Senator Webster was a scapegoat. He is unfortunate to find himself in this position. There is a possibility that others, in the course of time, may find themselves in the same unfortunate situation. We can take events only as they come.

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

– I think almost everything that could be said in respect of the reference of the matter from the Joint Committee on the Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament to the Senate has been said. When the matter came before the Senate it was quite obvious that many, if not all, of us were unsure of the implications of the reference, lt was something new and therefore it was very important. It was completely irrelevant that the career of an individual senator was under challenge, irrespective of the Party to which he belonged. It was important that proper procedures be followed to establish whether or not he was in breach of the Constitution. It seems to me that there is also general agreement that this matter ought to be determined in the High Court because of the legal complications involved. There was no attempt or desire, I would think, on the part of anyone to cover up, nor was there any desire to make anybody a scapegoat. I reject such terms as scapegoat and sacrificial guinea pig that were used during the debate.

I think all of us agree on the basic principles. The motion which I moved in the Senate last week was designed to enable the matter to be referred to the High Court. This was not done with the intention of any one person being the subject of inquiry. We know that there are certain limitations on which matters may be referred to the High Court. It is for that reason that the Government is not opposing the amendment which has been moved by Senator Withers. We believe that the amendment does in fact broaden the Government’s motion and it quite rightly embraces any person in this Parliament.

Senator Withers and I indicated during our initial remarks- I think our sentiments were shared by most members of this Senate- that we did not want to see any acrimony in the debate and that there was something more than party politics involved in it. The earlier part of the debate was kept on that level. But one of the things that I am duty bound to say is that I can only speak with regret- that would be a mild way of saying it- at the manner in which one member of the Opposition, namely, Senator Reginald Wright, spoke as he did. There was no need whatsoever for the names of any senator to be bandied about during this debate. Nothing could have been more pointed and I believe improper than the personal attack on yourself, Mr President, as Senator Everett pointed out. I know, Mr President- most of us know-that you are an ex-Air Force pilot and an ex-prisoner of war. We know that you have never even sought a defence service homes loan. Yet we have seen a miserable personal attack on you by one senator. I am not saying that he spoke for the Opposition. I think he spoke of his own volition. He has a compulsion to be personal in debate. If that was not enough, we then had an attack on the wife of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and also on the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns). I have a list of all members of Parliament involved in loans and mortgages for homes and flats. I will not read them out. I do not want the level of the debate to be brought down lower than that to which it was reduced by Senator Wright.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise to order. Standing order 418 states that a senator shall not reflect upon another senator by imputing to him improper motives. Senator Wright, to those persons who heard what he had to say, spoke from a principle which he was expounding and he chose terms which were measured and reasonable to illustrate the principle by reference to 2 people, and 2 people alone. Having ventured -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– One who occupied the chair.

Senator Greenwood:

– If people want to make a point of this, let them make it. I am simply taking a point of order in defence of a person who had a right to make his arguments. I am only asking that the Minister in reply observe the Standing Orders, that is, that he should not impute to Senator Wright improper motives. Senator Wright has stated facts which in my submission he was entitled to state and it should not be construed as a miserable attack. It was not a miserable attack. It was an example in the course of an argument which he was entitled to expound.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I rule that there is no point of order. Thrust and parry has been part of debate in this place ever since the Senate was formed. We will always have this type of thing. I hope that honourable senators will keep the debate on the highest possible level.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Thank you Mr President. I can assure you that I did not have the slightest knowledge when this debate began of needing to say the things that I feel should be said. With great respect to the procedures of the Senate, I believe that I have a responsibility at least to protect my colleagues on the Government side from what are completely unwarranted personal attacks. However, I do not wish to pursue that matter any further.

All that I wish to point out is that the Government has done all that it possibly can to ensure that justice is done in this Parliament in respect of the matter now under dicussion, We have accepted the amendment that was moved by Senator Withers in respect of a judicial inquiry. During a speech which Senator Withers made yesterday some other matters were raised. Senator Withers, as reported at page 1 139 of Hansard, said:

In clarifying the application of this section of the Constitution, Senator Webster could face a massive financial burden. The case not only will involve his reputation but will play an important part in clarifying the Constitution.

The Government agrees with the position that has been stated by Senator Withers. The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) has made a statement tonight which I think will bring about a satisfactory resolution of that problem.

The second point which Senator Withers quite rightly raised concerned the matter of a common informer as provided for under the Constitution. He said:

I believe also that the Government should take steps immediately to introduce legislation to abolish the capacity of the common informer to take action under section 46 of the Constitution. The common informer provision is an archaic provision for the enforcement of the law. It has fallen into disrepute in the administration of all other laws.

The Government tonight has introduced a Bill into the House of Representatives which proposes to exclude certain undersirable aspects of common informer proceedings under section 46 of the Constitution. That provision at present allows a common informer to recover f 100 for every day on which a disqualified senator or member sits. A disqualified senator or member who inadvertently sits in the Senate or the House of Representatives over a long period is exposed to very substantial penalties. A figure in excess of $100,000 has been mentioned in the present case. The Government measure, the details of which will be announced in the usual way, will remove this possibility. The Government does not believe that it would be proper to abolish the common informer proceedings completely. It will limit the penalty, however, to an initial $200 and $200 for each day after proceedings have been instituted by the common informer and the initiating process has been served on the senator or the member. To abolish proceedings completely would be to deprive members of the public of the opportunity of taking action to enforce the constitutional requirements of pecuniary interests.

As can be seen, the Government has agreed that this second important point is one that should be rectified. The legislation that has been introduced in the House of Representatives will be, of course, coming across to the Senate. Flowing from this is the third point which also was referred to in Senator Withers ‘s speech, namely, the question of a pair for Senator Webster. He said:

It may be considered improper for Senator Webster to take part in the deliberations of this chamber while the court decision is pending. If … so … I would expect the Government to grant him a pair … the Constitution places heavy emphasis on the importance of maintaining State strengths in the chamber.

Again I would indicate that the Government accepts the proposition that has been suggested because there have been anomalies and there are certain archaic provisions to which we ought to give consideration. The Government is taking the necessary action.

In closing this debate, I say that it is unfortunate because of individual feelings on the part of one or perhaps two senators that the personal aspect which I am sure the majority of us wanted to avoid was allowed to creep into the debate. Nevertheless I hope that the vote that will follow will allow this matter to go properly before the High Court and, in the terms of the Opposition’s amendment, allow other aspects to go to a judicial committee to ensure that this most important matter receives proper consideration in the proper places.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is: That the words proposed to be added by Senator Hall ‘s amendment to Senator Withers ‘s amendment be added.

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

AYES: 11

NOES: 43

Majority……. 32

Teller. Poyser, A. G.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1223

LEAVE OF ABSENCE OF A SENATOR

Motion (by Senator Drake-Brockman)- by leave- agreed to:

That Senator Webster be given leave of absence for 2 months.

page 1223

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 5) 1974-75

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 April on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– There are 4 Bills on the notice paper which bear a relationship to each other. They are: Appropriation Bill (No. 5), Appropriation Bill (No. 6), Supply Bill (No. 1 ) and Supply Bill (No. 2). I propose that these Bills be debated together and that separate questions be put on each Bill. I seek the approval of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) for that course to be followed.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Wriedt:

– The Government agrees to that course.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Leader of the Government in the Senate has agreed to that course.

Senator COTTON:

-Appropriation Bill (No. 5) and Appropriation Bill (No. 6), together with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) of last year and Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) of earlier this year, bring together the actual outlays of this Government for the year ending 30 June 1975.

These can be compared with the outlay which was estimated by the Government in the Budget in mid-September 1974. In Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1974-75 the sum of $399m, in round figures, is sought. In appropriation Bill (No. 6) 1974-75 the sum of $240m, in round figures, is sought. That is a total of approximately $640m. This covers the balance of the expenditure which has already been made or is firmly committed to be made. There are some substantial items which one can refer to briefly in these Bills. The sum of $175.4m is sought for salaries and pay, $138.3m of which is for increases in rates of salary and wages as a result of 460 award determinations. The balance is for overtime, leave, staff increases and reclassifications. There is an amount of $152m for defence, $70m of which is to be paid to Papua New Guinea to purchase from Australia the defence assets that are there. Credit is to be passed to revenue this year. This seems a slightly untidy way of doing it but no doubt it will come to balance in the end. The amount of $3m is allocated to an Aboriginal trust; $3m for independent schools in the Territories; $4. 6m for the Colombo Plan; some money for child migration; a small amount to health insurance; $25m appropriated for interim expenditure for loss and damages caused by Cyclone Tracy. In Supply Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 an item of $33m was included for the same purpose. Money is allocated for handicapped children; the purchase of a taxation office site in the city of Sydney; some construction cost rises for the National Capital Development Commission; a civil works program of $8.8m; Post Office expenditure of $ 127m; expenditure on defence service homes of $15m; and expenditure on the South Australian Railways of $26m. That practically makes up the full $640m to which I referred earlier.

It seems to me a pity that the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) in his second reading speech so confused these 2 Appropriation Bills in dealing with them together that it is very hard to separate, without doing a great deal of work, the expenditures which lie in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) and Appropriation Bill (No. 5). I believe it is better to maintain separate classifications of the revenue items and the capital works items. This could be done in 2 clearly defined speeches. Those items have been jumbled together. I think I would prefer to see those items clearly separated in the future. The expenditures in relation to Appropriation Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4) have already been examined by Senate Estimates Committees A to G. Those Committees have reported today to the full body of the Senate. Further questions, of course, can still be asked here by any member of the Senate. For my own part I want to refer only very briefly to one or two items that, as a member of Senate Estimates Committee A, seem to me to be of consequence.

At the request of Senate Committee A- and my request in particular- an illustration has been prepared of how the space in Parliament House is occupied. I hope that it will, in due course, be made available to members of the Senate and to members of the House of Representatives so that they can see how space is utilised in Parliament House. The view expressed by that Committee was that space priority ought to be given, in the first case, to members of the House of Representatives and members of the Senate. Members of Parliament should not be increasingly squeezed for space to carry out their work effectively. There are a number of people involved in activities in Parliament House who do not necessarily belong here. When one has regard to the increasing work load in the Parliament, the increasing pressure of life, the increasing pressure on space, and the likelihood that the establishment of a new Parliament House is some years away, the time has come in my view for the Parliamentboth the Senate and the House of Representativesto look much more closely at the space which is available. We should consider how wisely that space is being used and whether or not some change in occupancy is desirable.

Senate Estimates Committee A also asked questions of the Department of Minerals and Energy. At the time of the conclusion of the report and its transmission to this chamber, the questions asked had not been answered. That seems to me to be a discourtesy by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) and his staff. I think the matter ought to be drawn to the attention of the Minister. There are some particular items which need clarification. I think the Senate should give notice now that we hope that courtesy will be paid to the Senate and that we will get the answers in due course. If we do not receive the answers to the questions asked by Senate Committee A, we will deal with these matters more exhaustively and specifically at the time of the Budget.

The Supply Bills to which I have referred are really separate items. The Appropriation Bills are the balance of expenditure for the current year. The Supply Bills really lay down the forward program of expenditure, on an interim basis, for approximately the first 5 months of the year beginning on 1 July. Together, they equal approximately $3,744,000. The substantial items are not clearly identified. It specifically sets out the sum of $335m on health insurance, which is on a basis of a 5-month interval, indicating a commitment for the full year of $800m for the new health scheme. In the particulars of the 2 Supply Bills, which involve next year’s interim expenditure, the advance to the Treasurer has increased rather heavily to $120m in each case. As I said, any honourable senator, if he wishes, can refer to these matters during the debate on the second reading or in the Committee stages. They will not be able to do so in relation to Supply matters but they can in relation to Appropriation matters.

On 6 March of this year the Appropriation Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4) were passed by the Senate. Those Bills appropriated an amount of about $600m which was an extra amount above that provided in the Budget where total government outlays were estimated at $16,274,000. We are now dealing with 2 more Appropriation Bills which we believe are the final Bills. These Bills, in their own right, as I have stated, appropriate another $640m. Appropriation Bills (No. 3), (No. 4), (No. 5) and (No. 6) have appropriated an extra amount of about $ 1,240m. One could fairly say that there has been an error in the Government’s financial calculation of that order, although it is not uncommon every year to have some adjustment process. The estimated total has now risen for the full year to $17,514,000. Compared to the previous year when the expenditure was $12,295,000, one can discern a very massive increase in Government expenditure. Indeed, if one examines the total Government expenditure for 1971-72 one will find it was $9,079,000. It has now grown in 1974-75, which is 4 years later, to $ 17,5 14,000. In about 4 years the Government has nearly doubled its total expenditure- not quite double but close enough.

In 1974-75 the total outlays were estimated to rise by about $4,000m. In fact, they rose by $5,240,000. That produced a fairly massive deficit. If one looks at this position in general terms one would have to observe that we have had as much deficit financing as this country can stand. Something will need to be done in due course by the current Government about its pattern of operating this country and its reliance upon heavy deficit finance. I am only referring here to what I call the true deficit. I am not following some simplistic style of referring to a domestic deficit which leaves out of the balance the overseas expenditure. That does not, in my view, reflect the true deficit position. If one leaves out the overseas expenditure patterns by trying to get back to a domestic base, one is unable to adjust for the import content of things coming into the country and one will arrive at a false figure. I think the domestic Budget figures are not reliable. One should work to the full figure which is the overall deficit.

If one examines the situation in Australia on that basis, by June the deficit will be $2,300m. That is the total deficit. The estimate was $570m. If honourable senators examine the previous Government’s record they will find that to the 8 years ending 1972 the combined total deficit was $2, 252m. In one year alone this Government will have achieved a deficit at 8 times the rate of deficits of the previous Government. There has been an expansion in expenditure on the deficit side from $570m to $2,300m which is a deficit about 4 times greater than that originally planned at the time of the Budget. That indicates a fairly substantial increase. It indicates also a lack of understanding and a lack of control over expenditure patterns by the Government.

One might well say: ‘Where did all this go wrong?’ Specifically, there was an increase in total Government outlays of 45 per cent, as against the Budget estimate of 34 per cent. In any test at all one must look at the very excessive level of government expenditure. That refers to the appropriation situation in the year that has just ended. Certain of the facts are inescapable. The money has been spent. The money has been committed. The Opposition will not oppose these Appropriation Bills just as it did not oppose Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4). But the Opposition does wish to draw attention to the massive escalation in Government expenditure, the bad calculations of what the expenditures will be and the massive size of the deficit for the year ending 1974-75, which is now irreversible and irrevocable.

Supply Bill (No. 1 ) and Supply Bill (No. 2) indicate not the slightest evidence that the Government of today has any intention whatsoever of reducing the massive increase in the rate of Government expenditure. New programs seem to be introduced heavily and the old ones are being expanded and continued. It is very hard to be precise but the best estimate that one can make is that on the continuation of the current programs and the indications now given, the deficit for the year ending 1975-76 will be approximately $4,000m. One also finds it hard to see how the income expectations of the Government can be realised because some part of these will be taxation and they will suffer from the lack of corporate profitability and the income tax to be derived from companies. I think they will also suffer in the rural sector from declining incomes and the fact that some people have paid ahead. It could well be that Government revenue figures may be lower than it would hope just as its expenditure figures are higher than anybody would sensibly think are wise. There is no indication that the Government recognises any need for monetary restraint by itself or by anybody else. It does not seem to give any attention to productivity increases for anybody anywhere. It has just embarked upon a fairly massive expenditure program.

I think we are all aware that wages are rising much faster than prices. This will lead to a substantial pull-on effect as time goes by. In the interests of everybody this situation will need to be reversed. The share of income that is going to wage earners is increasing heavily at the expense of the share going to profits. The result is that there is an inevitable decline in profitability and in the rate of investment which is having a very massive effect on production and wealth creation and will have a massive effect later on on the installation of new equipment which could lead to cost reduction and lower prices. It is a kind of self-defeating spiral. In my view, all these matters will lead inexorably, most unfortunately and extremely sadly, to no true relief in the end in the increase in unemployment, no genuine relief in the course of time for inflation and a decline in Australian living standards in real terms.

There is no real attack whatsoever on inflation. Inflation is destroying business confidence and is ruining business planning. The cash flow of most businesses is being diverted to keeping the businesses solvent in a low profitability and heavy inflation situation of financing stocks and debtors. Long term investment projects and plans are being abandoned. It is a sad situation to witness in a country such as Australia. It is equally essential in the view of the Opposition- I think also in the view of a great number of other people- that we should slow down the rate of growth in money aggregates. The flow of overseas capital into Australia is beginning to increase again and this is adding to the money supply. This is happening because the Australian interest rate structure is so out of balance with what the rest of the world is now doing that people are able and wanting to borrow overseas rather than in Australia. That is producing another effect of which we have not yet seen the full result.

Senator Wright:

– And this is a low-interest Party Government.

Senator COTTON:

– It was once upon a time. I am of the view, as I have said previously, that as a concerted attack on inflation the Government should take the initiative by giving serious attention to a massive attack on interest rates. If it does not do so its problems will again be compounded. In the most modest terms that one can state the money supply is growing at approximately 20 per cent per annum. I think people have said that in this country we are really running a printing press. If one looks at the outstanding treasury bills and notes that the Government is accumulating as debt one can discern quite readily what we are doing to ourselves now and for the future. The growth in the money supply will have to be checked. I do not suggest any draconian overnight measures but I do suggest constant attention to this problem and a steady and purposeful diminution in the rate of growth to something more approaching reality.

We do a great deal of trade with Japan. The conscious policy of Japan to restrain inflation and to hold its unemployment at a satisfactory level is to keep its money supply expansion at a rate which is no greater than the rate of growth in gross domestic product. In Japan the money supply is expanding at approximately 5 per cent per annum and inflation is falling. In this country our true growth is nil- it is a minus factor of about 2 per cent- and our money supply is expanding by over 20 per cent. This will lead inexorably to massive disaster. We can examine the situation of West Germany, which is a similar country. The rapid growth of inflation in effect is underwritten by the monetary authorities who expand the monetary supply. If one keeps on doing this one provides an automatic escalator to increases in inflation. Money expansion restraint will have to come. This Government will have to take up this proposition and will have to do something about it. New Zealand is regarded as a counterpart to Australia. It is an interesting country to observe across the Tasman Sea. In New Zealand the inflation rate is 1 1.5 per cent and unemployment is practically nil; I think 999 people are unemployed in New Zealand. As a nation we are quite clearly returning once again to overseas borrowing to continue to finance these massive deficits, which is a situation for which I do not care. We should not be engaging in overseas borrowing in the current situation of Australia’s opportunities and resources.

In a few months’ time we will be due to repay approximately $ 1,800m in outstanding treasury notes and bills. The Government has not yet said from where the money will come to repay those outstanding treasury notes and bills which are the product of the printing press to finance an overspending by government. No doubt we will see some measures in due course.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You are thinking about Douglas Credit.

Senator COTTON:

-I am not a Douglas Credit fan. If anybody on the honourable senator’s side is a Douglas Credit fan I suggest that the honourable senator exports him very quickly. The Government has enough trouble now. The enormous increase in Government expenditure again emphasises a fairly massive transfer of resources from the private sector to the public sector. This is a feature of the Labor Party’s policy. I do not think the Labor Party would ever say that it was not. It has said that that is its policy. The last Budget speech said so. I think the Labor Party has some instincts that this policy might have been wrong, which have not yet been translated into reality but they will need to be transferred into reality in due course. If this is not to happen, along the path upon which the Government would continue to progress there lies but one inevitable end: We are facing national bankruptcy. The Government might not like the matter to be put that way, but that is what it amounts to. We are facing a run on currency, a rundown of savings and disruption of the whole country. If this was happening in what I call the normal market place the country would be in the hands of the official receiver, who has only 2 alternatives: To sell the assets and pay off the creditors or to try to recover the business.

I am urging upon the Government a conscious understanding of what it is doing, a genuine attempt to stop doing it and a genuine attempt to try to recover Australia before it is too late. It must encourage the private sector. It must encourage activity and profitability in the private sector, push up its investment patterns, restore its confidence and get it moving massively forward once again, which is not happening at present. The Government must try to return this country to economic growth. It is a disgrace that a country such as Australia should be contemplating this year a minus growth rate of 2 per cent when it has been customary through the years for the rate of growth to move up by between 3 per cent and 6 per cent.

I think there are some very conscious things that the Government can do. It can introduce an investment allowance so that it is sufficiently attractive to get people investing once again in plant and expansion. It must take seriously inflation accounting and the effect upon taxation, profitability, stocks and the liquidity of the companies which are trying to run their businesses in the face of this massive inflation rate. I believe that the Productivity Commission should be picked up and solidly pursued. I am one of the people who believe that if the union movement in Australia really got to understand the problem and this was expressed to unions properly and reliably by the Government, the Government would get their support once it got their understanding; at least that has been my experience in my own life in matters such as these. However, the unions need to understand. They need to be told by the Government what is the position, because the Government is supposed to lead. If the Government does explain the position to them and they get to understand it the Government will get their co-operation, and it must have that co-operation to achieve the proper result, as there must be the co-operation of the private sector and the business and investment worlds. People must have confidence in their countrythey must know where they are going and where the country is headed.

One of the arguments put forward is that a deficit is justified in order to maintain employment. Historically and economically that is a fallacious argument. That system has never worked where it has been implemented; it does not really succeed. What it does is kill off the tap root of the plant that produces healthy growth, puts on branches and leaves and finally supports the tree, or in my analogy, the people. A satisfactory result is not achieved by creating massive financial deficits. One of the propositions we heard earlier this year as a result of someone’s recent overseas tour was that what we needed was a massive dose of reflation. We are having a massive dose of reflation, and the results are here to be seen.

This financial policy is not working, and I am sorry to say that I do not believe that it will work. I believe that what is happening in this country is that we are seeing the destruction of the country’s productive base, the destruction of the people who went out and did things, and the destruction of the employment capacity of Australia. We are seeing a run-down in the will of people to save money, because inflation is robbing them of the benefit of their savings. With the kind of inflation rate seen in this country recently, we have lying before us the real possibility of the destruction of our currency. As I have said before in previous debates, a principal charge laid against this Government is that it must maintain stability of the currency of this country. I strongly believe that Australia must return to being a resource-creating and growth-oriented society, because only in that way will the Government be able to improve the living standards of people and do better things for them.

What we are doing now is, in effect, redistributing previously created resources and wealth. That is okay for a while but it does not continue for very long. We will have to return to being a society that actually does things and builds things. We will have to develop the country and create resources in order to do more things for the people. The purpose of creating resources in a country is to create higher living standards and greater opportunities for the people- that is what it is all about. As I look at Australia today I become sad indeed. I think that we are looking at an economic mess in this country that is clearly Government-manufactured. At times one must ask oneself whether the present situation is really the result of pure incompetence or whether it has come about by design. We really should not have a situation of decline and no growth in a land of such opportunity.

What is the general outlook of Australia today? There is a state of great unease and industrial unrest, with a massive number of changes. Lots of things are being done much too fast, and this puts a strain on the resources, with the result that total demands are far exceeded and cannot be met. This situation is being balanced by inflation to the extent that there is a lack of balance. We have a state of stagnation and of nil growth or minus growth in this great country. There is massive and growing inflation and a state of great uncertainty and unease. There is growing unemployment and distress among people who really cannot get useful jobs to do. There is a state of confusion. When one looks at this picture one asks once again: Has this been caused by incompetence or by design? One reminds oneself of the saying that those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad. I should like honourable senators to think about that.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– As is his custom, Senator Cotton has given a comprehensive, factual review of the substance of the Supply and Appropriation Bills. In addition, in his rational and unemotional way he has presented his somewhat conservative economic views. His comments about an investment allowance as a means of either reducing the deficit or reducing inflation- I am not sure which of those he referred to- were interesting. However, I fail to see how, at least in the short term, the remission of taxation liabilities via a investment allowance could do anything but increase the Budget deficit. What interested me most of all was his apparently complete rejection of the Keynesian belief that increases in Government spending in times of unemployment would act as an economic stimulus. I note in particular that this statement by the honourable senator appears to be diametrically opposed to the views expressed in the other place by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Fraser), who spoke on 17 April in respect of this Keynesian belief. Referring to the former Treasurer of Australia, Edward Theodore, Mr Fraser said:

Theodore sought to practise that policy in Australia and it would have been better if he had been allowed to do so. Similar policies have worked at different periods in the postwar years.

Of course, these are uncertain economic times. I think we can all see that no single group has a monopoly of economic wisdom. Senator Cotton refrained from launching the type of highly emotive and sub-rational attack on the Government which was launched by his Liberal and Country Party colleagues in the House of Representatives and which I suspect will subsequently be embarked on by Opposition speakers who follow Senator Cotton.

In the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 5) in the House of Representatives there were 2 major features of the Opposition’s attack. Opposition members berated the Government, first, for increasing the money supply and, secondly, for allegedly excessive Government spending. It is fascinating to compare this advocacy of fiscal and monetary prudence as expressed particularly by the ex-Liberal leaders, Mr Snedden and Mr McMahon, on the question of money supply growth. On 1 7 April, Mr Snedden said: 1 believe that monetary growth should be cut immediately to IS per cent and subsequently brought down to around 10 per cent annual growth.

Mr McMahon spoke at somewhat greater length on the subject and said:

There are 3 main causes of the changes in the money supply: The rise or fall in our overseas money balances and international credits.

Mr McMahon, who was Prime Minister of Australia in 1972 at a time when there was a net capital inflow of $ 1,922m, should certainly be very conscious of the effect of a rapid increase in overseas reserves on domestic money supplies. I trust he is also conscious of the fact that the reason for this dangerous inflow of foreign capital in 1972 was that his Party and Government lacked the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the Country Party in December 1971 when, as it customarily does, it caved into Country Party pressure and, in full knowledge of its error, maintained a grossly under-valued Australian dollar through 1972. The former Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, continued:

The money supply should increase at about the same rate as gross national product in real terms plus a partial allowance for inflation.

He also said that the increase in the money supply of as high as 10 per cent should be temporary. Finally, he referred to Treasury bulletin number 69 of 1973 which, he said, pointed out that the economy became swamped with money early in 1973. I wonder why the economy became swamped with money early in 1973. Could it have had something to do with the failure of Mr McMahon ‘s Government to stand up to the Australian Country Party on the question of the exchange rate and the subsequent massive inflow of capital in 1972 and early 1973? Could it also perhaps have had something to do with the fact that in the December quarter of 1972, the last quarter of the Liberal-Country Party coalition Government, the money supply, Ml- that is the narrow definition- increased at a rate of 34.6 per cent, or broadly defined as M3, at an annual rate of 29. 1 per cent? So much for fiscal and monetary prudence. Increases in the money supply of that magnitude have not occurred in Australia before or since. Yet we have the man who was the Prime Minister in 1972 and the man who was his Treasurer, lecturing the Government in the House of Representatives on the dangers and the evils of a too rapid increase in the money supply.

The second leg of the Opposition’s attack on the Government was equally spurious. The Opposition berated the Government for allegedly excessive government spending. At different times, at least according to my understanding, members of the Opposition have advocated, and I believe still do, that the Government should spend more in certain areas. Mr Fraser himself in a radio broadcast to his own electorate, of course, advocated on 6 October that the floor price for wool should be set not at the 250c per kilogram that it is set at but at 300c per kilogram. The consequence of that policy had the Government chosen to accept it would have been to increase the deficit by about another $100m. I would also remind members of the Country Party, if they were here, that the price support for the wool industry is responsible for about $330m of this year’s Budget deficit. I assume that when members of the Country Party criticise the Government for carrying a deficit of this magnitude they are advocating that the Government should withdraw that financial support from the wool industry. I trust that if the members of the Australian Country Party return to the chamber and participate in this debate they will clarify that point for the edification of the Senate and of the electorate.

It is also my understanding that the Opposition Parties advocate payments of taxpayers’ funds to the wealthy A class private schools, that handful of schools which incidentally- I think there are about 66 wealthy A class schools throughout Australia- educated three-quarters of the members of the inner Cabinet of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. Of course it is purely coincidental that that handful of schools educated three-quarters of the members of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. It is my understanding that members of the Opposition advocate payments to these schools which are not being made now. It is also my understanding that they advocate a superphosphate subsidy, the cost of which, depending upon which figure one likes to accept as to the magnitude of the subsidy they advocate, would be somewhere between $60m and $200m. Members of the Opposition certainly advocate a variety of taxation concessions which, as Dr Coombs succinctly observed, constitute disguised government expenditure. 1 believe members of the Country Party advocate the payment of a transport subsidy for petroleum products. They advocate an increase in military spending. The advocate more money for the States, more money for roads and more money for rural telephone services. The Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) also advocates more money for Esso-BHP via a 40 per cent increase in Australian domestic oil prices. If the Opposition does not advocate increased expenditure in any of these areas which I have detailed- it is by no means an exhaustive list- I trust that members of the Opposition will clarify the situation for us now or later in the debate. I assume from the silence from the Opposition benches that they do in fact advocate increased government spending, at least in all of those areas and possibly in many others of which I have not thought. No one tonight or, to my knowledge, in the past has disputed these undertakings which various spokesmen have given on behalf of the Opposition parties to increase government expenditure.

On the question of reducing government expenditure, the Opposition of course habitually is non-specific. The problem with reductions of government expenditure is that they are always popular providing they remain abstract and merely a meaningless ideal and never become specific or meaningful. There was one exception to this convention observed by all other members of the Opposition not to become specific about the areas where government expenditure should be cut. In the House of Representatives on 17 April the former Leader of the Liberal Party stated:

The cuts I have spoken of include the big spending but politically sensitive areas of education, health, urban and regional development, and social security. I would exclude only pensions from the economies.

Mr Snedden said that only pensions would be excluded from cuts in government expenditure. So Mr Snedden stated that he would cut expenditure in all those other areas which I have mentioned. He is also saying, of course, implicitly that there will be no superphosphate bounty should there be a Liberal-Country Party government. This statement is of course in direct conflict with his own statement prior to the 1 974 election. He is also saying that there will be a reduction in the education grant for isolated children. I would be interested to hear the Country Party’s comments on that proposition advanced by a former Leader of the Opposition that education grants for isolated children should be reduced and likewise on the proposition that funds for the States and for rural roads would be reduced and presumably that the price support for the wool industry would be liquidated. Once again I ask members of the Opposition here assembled which of the mutually exclusive propositions they support- the proposition of Mr Snedden that cuts will be made everywhere except in the areas of pensions or the singularly mutually exclusive proposition that cuts will be made in the funds for the States, roads, postal and telephone services and so on. Again we are greeted with silence.

Senator Baume:

– We cannot understand you.

Senator WALSH:

– That does not surprise me a bit. Of course the Leader of the Opposition has been far more devious, as is his custom, than the former Leader of the Opposition. He asserted that the Opposition is under no obligation to detail the areas in which expenditure cuts will be made. He attempted to support this evasion by repeating in a different form his statement, issued shortly after he became Leader of the Opposition, that the Senate would not reject these Supply Bills. He stated on 1 7 April:

In the normal course of events, it is still 2 years until there will be an election.

He argued therefrom that of course the management of the economy is the Government’s responsibility for the next 2 years and not the responsibility of the Opposition. There may be a certain superficial plausibility about that point of view but I emphasise that although Mr Fraser stated that the Opposition will not reject these Supply Bills he has said nothing about the 1975 Budget, the 1976 Supply Bills or the 1977 Budget. Likewise in the House last week he prefaced his remarks about the Government having 2 years :n office with the phrase ‘in the normal course of events’. In other words, Mr Fraser has not given a categorical assurance that Supply Bills will not be rejected during the life of this Parliament and, consequently, his argument that it is totally the responsibility of the Government is exposed as a sham and a farce. I repeat to Opposition members who are interjecting, if they support the proposition that Supply Bills will not be rejected, the invitation that Senator Hall issued a few weeks ago, namely, to stand in their places and state categorically ‘I will not vote against a Supply Bill.’ Of COL se, even if Mr Fraser had given such an assurance it is highly doubtful whether any weight should have been attached to it. After all, it was Mr Fraser who said on 6 February:

Bill Snedden has my full support … I support the elected Leader of the Liberal Party . . . There has been wide speculation that I am promoting a challenge to Bill Snedden. That is not so, there is no contest.

Bill Snedden believed Malcolm Fraser and paid the penalty.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- Order! The honourable senator must refer to Mr Snedden as he should.

Senator WALSH:

– I apologise, Mr Acting Deputy President. The member for Bruce, Mr Snedden, believed Mr Fraser and paid the penalty. I might also say in passing that all the 9 Liberal Party members from my own State issued a statement, which was published in the ‘Western Australian’ on 8 March, which stated inter alia: as Western Australian Liberals we categorically affirm that we stand four square behind the leadership of Bill Snedden’.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Does that include the Liberal senators from Western Australia?

Senator WALSH:

-The Western Australian Liberal senators and the 5 Western Australian Liberal members of the House of Representatives all signed the statement. I do not know how they voted when the contest actually presented itself in the Party room, but I assume that more than one of them anyway voted for Mr Fraser and it is generally believed that more than one voted for Mr Fraser which, of course, casts some doubts on the value of the stated word not only of the Leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition but of at least a significant number of his followers. But nowhere probably has this kind of technique been carried as far as it has been carried in my own State. Supply Bills No. 1 and No. 2 provide some $35 8 m to launch Medibank on 1 July and thereby give expression to the health and medical policy which gestated in the Labor Party in the late 1960s and which was presented to the electorate at the 1 972 election and which was a central feature of the double dissolution election last May.

In my own State, Sir Charles Court and the Government of Western Australia- the two are virtually synonomous- rejected the Australian Government’s Medibank offer of 31 December. At that time Sir Charles, in common with many other wishful thinkers in the Liberal Party and Country Party, was supremely confident that the Opposition would reject the Supply Bills and that the Whitlam Government would be defeated in a mid-year election, that Medibank would be aborted and that he would be acclaimed by his fellow obstructionists in the non-Labor States as a hairy-chested and successful Canberra basher. In assuming all those things Sir Charles made a monumental miscalculation from which he is now furiously backing away. As late as 23 February last, in the ‘Sunday Times’, Sir Charles is reported as stating, with respect to Medibank:

There are times when other matters including the vital principle of personal freedom of choice transcend matters of dollars and cents.

According to the ‘West Australian’ just 3 weeks later Sir Charles contradicted that statement by saying:

The State Government wanted to know more about the costs involved in Medibank before becoming committed to the scheme.

Only a few days before Sir Charles made that statement the Health Minister in the State Government, Mr Baxter, had unilaterally cancelled a meeting with Mr Hayden that was scheduled for the 1 8th.

The cost to Western Australia of Sir Charles’ rejection of Medibank, that is, the individual and collective cost- individual to the citizen and collective to the State Treasury- was in a full year about $40m. Faced with reality and with the subsequent knowledge that, because of the factional fighting within the Liberal Party and the blood letting in mid-March, the Liberal Party was in no condition to reject the Supply Bills or to face an election, and the consequential facts that Medibank would be funded in the Supply Bills and would be operative from 1 July, and knowing that the people of Western Australia would, when they became informed, turn in anger on the government responsible for the State’s nonparticipation, and knowing that his monumental miscalculation about the future of the Whitlam Government was the direct cause of his dilemma, Sir Charles Court and his Government sought protection from retribution by throwing up a smokescreen of blatant untruths.

They embarked on an orgy of ‘Newspeak’. The first dispenser of ‘Newspeak’ was the State Health Minister, Mr Baxter, who stated, according to the ‘West Australian’ of 14 March that he had squeezed three important concessions out of Mr Hayden. The alleged important concessions were, first, that Medibank costs would not be offset against normal tax reimbursements to the States. That, of course, had been explicitly stated by Mr Hayden numerous times but since Mr Baxter had refused to talk to Mr Hayden he had not heard it first hand, and since, presumably, he either does not bother to read or is incapable of reading and comprehending, he had failed to pick it up from any other source. It was also stated that the State Government by diligent negotiations had secured a 5-year agreement instead of a 2-year agreement. I understand that Mr Hayden would be quite happy to sign a 10-year agreement, and has always been of that view.

The third concession was that any residual gap between the private health insurance refund and the doctor’s bill would remain tax deductible. This, Mr Baxter said, was a concession he had managed to screw out of that big bad ogre in Canberra, Bill Hayden. The tax deductibility of these items has always been included in the scheme. In the White Paper it was explicitly stated that these items would remain tax deductible.

The next to join in this orgy of misrepresentation, of the throwing up of a smokescreen of misrepresentation, was the Premier himself who, in the political notes of 8 April 1975 published in the ‘ West Australian ‘ claimed:

The Commonwealth …. is at least beginning to recognise what we have always insisted must be the proper, acceptable application of its Medibank proposals.

He went on to refer to what he called the grave faults and inconsistencies in the Commonwealth’s, and Mr Hayden ‘s, proposed scheme. Then, with characteristic bombast he stated:

We have preserved the traditional doctor-patient relationship . . .

The facts behind this Court-concocted fantasy are as follows: As far back as November 1971, in an address to the Victorian Branch of the Australian Medical Association, Mr Hayden said: . . Labor’s scheme is based on the fee-for-service principle: private practice; freedom of patient to select his own private practitioner; and preservation of doctor-patient relationship.

Mr Hayden has repeated that assurance in every major speech and in every publication on this subject since he became Minister. For example, in August 1973, in a speech in Hobart he described it as an ironclad guarantee. Sir Charles Court, who is not and never has been a man to be unduly confused by facts, continued and said:

We have cleared the way for the continued operation of health insurance organisations . . .

The Green Paper on the health insurance program of April 1 973 did recommend that private health insurance be prohibited but in a Press statement issued on 18 September 1973 Mr Hayden said: . . I have advised the Prime Minister that I will recommend that this paragraph not be adopted.

Mr Hayden ‘s recommendation was accepted. The White Paper of November 1973 stated:

Private health insurance funds will be able to offer coverage against the costs of intermediate and private hospital accommodation, and medical costs to the extent that they are not covered by benefits under the program.

Likewise tax deductibility is another concession which the State government claimed to have screwed out of Mr Hayden. The Minister had stated explicitly on a number of occasions that tax deductibility will apply. Sir Charles Court went on to claim: . . we have safeguarded the automony of private hospitals . . .

This also was printed in the White Paper. It was guaranteed in the publication issued Vh years ago. This begs a number of questions. Does Sir Charles Court hear voices in the air? Are his beliefs conceived by demons in his own mind, or is it simply that he has no respect for the truth? An incident in the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia on 18 March strongly confirmed the last alternative. Before the 1974 State election Sir Charles Court claimed that he could, as he said, put things right’, and said: ‘Inflation to a substantial degree can be beaten State by State’. In reply to a question on notice from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tonkin, asking whether Western Australia, under Sir Charles’ Government, had the highest inflation rate in Australia, Sir Charles stated:

The increase in Perth over the whole of 1974 was 14 per cent against 15 per cent or more in every other capital city giving us the lowest inflation rate of all the States during the year.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired. I draw attention to the fact that Senator Bunton is to make his maiden speech to the Senate. I know that it is unnecessary for me to remind honourable senators to extend to him the customary courtesy.

Senator BUNTON:
New South Wales

– At the outset may I say that I appreciate very sincerely the assistance and courtesy extended to me on entering this Senate. I am not unmindful of the fact that I took my seat here under somewhat unusual circumstances in which tradition had been broken by the New South Wales Government. Having in mind those unusual circumstances I appreciate very sincerely indeed the assistance and courtesy extended to me by the President of the Senate, by all members of the Senate, and by the Senate officers and by the Senate staff. It has been very reassuring to me and I entered the Senate a very pleased person. I entered here as a lone wolf following the resignation of the illustrious Senator Murphy on his elevation to the High Court of Australia. Now I feel that I am a member of the Senate well received by all honourable senators, and their courtesy is appreciated to the full.

I consider it fitting to make my maiden speech in the Senate at a time when the Appropriation Bills, which involve the Department of Urban and Regional Development and its activities with the Albury-Wodonga growth complex, are being considered. I am concerned, as are aldermen and councillors throughout the land, and citizens generally, that within recent years the authority of local government has been usurped in a gradual process by boards, corporations, commissions and authorities. I am concerned also about a new concept of regionalism coming into being, on both a Federal and a State basis, whereby councils within regions will be prevented from carrying out their rightful and previously accepted functions. Accordingly I request that honourable senators meeting in this House of review closely examine the legislation which could have the effect of further intruding upon the autonomy of local government.

Honourable senators may well pose the question that 1 justify the request. My reply in part would date back to the time of Federation. At that time Australian colonies agreed to join in the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia as from 1 January 1901. They consciously surrendered a number of sovereign powers, including control of customs and excise duties and other functions of national significance including defence, immigration, currency and coinage. The Constitution provided that during the period of 10 years after the establishment of the Commonwealth, and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provided, of the net revenue of the Commonwealth from duties of customs and excise not more than one-fourth was to be applied annually by the Commonwealth to its expenditure and the balance, in accordance with the Constitution, was to be paid to the several

States or applied towards the payment of interest on debts of the several States taken over by the Commonwealth. The Constitution further provided that the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thought fit. Whilst not spelling it out, there was an implied condition that local government would be the creature of the States, as was evidenced in the Local Government Act of 1 902 in relation to the State of New South Wales.

In devising these clauses the founders of the Australian Federation did not pretend to be providing an eternal solution to the problems of Federal-State financial relations. They were only effecting a compromise which was the price of Federation. Perceptive minds, however, foresaw that the superior power of Commonwealth could in due course erode, if not destroy, the independence of the States. This was seen as likely to ensue from the power of the Commonwealth to impose taxation generally and from the provisions of the Constitution which gave Commonwealth legislation supremacy over State laws. Alfred Deakin summed up the position as he saw it by saying:

As the power of the purse in Geat Britain established by degrees the authority of the Commons, it will ultimately establish in Australia the authority of the Commonwealth.

The major step towards ultimate domination by the Commonwealth of the States’ financial power came with the uniform tax scheme of 1942, which the High Court then upheld as a wartime measure and 15 years later again upheld under peacetime powers. This scheme made it politically impracticable for the States to levy income tax and has created the position that the Commonwealth has the monopoly of income tax’ revenues. Over the years there have been divergent views expressed about the merits and justice of a financial system which envisages the collection of revenue by one government and its expenditure by others. Regardless of its political colour, no government in Canberra since the Second World War has been prepared to relinquish its major financial power and certainly not its control over income tax. There are, of course, imperfections in the Constitution which have been revealed from time to time. There has always been the cry of the States that they are not getting a fair share of funds from the Commonwealth and from local government, as a creature of the State, that it is being neglected financially.

It is evident that the financial implications between all forms of government were clearly defined and all that was necessary to make Federation work successfully was to invoke a fair and reasonable formula to provide a full degree of equity between the 3 tiers of government. Despite all the differences regarding the allocation of funds, the operations of governments since Federation have been carried out successfully. There is no doubt the national government has and should be recognised as having, as its name implies, the sovereignty. The dignity of the States has been preserved and local government has been acknowledged both authoritively and financially as a partner in the trinity of government. If these accepted principles of parliamentary functioning are maintained, the document of Federation will be the success it was intended to be.

I like to look at things in reality, rather than in the abstract, and one must admit that Australia in a comparatively short space of time has become a major power, not only self sufficient to support itself but able to assist the weaker nations materially. It is therefore evident that the political system as decreed by Federation has thus far succeeded and this success is due in no small measure, despite Party differences, to the fact that each of the 3 governments has been prepared to acknowledge the rights of each other. All Australian Governments through the years have acted in accordance with democratic principles encouraging a way of life acceptable to a democracy as opposed to totalitarian rule.

In recent years, however, there has been an intrusion on the accepted functions of local government, by both the national and State governments, as a result of which citizens are becoming apprehensive. They see a bureaucracy unfolding quite contrary to the principles of democracy in which responsible governments have delegated their authority to boards, commissions, corporations and authorities with power to supersede local government authority. We must not lose sight of the fact that councils are elected by the people. It is only within recent years that the stature of local government has been weakened as a result of legislation by both the national and State governments. Let me say quite categorically that restricting the authority of local government is undesirable and I think unacceptable to the Australian people. Permit me to quote some instances of this restriction which have come under my notice.

Before expressing my thoughts, however, let me make it abundantly clear that I will do all in my power to assist in the development of the Albury-Wodonga complex and I trust that citizens in the area will do likewise. This growth development has been sponsored by responsible governments as a pilot scheme and is a most ambitious plan in that 2 States are involved with the national Government to advance the accelerated development of Albury, New South Wales, and Wodonga, Victoria. The scheme could bring with it constitutional problems and certainly will bring industrial problems as the laws of the 2 States are so different. The Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation came into being about 2 years ago and just prior to that time, when the Cities Commission was interested, an officer of the Commission prevailed on the New South Wales State Planning Authority, who in turn recommended to the Minister for Local Government in New South Wales to intervene, by requiring the Albury City Council to withdraw its approval for the building of 5 development projects estimated to cost $ 16m.

The approvals had been previously granted by the Albury Council on the recommendation of its town planner who had been in close collaboration with the State Planning Authority over a period from 3 to 6 months. It is interesting to note Council’s approval for all 5 developments was granted in strict conformity with the Minister’s own gazetted town plan which a subsequent government inquiry revealed. The projects included 2 regional shopping complexes, a supermarket and 2 substantial office blocks. When the ‘all clear’ signal to proceed was eventually given, some 6 months later, the economic climate had worsened to such an extent that only one of the projects- the supermarket- was proceeded with. This blatant trespass on the authority of local government in an area which had just been proclaimed as a growth centre was entirely unjustified and proved costly to the applicants concerned. It revealed the shortcomings of bureaucratic action.

The fact that the Milk Board decreed that milk produced in Victoria could not be sold in New South Wales or, in other words, milk produced in Wodonga could not be sold in Albury- 3 miles distant- is another instance of undue interference towards the domain of local government. Is it not ludicrous that when the national Government and the State governments of New South Wales and Victoria have combined to develop the Albury-Wodonga growth complex as one entity, an appointed government board should encroach on local government authority in this way and probably in contravention of section 92. The Board’s action has been challenged and I understand a decision on the matter will soon be handed down by the High Court. There are several other instances of a similar character to justify my request to honourable senators to acknowledge at all times that local government is an integral part of government. Indeed the national and State governments cannot function successfully without a virile local government. Make no error about that fact.

I am not opposed to change for the sake of opposing it. Indeed I realise that history is strewn with the wreckage of institutions which and individuals who have failed to adapt themselves to changing circumstances. However, I consider that basic fundamentals have been thrown overboard in deciding to develop an area as a means of encouraging decentralisation. To an envisaged population of 300 000 at the turn of the century this is decentralisation in reverse. The building up of Albury-Wodonga will create another centralised area. The building of Monarto will create another centralised area and will not serve the case of decentralisation. I certainly cannot be accused of being parochial as I have been closely associated with local government in Albury for half a century. But I speak from a national rather than a local viewpoint, when in all humility I suggest that the cause of decentralisation would be far better served had government policy been to fund the development of say 30 or 40 provincial cities and main towns in Australia within the structure of local government. I discussed this matter with the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) 5lA years ago. Make no error about it, it was as a result of the representations made to Mr Whitlam at that time- he was not Prime Minister then- that the idea of the creation of a growth centre in that area was given birth. It has proceeded along lines entirely contrary to the best conception of creating growth centres generally. This third arm of government is well geared to undertake a program of accelerated natural growth development. Further Canberras will not be built. There is something unique about Canberra.

The growth development in these other centres must be natural growth development which includes industries, commerce and all the things that go with development, and should not create another area of public servants or another area of outstanding beauty which does not provide the necessary things in order that there may be a progressive and self-maintained area. We find, as I see it, that the development of this country is proceeding along the wrong lines.

Local government councils possess elected policy makers and are required by law to have qualified officers in every realm of council administration. It can therefore be realised that the setting up of corporations further to develop prosperous areas is a costly duplication of experts in the field of urban development. When I say costly, I mean costly. The development in these main country centres of Australia in the last decade has been outstanding. There has been a growth development as a result of a virile local government within all those areas. That virile development could have been continued in my area in exactly the same way as happened those few years ago. What do we find? We find that local government is being cast aside, that corporations are being formed, that authorities are being formed and that boards are being created to ride roughshod over the elected people of local government.

We have a democratic system whereby it is necessary that elected people should have the say over appointed people. I say that in all due deference to the fact that I have been appointed to this Senate in extraordinary circumstances. It is necessary that all forms of government should realise that people who are elected by the public should have the last say. I have consistently taken the stand and discussed with members of Parliament my thoughts on the issue of justice to elected people. I believe that the cause of decentralisation will be better served by assisting to build several cities and towns throughout Australia to a population of, say, from 60 000 people to 80 000 people, rather than build isolated cities with a population of 300 000. We are continually hearing of the disadvantages of the metropolis. It is my opinion that the building up of future cities with a big concentration of population is unwise. To protect the environment and to satisfy the people there is no substitute for natural growth development. People cannot be forced to go to areas but they can be enticed to go there if they are decent areas in which to live and there is a steady progress which will be an incentive for them to go there.

Let me say something concerning federalism and regionalism. Within the last 2 decades functioning of local government has taken over a wider spectrum and has expanded into the field of regionalism. It is 30 years since the Local Government Association of New South Wales included in its charter the need for regionalism within the structure of local government. The community of interest between the peoples of urban areas and adjoining non-urban areas was such that the functioning of local government in areas of mutual concern should be on a regional basis. It is therefore understandable that local government was the agency best fitted to be entrusted with the distribution of electricity in New South Wales per medium of the county council system. I am very proud of the part that I played in helping local government to be entrusted with the distribution of electricity. I suppose it was about 25 years ago that local government lost the authority for the generation of electricity, and rightly so because it was uneconomic. But it was not uneconomic for local government to retain the right of distribution of electricity per medium of the county council system. I prevailed on the then Government of New South Wales to see to it that local government was not overlooked in this very important local government function. We have today a very successful system of distribution of electricity under the auspices of local government.

There are 34 county councils in the State and five all purpose councils distributing electricity. The Murray River County Council, of which I am a foundation member and still serving, traverses the Murray River from Albury to Wentworth, a distance of 380 miles- 612 kilometresand has 12 constituent councils. It is interesting to note that New South Wales is the only State in the Commonwealth in which local government is the distributing agency. I understand that there is only one other province in the world in which local government is distributing electricity. It is also understandable that regional libraries should be established under the banner of local government. I have been privileged to be Chairman of the Upper Murray Regional Library based at Albury since its inception 18 years ago. This Regional Library, which is one of many throughout the Commonwealth sponsored by local government, comprises 14 local government authorities- eight in New South Wales and six in Victoria. I feel it incumbent upon me to stress the ability of councils within regions to amalgamate on matters of mutual interest, realising that we have ready made regional councils within the structure of local governmentcouncils well geared and acceptable to the people, the members of which are elected and not merely appointed. I am firmly of the opinion that regions can be best served through the instrumentality of local government and I do not see the need for the encroachment of national or State governments in this field. Regional councils under the banner of local government provide a tonic to those who think we are over-governed.

I refer now to finance. It is admitted that local government in New South Wales is collecting its revenue mainly from a rating system devised in 1902. It is evident that a new formula will have to be introduced. The functions of local governing councils have changed greatly in the last 20 years. Those functions were once limited to the construction of roads, kerbs and gutters, removal of garbage, street lighting and drainage. Today they extend, or residents want them to be extended, into fields of welfare by providing facilities and amenities to all residents of all ages. This has always seemed to me to justify councils having wider resources of revenue than the levy of rates on land values, but State governments have been slow to recognise that need and have kept councils to their narrow and historic revenue base. Nor have such governments been overgenerous in the grants and subsidies paid to local government and indeed, as is well known, most government-owned property is completely exempt from the levy of local rates.

Local government has chafed for many years under the dual restrictions of a limited revenue basis and inadequate grants and subsidies. In 1971 when relief was sought through a conference of State Ministers for local government at which were recorded the serious financial position of local government, the belief that additional financial resources were essential and that annual reimbursement grants from the Commonwealth should be increased to include an element of contribution to local government finances, the Commonwealth authorities took the view that any special allocation of Commonwealth moneys for local governing purposes could be met only at the expense of an off-setting reduction in State general revenue grants. The States were naturally not prepared to agree to this, nor were they prepared to take action to extend the revenue base of local governing councils, in spite of recommendations from a royal commission favouring such a course. Do honourable senators see how local government has been neglected by the governments which it was intended that local governments should assist?

It is against this background that the policies of the present Australian Government should be viewed. Those policies were dictated by a desire to make local government a general partner in the federal system and to redress the inequalities suffered by areas which have the greatest need and which often have the least adequate revenue resources. The status of partnership was to involve at least 3 elements: First, giving local government a voice on the Loan Council and in the convention for the revision of the Australian Constitution; secondly, the amendment of the Constitution so that grants of federal funds could be made direct to local government bodies and not through the States; and thirdly, the extension of the functions of the Grants Commission so that it could recommend equalisation and other grants to local government bodies as well as to the States. The Constitutional Convention has not yet progressed to a stage of any formal recommendations and the States have not been receptive to the suggestion that local government bodies be represented on the Loan Council and the referendum to amend the Constitution has failed, chiefly I suppose, because its effect was misunderstood.

It is regretted that more than one matter was dealt with at that referendum because if ever a section of the referendum should have succeeded it was that section which proposed that the federal Government should be given power to make funds available to local government directly for its own use. The fact of the matter is that local government desires to remain a full partner in the trinity of government and to accept its responsibilities and obligations in this changing world. But to do so effectively it must receive its share of the national pool of taxation.

I conclude where I started in seeking the support of honourable senators to do all in their power to assist local government to maintain its place in the trinity of government. With the passage of time and changing conditions there must of necessity be modifications in government administration. But with respect, I suggest the principles outlined by the wise men of Federation were sound and should be retained together with the retention of authority within the partnership of government as implied at the time of Federation. Australians are a happy and contented people and local government, that form of government which is closest to the people, has played a major part in bringing about this contentment. The continuation of its full functioning must be preserved in the best interests of this divinely blessed country. I count on honourable senators to play a part in this fulfilment.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1236

COMMON INFORMERS (PARLIAMENTARY DISQUALIFICATIONS) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to modify the provision at present made by section 46 of the Constitution in relation to disqualifications of members and senators by virtue of sections 43, 44 and 45 of the Constitution. Section 46 provides that, until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by the Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of f 100 to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction. This provision has not been availed of since Federation by any common informer. It has its origin in old United Kingdom legislation which has, so far as concerns recovery of penalties by common informers, been repealed in more recent times. For reasons which I explain later, the Government does not intend to repeal it in its entirety but to modify it.

There is one matter that I think I should make absolutely clear to honourable senators. This is that the provisions made by the Bill before the Senate will not affect the reference of any question affecting disqualification to the High Court by the Senate in relation to which a question arises in pursuance of section 203 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That procedure will still be open and will no doubt be followed in appropriate cases.

It seems to the Government that the penalty provided by section 46 is archaic and out of proportion to the kinds of breaches of the disqualifying provisions that can occur in the complexities of modern life. I might mention that the penalty of £100 per day provided for by the section is a fixed penalty, and not a maximum one, so that the total penalty that could be incurred by a member or senator could amount to enormous sums where the infringement does not become apparent until years after it has occured.

The Government does not believe that a breach of the Constitution should be condoned, no matter how the breach occurred. The Bill now before the Senate will result, in the Government’s view, in an equitable solution to this difficult question. The Bill provides for the recovery of a penalty of $200 in respect of a past breach at the suit of any person. It provides an adequate sanction in enabling a further $200 per day to be recovered for each day the member or senator sits when disqualified after he has been served with the originating process. Thus if a serious allegation is made and proceedings issued, the member or senator will be at risk if he continues to sit.

The power to make provision repealing or modifying the common informer provision in section 46 of the Constitution is provided by section 5 1 (xxxvi) of the Constitution in conjunction with the words ‘Until the Parliament otherwise provides’ in section 46 itself. This Bill is an exercise of that power.

It is not the intention of the Government to encourage common informer proceedings. But it feels that this procedure should be kept open notwithstanding its disuse during the twentieth century in relation to the Australian Constitution. However, we do not think it should be a vehicle by which a private citizen should be put in a position unjustly to enrich himself. The purpose of the provision is to allow alleged disqualifications to be independently tested. There is already another procedure for this and in normal circumstances it would seem to the Government that the Senate itself would refer the question to the High Court and have the matter properly judicially determined. One significant change that the Bill will make is that common informer proceedings if brought are to be brought in the High Court.

The Bill will apply to disqualifications that have occurred before the date on which it becomes law as well as those that occur after that date. However, a provision has been included in clause 3 that a suit under the Bill is not to relate to any sitting of a person as a senator or member at a time earlier than 12 months before the day on which the suit is instituted. It does not appear to the Government to be in the public interest that the Bill should be used as the means of raising matters long since past.

The Bill also makes it clear that in any common informer proceedings a senator or member at fault is not to be penalised more than once in respect of the same wrongful sitting. It will be seen that the Bill will thus preserve the common informer procedure provided for by the Constitution, while modifying its application in a way that will be more in keeping with modern times and justice. The Houses ‘power to refer questions of disqualification to the High Court will remain unaffected. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– Normally, Mr Acting Deputy President, as you know, when a Bill is introduced the Opposition moves for the adjournment of the debate after the Minister has delivered his second reading speech. This Bill, however, is a somewhat unusual one. It is unusual in some circumstances. Basically it has been introduced as a result of a request by the

Opposition in this place yesterday. I do not think I am being unkind to the Government in saying that. On behalf of the Opposition I express to the Government our thanks for its speedy reaction to our request. We have spent some time yesterday and a fair amount of time today on a matter which has involved what are to many of us, the fairly distressing circumstances of one of our colleagues in this place. Arising out of all those matters there has come into account the problems of section 46 of the Constitution. One could take the view that the Bill should go through its normal procedures of being adjourned, etc., but 1 understand that there could well be good reasons, for the protection of our colleague Senator Webster, why this Bill be given a speedy passage. For that reason I hope the Bill will receive such a passage.

I can well understand the problems the Government has had in relation to whether the concept of the common informer ought to be retained. I have a personal objection to the common informer action. As this matter has been under consideration for less than 48 hours I think the Government has come to a reasonable and sensible compromise in relation to this problem. I think it is fair to say that the penalty which would now attach to a breach of the section is a reasonable solution to what was previously, as the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) said in his second reading speech, a vehicle by which a common informer could unjustly enrich himself at the expense of a previous senator or member who may have unwittingly over a very long period contravened a section of the Constitution.

I do not see this Bill at all in the light of something introduced just for the protection of members. It is basically to protect people who may desire to become members of this Parliament. If the threat of section 46, in its present state, is to hang over Parliament, I think it is an unreasonable burden to impose on members. Until the provisions of sections 44 and 45 have been clarified- that may take a very long time- it would be most unjust if members who have been elected in good faith and who have done things which by common practice and custom have become accepted as not being in contravention of the sections but which have later found to be in contravention of those sections were penalised. Some of our longer serving colleagues could be up for $250,000 or a similar penalty. I think that would be totally outrageous. The common informer would have little success of recoverycertainly in my case and probably in most other cases.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It would become a growth industry.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is right. It is a very difficult area. I think it is fair to say that our Opposition colleagues in the other place have had a look at the Bill. They have had a slightly longer time to look at it. I understand that it went through the House rapidly and without dissent. As all honourable senators appreciate, it is very difficult for us to give consideration to a second reading speech at such short notice. Although it appears to be a short Bill of 5 clauses, it is difficult to give it what one might call proper and due consideration at this hour. However, I think there is an overriding duty on us at this hour of the night. It may well be that this Bill is not perfection. It may well be that it has drafting errors. I am prepared to take that risk because I would not want some person to be enriched unjustly at the expense of our colleague, Senator Webster, because the Senate failed to pass this Bill tonight. On those grounds I ask the Senate to give this Bill a speedy passage- certainly before we rise tonight. I think if there is any doubt at all as to whether our colleague Senator Webster might suffer any sort of detriment because this Bill was not passed before we rise tonight, we ought to pass it. The penalties which could flow to him have been calculated at $100,000.I do not know whether that is true. I think it would be a disgrace to us if we failed to give some sort of protection to him and if we allowed some common informer to enrich himself to that extent when our colleague may well be found- we trust he will be- to have unwittingly committed a technical breach of the Constitution. For those reasons I hope the Senate will give the Bill a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I would like a comment from the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) as to clause 5 of the Bill. I understood that the policy of the Administration in the judicial section of this country was to relieve the High Court of matters of first instance. I realise that the High Court is the Court of Disputed Returns, but I do not think that an offence of this sort should warrant trial by a justice of the High Court, which would interrupt the appellate duties for which such judges should be reserved. There are other federal courts at present such as the Industrial Court which could be vested with this jurisdiction. I do not see any reason why the State Supreme Courts should not be vested with this jurisdiction. I would have thought that it was wholly contrary to the outlook upon the jurisdiction that should be developed today for this original jurisdiction to be vested in the High Court. I would have thought that the High Court should be dispossessed of any trial functions, especially in a matter of this sort, where there are competent Supreme Courts which could be appropriately vested with the jurisdiction.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is a curious discontinuance between the proposition which Senator Wright puts in respect of one Bill and that which he puts in respect of another Bill. I can recall recently, when we were discussing the Superior Court Bill, his being outraged at the proposition that the High Court be relieved of some of its primary jurisdiction. Now he seems to be suggesting that original jurisdiction should not be conferred on the High Court. Is that what the honourable senator is suggesting?

Senator Wright:

– You are completely misrepresenting my point of view on the Superior Court Bill.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am finding it very difficult to follow his arguments from one Bill to another. I suggest that the proposition advanced on this Bill that matters of importance such as this should be the consideration of the High Court is consistent with the view which this Government has always advanced, and I can see nothing that we have to explain in clause 5 of the Bill which provides that original jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court in suits under this Act and no other court has jurisdiction in such a suit. Matters of such fundamental importance as this belong to the High Court and to no other court. I fail to see that this Government has anything to explain in espousing this clause.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I think the Minister perhaps has not taken it quite far enough. I would suggest, with respect to Senator Wright, that this is indeed a matter of importance. It is not a matter in which one can say that the amount involved is only $200, because if the offence continues and the member is obdurate and continues to sit in the Parliament, the amount could, of course, be considerably more. I would suggest that also, apart from that, the fact that this is dealing with the situation of a member of the Australian Parliament makes it appropriate that it should go to a federal court, the High Court, the highest court in the land, to be dealt with. It will obviously affect that member not only in the amount involved but also in what it does to his standing in the community. For these reasons also, I think it is appropriate that it should go to the High Court.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I acknowledge the appositeness of some of what Senator Missen said. What I said in my original speech was that there was an argument for its going to the High Court because it was, too, the Court of Disputed Returns. I certainly have no presumptuous idea that the importance of a place here is such that it should go to trial before the highest court in the land because it affects one individual member in this chamber. That is altogether too conceited an idea of the importance of a person having a place in this Parliament. I rise only to refute the thoroughly unwarranted statement with which the Minister started to acknowledge my comment, that is to say, that I was outraged in relation to the Superior Court Bill at the idea of the High Court’s being relieved of trial jurisdiction. It shows how little this Minister understands the Australian judicial system. I only rose to ask for a comment from the Minister and my request did not attract that ignorant retort.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator James

McClelland) read a third time.

page 1239

GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

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

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

This Bill- (i) provides for the appointment of a further full-time member to the Grants Commission to relieve the onerous physical burden, stemming from the heavy workload and considerable travel, on the four existing full-time members of the Local Government Division of the Commission; (ii) amends the Grants Commission Act 1973 to enable a chairman (such as the present chairman. Mr Justice Else-Mitchell ) who immediately before his appointment was a Judge of a Federal or State Court to have the same designation, rank, status and precedence as a Judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court; and (iii) incorporates machinery changes consequenton the existence of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-74. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 1239

PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

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

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

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971. The Bill is complementary to the Pigmeat Promotion Bill 1975 and makes provision for the increase in slaughter levy requested by the industry through the Australian Commercial Pig Producers Federation. The increase in funds will be used as set out in the Pigmeat Promotion Bill. The Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971 provides for a maximum rate of 10 cents per pig for research purposes; this Bill provides for a continuation of that maximum rate together with a maximum rate of 5 cents per pig for promotion purposes. The operative rates of levy from 1 July 1975 will be 5 cents per pig for research- unchanged on the present rateand 5 cents per pig for promotion. 1 commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 1240

PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

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

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

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1971. The opportunity is being taken, while other pig slaughter levy legislation is being amended, to make minor changes to the 1971 Act by omitting the words the Commonwealth’ and substituting Australia’ and also by omitting from the definition of ‘the Secretary’ the words ‘Primary Industry’ and substituting ‘Agriculture’ following the change in name of the Department. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 1240

PIG INDUSTRY RESEARCH BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

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

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

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pig Industry Research Act 1971. Because of the changes to the Pig Industry Slaughter Levy Act 1971, it will be necessary to amend the proportions of the pig slaughter levy that is devoted to research purposes. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 1240

PIG MEAT PROMOTION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

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

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

The purpose of this Bill is to provide funds for the promotion of pigmeat by an increase in the rate of pig slaughter levy from 1 July 1975. The Australian Commercial Pig Producers’ Federation, the organisation which represents pig producers in all States, has requested an increase in the slaughter levy in order to provide the necessary funds. As living standards rise in Australia there appears to be scope for further increases in the demand for pig meat, particularly if encouraged by promotion. Because the levy under the current Pig Slaughter Act on pigs slaughtered for human consumption only provides for a levy for research purposes it is necessary to amend that legislation to make provision for the levy for promotion. Details of the necessary amendments are set out in the Pig Slaughter Levy Bill 1975 which is being introduced concurrently with this Bill and which establishes a maximum levy of 5 cents per pig slaughtered to provide funds for promotion.

The Promotion Bill also provides for the establishment of a Pig Meat Promotion Trust Account into which funds equal to those raised by the levy will be paid. No Government contributions to the promotion funds are involved. A Pig Meat Promotion Advisory Committee will be established which will make recommendations to the Minister for Agriculture concerning expenditure from the Account. The Promotion Committee which will be appointed by the Minister, will consist of two representatives nominated by the Australian Commercial Pig Producers’ Federation, one Marketing Specialist and one Government representative. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

page 1242

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated

Australian National Gallery: Statutory Offices (Question No. 506)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister’s second reading speech on the National Gallery Bill 1975, in which the Prime Minister said ‘This provision (of two statutory offices) has been introduced to avoid the problems which have arisen so often elsewhere, where unlikely and unreasonable combinations of different expertise and experience have been demanded of the one person, usually with unfortunate results ‘, will he itemize the ‘ unfortunate results ‘.
  2. What are the names of all the public servants or office holders who have evidenced ‘unlikely and unreasonable combinations’ with ‘unfortunate results’ during the time of his Prime Ministership.
  3. In what particular positions within what departments or agencies do these persons now serve the Government and in what positions and for what periods within departments or agencies did they serve at the time of ‘the problems’.
  4. Besides his view of the need for the provision of two statutory offices, what other steps have been and are being taken to overcome ‘the problems’ and by whom are these steps being taken and in what government departments or agencies.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 was referring to the problems which have often arisen in galleries in some other countries and in some Australian States.
  2. ) to (4) See (1).

Defence Service Homes Division (Question No. 511)

Senator Bonner:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

Will the Minister inform the Senate if the Defence Service Homes Division has funds on hand, or is it a fact that the Division is out of funds and is awaiting a new appropriation.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

The present position in relation to applications for Defence Service Homes loans is that as a result of a heavy demand for loans, the provision of $1 ISm made in the Budget has been extended except for certain moneys which must be retained to meet progress payments to building contractors.

Provision has been made in Appropriation Bill No. 6 which is now before the Senate for the allocation of a further $15m for Defence Service Homes bringing the total allocation for 1974-75 to $130m. This compares with an allocation of $ 102m in 1973-74 and only $74m in 1972-73.

As the honourable senator will be aware significant improvements have been made to the Defence Service Homes scheme in relation to eligibility for loans, transfer of loans and the maximum amount of loans.

This has resulted in a greater demand for loans than was originally anticipated.

Delegation to Cannes Film Festival

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDYesterday, Senator Young:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked me a question concerning the involvement of Australia at the Cannes Film Festival. I told the honourable senator that I would receive some details from my Department and provide the information to him as soon as possible. I am now advised that the international TV program market officially opened yesterday, 2 1 April, and will end on 26 April. Nineteen Australian producer groups attended, comprising 37 people representing 41 accredited productions, that is, Australian television productions. The film market will begin on 9 May and finish on 23 May. Eighteen producer groups will be in attendance comprising 28 persons representing 15 Australian feature films and 7 theatrical documentaries. Representatives from within my portfolio will be:

  1. Mr Roland Beckett from the Film Branch of my Department, who will be managing the Australian delegation.
  2. Mr Ray Atkinson, United Kingdom/Europe representative of Film Australia, shortly to be incorporated in the Australian Film Commission
  3. Mr Tom Stacey, Executive Officer of the Australian Film Development Corporation; and
  4. Mr Cameron, Director of television drama, Australian Broadcasting Commission.

My Department’s major contribution to the Festival has been in the areas of promotion, publicity and advertising.

The Australian Film Development Corporation has hired one of the best cinemas in the city between 9 May and 23 May, from 2.30 to 6.30 p.m. each day to show only Australian films. The Corporation is also advancing funds to seven TV producers and 10 film producers for the Festival. I should stress that these funds take the form of loans not grants. However, I understand that the Department of Overseas Trade has a scheme entitled ‘The Export Development Grant Scheme’ which may make it possible for rebates of up to 85 per cent of eligible costs to be made to the producers involved. I intend having discussions with my colleague, the Honourable F. Crean, on this matter. I might add that I received advice this morning that M. Chevry, the Director General of the Market had particularly welcomed Australia and said he was delighted to see Australia so strongly represented and hoped it reflected new trends in production and marketing of Australian programs, which had a definite international appeal.

Medibank Advertising

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-On 27 February, Senator Wright asked me a question, as Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, concerning the appropriation for expenditure on Medibank advertising. I now have received an answer from the Minister for Social Security to the question, and it reads:

An amount of $2,285,000 was appropriated by the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1974-75 under Division 530-2-09 (Department of Social Security- Publicity). Within that amount, provision was made for-

$1,080,000 for media campaigns to prepare and inform the public how the new health plan will operate. Covered in these campaigns will be information concerning the methods of claiming health insurance and such points as options of recoupment under the scheme.

$500,000 for explanatory leaflets, including foreign language issues, explaining the Australian Health Insurance Plan.

Supplementary Assistance for Pensioners

Purchasing Homes

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-On 16 April 1975, Senator Bonner asked me a question as Minister representing the Minister for Social Security concerning consideration being given to granting supplementary assistance, presently payable to pensioners who are paying rent or occupying board and lodgings, to pensioners who are purchasing their own homes. I have received the following answer:

Pensioners who own or who are purchasing their own homes already receive a substantial concession in that the value of their properties are disregarded in the application of the means test.

However the Government is aware that many such people are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with expenses such as rates and maintenance. The Social Welfare Commission’s Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing, and the Poverty Inquiry are both considering the needs of pensioner home owners and reports are expected from each of these bodies this year.

You may be assured that when the reports are received the Government will give careful consideration to the recommendations they contain.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 April 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750422_senate_29_s63/>.