Senate
16 October 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 10.30 a.m. and read prayers.

page 1197

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Fraser Island

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 1197

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1197

QUESTION

PROFESSOR C. HOWARD

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. Will the Minister confirm that Professor C. Howard who received in the last financial year the sum of $26,167 and is this year estimated to receive $35,000 as the full-time general counsel to the Attorney-General is the same Professor Howard who wrote to the newspapers last week as the Hearn Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne and was subsequently interviewed in the nation’s Press; and is the same professor who was heard on the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio this morning as the Professor of Law. If he is, as I believe to be the case, will the Minister explain whether the professor wrote his letter and gave his interviews on instructions from the Attorney-General or simply in the belief that it may help the Attorney-General who employs him out of his difficulties? Is it proper that such a well-paid consultant on the Government payroll should write supporting the Government without disclosing his immense financial interest. Will the Minister also consult with the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission so that if the professor is interviewed on radio or television in future in support of the Government his position on the Government payroll will be disclosed.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The only thing that is extraordinary about that question is that the questioner should have the gall to use the word ‘proper’. I will bring the question to the attention of the Attorney-General.

page 1197

QUESTION

SENATE ELECTION WRITS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noted the decision of the Liberal Party Federal Council to direct Liberal State governments to instruct their Governors not to issue writs following a legitimate request of the Australian Government to hold a normal Senate election? Does the Government regard this as an unsavoury intrusion from an unrepresentative minority to properly constituted electoral procedures. Further, does the Government see these developments as representing a threat to our democratic institutions by a faceless group of persons who are acting in a totalitarian way to rape the Constitution in a grab for power so as to serve their own vested interests?

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

– I understand that such an order has been issued by the Federal Council of the Liberal Party of Australia. I must confess my surprise that the Federal Council of the Liberal Party would see fit on a matter of such concern to the Parliament and normal parliamentary procedures to assist in the undermining of our parliamentary system. It is a further indication of the irresponsibility and, indeed, the madness of the course that has been adopted by the Opposition. I was interested yesterday during the division on the amendment moved by Senator Withers to look at the expressions on the faces of certain members of the Opposition who, I feel, have themselves also the gravest doubts as to the course of action they are taking. I believe that it is all the more reprehensible when we see the Governor of Queensland, who is the Queen’s representative, making purely Party political comment and making comments in respect of the Federal Government that normally never would be made by a State Governor, much less by the Governor-General. It is tragic to think that this is the course upon which this country has now embarked as a result of the actions of the Opposition.

page 1198

MONEY BILLS IN THE SENATE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. When he criticises the Opposition for its attitude towards money Bills, as he and the Prime Minister are currently doing, does he recall what happened in 1970 when Senator Murphy, as he then was, was the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in this place and Senator Wriedt was also a member of this place, and when the Leader of the Labor Party made the following declaration, which I quote from page 2647 of Hansard–

The PRESIDENT:

– What is the question?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I am asking the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he recalls these words being used by the then Senator Murphy, as recorded at page 2647 of Hansard of S June 1970:

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

He went on to say that his Party would, whenever necessary, reject Bills to carry out its principles and its policies. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Does he agree with those principles?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Yes, I do recall the events of 1970. I would draw to Senator Webster’s attention the distinction between the situation then and the situation now. This is a matter where the present Opposition in fact has the numbers to bring down the Government if it possibly can. It is a different position altogether. As I said yesterday in my contribution to the debate about the amendment moved by Senator Withers, when the issues are fought out in the electorate they will not be fought out on the basis of parliamentary manoeuvrings in this place.

page 1198

QUESTION

GOVERNOR OF QUEENSLAND

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I preface it by referring to the reported remarks, published in today’s Press, by the Governor of Queensland, Sir Colin Hannah, in the course of which he supported Opposition moves to force a general election. I ask the Minister. First, is there any known precedent for the Governor of a State so blatantly and gratuitously stepping into the political arena on an issue concerning the Australian Parliament? Secondly, does Sir Colin Hannah’s publicly expressed partisanship for the Opposition’s cause cast doubt on his ability to exercise impartially his function under section 12 of the Constitution to issue writs for the election of senators in Queensland? Thirdly, is this yet another example of constitutional practice being flouted in the interests of the political advantage of one political Party which has twice been rejected by the electors of Australia within less than 3 years?

The PRESIDENT:

– Before calling upon the Minister representing the Attorney-General to answer the question I would like to draw attention to standing order 417, which says that no senator shall use the name of Her Majesty’s representative in this Commonwealth disrespectfully. ‘I call the Minister representing the Attorney-General.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I know of no similar case. Of course, the Governor’s impartiality must be seriously called into question by his extraordinary outburst. However, the reprehensible and the extraordinary have become the norm for th; Queensland establishment. A Government which can send a pathetic puppet like Senator Field to Canberra in defiance of constitutional practice and tradition could be expected to have a Governor with no regard for constitutional propriety.

page 1198

QUESTION

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the statement made last night by the

Prime Minister in which he said: ‘We will not turn over government to vested interests, pressure groups and newspaper proprietors’. Why will the Government not turn over its power to the people who are the masters of us all and call an immediate election?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-For exactly the reason that has already been mentioned at question time today by Senator James McClelland, who has just resumed his seat. It is because this Government was elected last year for 3 years. That fact was accepted by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malcolm Fraser, only a matter of weeks ago when he supported the contention that if a government is elected for 3 years in the House of Representatives it is entitled to serve out that term. The people have made their judgment; they have made it twice in the last 3 years. Under all reasonable conditions that ought to be considered sufficient to reflect what the Australian people want.

page 1199

QUESTION

ACADEMIC SALARIES

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Special Minister of State who will be aware that the Academic Salaries Tribunal, which was established last year and which presented its first review last December, is currently undertaking a full scale review of academic salaries. Can the Minister inform the Senate how the Tribunal is proceeding in the conduct of this review and when the review is expected to be completed?

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

-The Academic Salaries Tribunal was established on the initiative of the Government and first reported in December 1974. The first quick review was concerned primarily with comparative wage justice for academics and the Tribunal, under His Honour Mr Justice Campbell, foreshadowed then that it would proceed to a more comprehensive and in depth review at a later stage. The Tribunal began its second review of academic salaries in June this year. It has advertised the review extensively and has received submissions from staff associations, State governments, individual tertiary institutions and other interested bodies, and the Government too intends making a submission to the Tribunal shortly. Mr Justice Campbell and the members of the Tribunal are currently undertaking an extensive program of visits to and discussions with institutions of tertiary education throughout Australia. On present planning the Tribunal in March next will be having a plenary session to which representatives of all prime bodies will be invited. The prime bodies are those organisations which are princiapally concerned with the review. It is expected that the review will be completed and that the Tribunal will be able to report to the Government shortly after the holding of that plenary session in March.

page 1199

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE BOUNTY

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Agriculture: Has the Government reached a decision on the Industries Assistance Commission’s recommendation for the restoration of the superphosphate bounty? If not, is the recommendation one of a number by the IAC which the Minister has told the Senate he expects to be considered as a package deal?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The supposition of Senator Sheil is correct. I indicated a couple of weeks ago that the report on superphosphate from the Industries Assistance Commission would be dealt with along with other Commission reports which are currently before the Government. They have not as yet been before Cabinet but the relevant committee of the Parliamentary Labor Party has dealt with them. As I indicated last week I hope to have a submission- perhaps it will be from somebody else- before Cabinet in the next week or two in which case there should be a decision on the whole of these reports by the end of the month.

page 1199

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen reports that the Government has been asked to investigate alleged spying activities of its de facto consul in Timor, Mr Frank Favaro? Will the Minister give the Senate any available information on those reports?

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

-I have seen these reports. Mr Frank Favaro does not represent the Australian Government in Timor in any capacity whatsoever, either officially or, as the report claims, as de facto consul- a term which in itself is meaningless. He is a private Australian citizen who lives in Timor.

page 1199

QUESTION

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Why did the Government call a double dissolution in 1974 when the Senate adjourned consideration of the Supply Bills? Was the Government not following the principles acknowledged by the Australian Labor Party in 1970 that a government denied Supply must submit itself to the judgment of the people? Is the Government’s present attitude not an overturning of its attitudes expressed in 1970 and 1974? Is not the real difference that in 1970 and 1974 the Labor Party thought it could win an election; today it does not?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Under the circumstances that prevailed in 1974 and again prevail at present the Government has a right to exercise its own judgment as to which option it will exercise. Senator Chaney knows, as well as the rest of us know, that the Government is not committed by statute, by convention or by the Constitution to any particular course. A series of options is open to the Prime Minister who has to make the final decision. The Government can use its own discretion on which of those options it chooses. I point out that there is one essential difference between last year and the present time, and that is that the vote that the Opposition was able to muster yesterday was as a result of the death of a properly elected senator from Queensland. I find that, apart from anything else, probably one of the most reprehensible aspects of this whole sordid business.

page 1200

QUESTION

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Did he hear Senator Withers claim yesterday ‘ We’that is, the Opposition- ‘are not cutting off the flow of money to the people’? Does he know that Mr Anthony subsequently referred to yesterday’s action by the Opposition as a justifiable action of refusing the Government funds? Does this mean that Senator Withers lied to the Parliament yesterday? If so, should he resign his position as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate?

Senator Greenwood:

– I raise a point of order as to whether it is proper for a senator to allege in a question that another senator has lied.

Senator Walsh:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. I made no such allegation. I merely asked the Leader of the Government whether, in view of the facts as I stated them, Senator Withers lied to the Parliament yesterday.

The PRESIDENT:

– The word ‘lied’ is an unparliamentary word. I ask the honourable senator to reframe his question.

Senator WALSH:

– I withdraw the word ‘lied’ and substitute the word ‘deceived’. Did Senator Withers deceive the Parliament yesterday?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I have not seen the comment of Mr Anthony; therefore I certainly would not make any comment on whether the Senate has been deceived. I can say only that I will get a copy of the comment and give a considered reply to the honourable senator. The only observation I make is that it is nothing new for members of the Opposition to be in complete confusion as to their own policies.

page 1200

QUESTION

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Government this morning moved a vote of confidence in itself in the House of Representatives. As the Government did not permit the motion to be debated and immediately moved the gag, was the intent of the motion to commit publicly all votes of the Australian Labor Party to the course of action of the Prime Minister? Did the Government anticipate that the votes of members such as Dr Cairns and Mr Connor might not be in support of the course of action premeditated by the Prime Minister?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I must be busier than some other people because I did not get time to hear that or to know that it had happened. I assume that if this occurred it was a course that the Prime Minister and the Acting Leader of the House in another place decided to take. I am quite sure that the unanimity of opinion of Government members in the House of Representatives would be beyond question on the matter that would have been raised in that debate. I am sure that Senator Guilfoyle would agree also with the right of the Prime Minister and the Acting Leader of the House of Representatives to exercise their judgment as to whether or not the debate should have been ended in that manner.

page 1200

QUESTION

PENSION INCREASES

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I address my question to the Minister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. I was interested in his answer to a question from Senator Baume regarding new pension rates. Will the Minister inform the Senate when the proposed increases in pensions will come into effect?

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

-Two days ago Senator Baume asked me a rather puzzling question as to whether it was proposed that there should not be any increases in pensions as outlined in the Budget. I do not know whether he was predicting the subsequent extraordinary actions which have been taken by the Opposition. The matter of when new pension rates will come into effect is now largely in the hands of the Senate. If they do not come into effect on the date that was announced in the Budget, then of course that is the responsibility of Senator Baume and his colleagues in the Opposition. The Government knows what it wants to give to the pensioners. If the Opposition wants to deprive the pensioners of those increases then that is entirely up to the Opposition. The Government will take care to see that the pensioners are well aware of the fact.

As it happens, if there had not been this completely extraordinary behaviour by the Opposition the increased rates of pension would have come into effect as from 4 November, in accordance with the undertaking given by the Government when it presented the Budget. If the increases do not take effect; if the pensioners are denied these increases; if as a result of appropriations being withheld we do not have public servants available to pay the pensions to the pensioners, then that also is part of the consequences of the actions which have been taken by the Opposition in defying the will of the people which was expressed twice within 18 months, and so preventing the Government from carrying out its policy. It will be the Opposition that will be denying pensioners the increased pensions to which they are entitled.

page 1201

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Leader of the Government seen the reports in yesterday’s Melbourne Herald and this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald that Mr Khemlani has issued a challenge to the Prime Minister to have an open inquiry into the loans affair? The reports also state that Mr Khemlani is prepared to give evidence, to open his files and present them to an inquiry, and to show that there are other Ministers who backed Mr Connor in the negotiations with which he was dealing. Can the Leader of the Government tell me whether the Prime Minister is prepared to accept that challenge by Mr Khemlani to hold an inquiry in the form of a royal commission or to appear before the Senate or a Senate Committee? Will the Prime Minister accept that challenge in order to clean up this affair? If not, why not?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I see no reason why the Prime Minister should accept such an offer by Mr Khemlani. It has been stated on several occasions that this Government has no further dealings with the person concerned. All the relevant documents with which he was dealing with the Government through Mr Connor have been and will be tabled. I withdraw that, Mr President; they have been tabled and, as I mentioned yesterday, there are several questions on notice concerning other matters relating to this issue which I am sure will be given a proper answer.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– But you will not table them? Are you saying that you will not table them in response to my question?

Senator WRIEDT:

-I indicated yesterday to Senator Guilfoyle that there is a series of questions on notice to the Prime Minister from Mr Fraser and I am sure that they will be properly answered. As to the tabling of any further relevant documents, that is a matter which is under active consideration. In answer to the interjection, I say that I hope that a clear statement will be made on that very point on Tuesday. I would say to Senator Wood that if he and his colleagues are so convinced of the value of any additional comments that Mr Khemlani might like to make, perhaps he could convince his colleagues that Mr Khemlani be brought before the Senate. I understand Mr Khemlani is prepared to come.

page 1201

QUESTION

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question which concerns a debate taking place in another place and follows upon the question asked by Senator Guilfoyle. I ask: Was not an attempt made to gag the motion to provide an opportunity for the Prime Minister to speak in relation to Government business, notice of motion No. 1, in that House?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-As I indicated when I answered the question asked by Senator Guilfoyle, I was not aware of what was happening in the House of Representatives just at that moment. I have since been given to understand that what Senator Devitt now puts before the Senate is the true position.

page 1201

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his dual capacity as Minister for Minerals and Energy and Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the published telex of 1 September this year from the Bank of Paris to the Bank of India, Singapore, referring to documents of acceptance and mandates issued by the Minister for Minerals and Energy for the raising of overseas loans. I remind the Minister that I drew his attention yesterday to this telex and to its significance. I ask: Has the Minister himself, in furtherance of the letter of the Prime Minister of 23 May instructing Ministers to issue clear letters of revocation with regard to loans, sent to the Bank of Paris and to the Bank of India, letters of revocation following the publication of this telex? If no revocation was sent by the Minister why did he not do so? Will the Minister assure the Senate that the Treasurer has sent clear letters of revocation to all relevant institutions overseas?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I cannot give that precise assurance unless I receive specific assurance of it from the Treasurer himself. I am given to understand that that is the case. But I am not going to commit myself by saying that it has been done as I am not certain.

Senator Carrick:

– What about yourself? Have you sent such letters?

Senator WRIEDT:

– No, I have not sent such letters. As has been said many times, it is for the Treasurer to concern himself with all these matters henceforward. But I accept the question. I will undertake to take up this matter with the Treasurer and ascertain exactly the current position.

page 1202

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question following on a question asked by Senator Wood. Will the Minister inform Senator Wood and the Senate that Mr Khemlani is under exclusive contract with the Melbourne Herald and that at the present time Mr Khemlani is staying at the Hilton Hotel–

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator will ask his question.

Senator GEORGES:

-Is it a fact that Mr Khemlani is staying at the Hilton Hotel in company with a reporter from the Melbourne Herald? Is it fair to accept, as Senator Wood suggests, any advice or suggestion from Mr Khemlani or from the Melbourne Herald in this case?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not quite clear on the question. As I understand it, Senator Georges is asking whether or not one should act upon the advice of Mr Khemlani. I can only say again that the Government is not acting on the advice of Mr Khemlani, nor does it intend to. What his relationship is with the Melbourne Herald I think is fairly obvious, although I could not personally vouch for it. I am just not in a position to make any further comment. As far as the Government is concerned, Mr Khemlani does not exist any more.

page 1202

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT AT PORT PIRIE

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address this question to the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I refer to concern expressed to me by the Town Clerk of the City of Port Pirie, Mr Fullgrabe, on behalf of his Council, at the prospect of increased unemployment in Port Pirie consequent on the proposed phasing out of the Regional Employment Development scheme. Will the Minister indicate whether there are any particular provisions for Port Pirie to relieve unemployment there?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have replied on previous occasions to questions of the type which the honourable senator has just addressed to me. The fact is that when the Budget was framed by the Government a decision was made to phase out the Regional Employment Development scheme in the interests of financial responsibility. A decision was subsequently taken that no new Regional Employment Development schemes would be initiated other than those which had been approved before 30 June. Even some of those had to be discontinued. If any of the Regional Employment Development schemes had actually been started funds would be available for their completion but no approvals of new schemes have been granted since 30 June. Dealing specifically with Port Pirie, I will make some inquiries and let the honourable senator know the exact position.

page 1202

QUESTION

RADIO AUSTRALIA STATION AT CARNARVON

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral: Has the construction of the temporary Radio Australia station at Carnarvon been started? If so, what is the likely transmission commencement date?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Honourable senators know that pending the report of the present committee of inquiry which was intended to investigate the general problems of Radio Australia and also the Cox Peninsula site at Darwin, the Government decided to set up a temporary facility at Carnarvon, Western Australia. The work is proceeding at the present time. Aerial construction has been commenced and will consist of one set of 4 aerials pointing towards South-East Asia. The aerials and one 250 kilowatt transmitter will be installed against a contract worth over $2m. Tests on the transmitter have already commenced. The Telecommunications Commission is diverting another 100 kilowatt transmitter from another project for installation at the site. The station is being established on the old National Aeronautics and Space Administration tracking station. Many of the existing facilities are being used. It is expected that the station will commence to operate in December.

page 1203

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING SERVICE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Media. Replies to my previous questions indicate that the Australian Government Publishing Service has debts of $ 1.5m, up to 8 months old. I again ask the Minister whether he will obtain for the Senate details of the creditors, how much each is owed by the Australian Government Publishing Service and the period of each individual debt. Also, is the Government still not paying any interest on its outstanding debts as was the case in relation to the debts of the Australian Government Publishing Service, some of which were in excess of 1 8 months old?

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

– In view of yesterday’s decision in the Senate and of the likely attitude to be adopted by the Opposition in relation to the Appropriation Bills, I do not know for how much longer existing debts owed by the Australian Government Publishing Service can be met. That being so, all I can do is refer the question to my colleague in another place.

page 1203

QUESTION

INSURANCE INDUSTRY

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. By way of preface I refer to the eulogistic references made by Opposition senators to the good, allAustralian employers in the insurance industry. Was the Minister, like myself, shocked this morning when he read the advertisement about the claim for equal pay and how harsh those all-Australian employers are in opposing this normal industrial innovation?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-When I learnt that the insurance companies were opposing equal pay for their women employees I was not shocked. I was mildly disappointed but not in the least surprised. This has been typical of their attitude, not only in relation to the employment of women but also in relation to the formulation of policies regarding women. I think that, as has been illustrated before, if one looks at the instructions to agents of the life assurance companies one can see that not only is there racial discrimination but also there is sexual discrimination involved in their policies. That , of course, is one of the reasons why they fear the establishment of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation, which would eliminate those discriminatory and undemocratic practices.

page 1203

QUESTION

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration: In view of the announcements heralding the formation of the official government of Great Eastland which it is claimed is no longer part of Australia, can the Minister take up with his Government the possibility of appointing Mr Fraser, the present Leader of the Opposition, as Australian ambassador to this proposed new nation as a consolation prize or a place of exile if his present attempted coup in the Senate is unsuccessful?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will certainly give serious consideration to the suggestion of the honourable senator. But on reflection, I believe that an ambassador should have a sense of responsibility and he should also have a proper regard for the conventions. I think that Mr Fraser ‘s recent actions disqualify him from holding any office, whether it be high or low.

page 1203

QUESTION

WEAPONS RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT

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

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Defence inform me of the projects being undertaken at the Weapons Research Establishment, Salisbury? Will the Woomera range activities affect these projects and the work load at the Weapons Research Establishment generally?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– As of yesterday there were good prospects of a high work load at the Weapons Research Establishment, Salisbury, because of various major projects which have already been included in the Defence Report tabled a few days ago. Because of the increased work at the Weapons Research Establishment and among private firms in the adjoining district in connection with the Rapier missile system, it is expected that the Establishment will have a continuing role of advising the defence forces on equipment already in service and on proposed weapons acquisitions. This is a good thing. Work at Woomera is currently the subject of negotiations. It is clear at the present time that there will be no reduction in any of the activity to which I have referred, but there could be some improvement at Woomera as a result of negotiations and the activities of the Government in respect of various service trials at Woomera.

page 1203

QUESTION

DEADLOCKS BETWEEN HOUSES

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether or not section 57 of the Constitution, which provides for a solution to deadlocks between the 2 Houses, is unique in exposing the second chamber to the judgment of the people if it maintains a deadlock against the lower House? How many Bills has the Labor Government presented to the Senate twice and had rejected twice so as to qualify them for the provisions of section 57? If the Government has any confidence in its policies enunciated in those Bills, numbering I should think 1 5 or 1 7 by now, why has the Government not had the fortitude to send both Houses on a double dissolution to the democratic vote of the people to see whether any one of those policies is accepted by the people?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– With regard to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, I have answered that already this morning. With regard to the first part of his question, he will find the answer on page 1141 of the Senate Hansard of 1 5 October.

page 1204

QUESTION

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL LIBRARY

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. On 2 October, the Prime Minister officially opened the Australian National Scientific and Technological Library in a ceremony at the National Library of Australia. I ask the Minister: What is the significance of this development for the library services in Australia? How does the Scientific and Technological Library relate to the other services provided by the National Library?

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

– It is true that recently the Prime Minister opened another branch of the National Library of Australia in furtherance of the Government’s policy of giving greater emphasis to the development of the most modern and advanced library services to meet the specialised information needs of our community. In pursuance of this objective of the Government, the National Library of Australia has been developing specialised networks that are organised on the basis of 3 subject libraries that exist within the whole structure of the National Library framework itself. They are referred to as the Australian National Social Sciences Library, the Australian National Humanities Library and the Australian National Scientific and Technological Library. Through the Australian National Scientific and Technological Library, which has a computer base, the information service there now has some 80 000 scientific and technological monographs on open access to people engaged in that specialised pursuit. In addition, better use will be made of the 25 000 scientific and technological periodicals that the Library now receives. They will be made available to other libraries and organisations as a result of the development of this service throughout Australia.

page 1204

QUESTION

SENATOR STEELE HALL

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Labor and Immigration in his capacity as Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. It follows upon the question just asked of him by that well known supporter of the Labor Party in this place, Senator Hall. I ask: Did the Government examine the proposition put forward by Senator Hall in the Senate on 1 6 July last as recorded at page 2756 of the Senate Hansard? Senator Hall said:

If I were in the Opposition’s position I would adjourn the Senate until I January next year and let the people decide in the meantime.

I further ask: Would this procedure amount to a refusal of supply and defeat of the Budget- a course which Senator Hall no longer seems to favour?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think this question should properly be directed, if they are still speaking, by Senator Withers to Senator Hall. I am invited to explore the state of Senator Hall ‘s mind. I refuse the invitation.

page 1204

QUESTION

CUSTOMS REGULATIONS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for

Foreign Affairs consider making arrangements for at least one officer in each Australian embassy, consulate or high commission to have a certain amount of training in customs regulations in order that embassies, consulates or high commissions will be able to advise Australians travelling overseas of the regulations relating to the importation of goods?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– All overseas posts have available to them copies of the Australian customs regulations. They should therefore be able to handle most routine inquiries. If a very technical problem arises, it should be possible for posts to inquire of the Department of Customs in Australia on behalf of the inquirer providing, of course, that enough time is allowed for the reply to come back. I should perhaps point out that if travellers are anticipating any customs problems on their return to Australia, they would be advised to take this up with the Department of Police and Customs before their departure from Australia. In view of the foregoing, it should be clear that overseas posts are equipped to handle relatively straightforward inquiries. But given the complexity of customs procedures and regulations, it is unlikely that a brief training course in customs procedures would be sufficient to enable officers in overseas missions to be fully conversant with all the technicalities of the customs regulations.

page 1205

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA POLICE

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Can the Minister for Police and Customs advise the Senate whether a Bill to create the Australia Police is about to be introduced into the Parliament? If so, will interested organisations get an opportunity to consider and comment on the contents of the Bill?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Police and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is the intention of the Government to introduce into the Parliament a Bill for the formation of the Australia Police force. The Australia Police forces are operating today as an amalgamated body and have been doing so since March of this year but they have been operating only under their own particular pieces of legislation. We seek to bring them into an integrated body under the control of the Minister for Police and Customs with its own statute. Two Bills will be introduced as a result of the findings of the Law Reform Committee which was set up to get a more efficient police and detection force and to look after the interests of civil liberties in the community. One Bill is ready and is being considered now by a caucus committee of the Australian Labor Party. I am anxious to have it introduced into the Parliament so that it is not the privileged document it is at the present time, so that its contents can be released and so that it can lie in the Parliament for some weeks. If that is done, it will be a public document that can be considered by the interested organisations and any individuals who are interested. For that reason I was hoping to have the legislation introduced early but as a result of the upheaval in Canberra there could be some delays or alterations to the legislative program in the near future.

page 1205

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

-Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate recall the statement by Mr Karidis in the Senate on 22 July, 2 months after Mr Connor’s authority to raise a loan was revoked, in which he agreed that Mr Khemlani might still obtain a loan for the Australian Government? Was the Prime Minister informed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate of the statement? Was a check made as to the substance of the statement? If not, why not?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I recall a comment by Mr Karidis which was, in my opinion, at that time wrongly interpreted. I would want to read the evidence again or to read that comment again before I would comment any further on it. I will do so and give the honourable senator a reply.

page 1205

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT ENGINE MODIFICATIONS

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a Press report of last week in which it was stated that Qantas Airways Ltd is to soup up some of its Boeing 747 jumbo jets to give them greater reliability and higher carrying capacity? Why are these modifications being made? Will there be any variation in noise levels as a result?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– Qantas Airways Ltd has planned modification to 1 6 engines over the next year. The work will be carried out in the United States by the Pratt and Whitney organisation. My information is that the new engines will provide additional power giving the jumbos a greater range and reliability and a higher carrying capacity. Basically, the complex modifications will produce lower operating engine temperatures and are expected to reduce engine faults. I understand that the manufacturers have assured Qantas that the noise levels will be within international standards.

page 1205

QUESTION

AID TO SOUTH VIETNAM AND EAST TIMOR

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the Press reports and the Minister’s answer to a question yesterday that the Australian Government had given some $2m aid to the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam, which is a communist government, what assurance has the Government that such aid will be distributed fairly and impartially to all the people of South Vietnam? Secondly, will the Government now give similar aid to the people of East Timor while the political turmoil continues and innocent people suffer in that country?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Yes, I am aware that the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam is a communist government. We were giving aid to the PRG through the multilateral organisations even during the time of the fighting. We were doing so because organisations such as UNICEF and the Red Cross, can look after the children and so on. There is nothing unusual about that. Ever since we came to office we have said that aid is not to go out at political levels. We have said for a long time that post-war aid will be given in Vietnam irrespective of what the final governments are. So politics have nothing to do with it.

The honourable senator asked whether we would give similar aid to Timor. When he said similar aid’ I did not know whether he meant similar in respect of the amount of money or the same types of goods. Either would be quite unsuitable. We have already given aid to Portuguese Timor and, as I have already told honourable senators, we have been constantly in touch with the Red Cross. We have a task force in the Department. I have asked one of our aid people to be on that task force. So if there is any change in the situation in Timor I am quite sure that the International Red Cross will tell us. Of course, we would look at the situation very sympathetically.

page 1206

QUESTION

DEADLOCKS BETWEEN HOUSES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question which is prompted by that asked by Senator Wright. I ask: Is it not a fact that the electors of Australia were consulted in May of last year following a double dissolution of both Houses and that the electors confirmed legislation which had been rejected by the Senate? Is it not also a fact that following a Joint Sitting of both Houses, which passed these pieces of legislation, the Opposition once again refused to accept the will of the people and then asked the High Court of Australia to rule against the decision made by the Australian electorate?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The answer to the honourable senator’s question is yes.

page 1206

QUESTION

AIR NAVIGATION CHARGES

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representating the Minister for Transport. I refer to clause 11 in Schedule 4 to the Airlines Agreement Act 1952-1973, which I quote in part:

  1. . the Commonwealth will increase the rate of air navigation charges to international operators by the same percentage as that applied from time to time in respect of the operations of the Commission and the Operating Company.

In view of answers given to questions asked in Estimates Committee E by departmental officers and reports that the Government is considering exempting international airlines from the recent charges, will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not act illegally and that it intends to honour its obligations under the legislation?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The only information I can give to the honourable senator following upon the examination which the Committee conducted and which I have referred to previously is that the Government has given the operators a warning that there ought to be a review. It is not the first warning that any government has given as to the rate of recovery. As everybody knows, that has been under examination for many years. I also referred yesterday to the situation that applies in other countries. As the honourable senator would know, the government of every nation is presently faced with an objective, a target, of recovering increased costs from the airline operators. The Government is presently negotiating with all the operators. Whilst our targets have been announced, I understand that the Minister is still considering what should be the position. As it is the responsibility of Mr Jones and as he is involved directly in these things, I think I should ask him whether he wants to add anything to my answer.

page 1206

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and to some extent supplements the question asked of him by Senator Bonner. Is the Minister aware that a 4-man delegation, representing the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, which is the coordinating body of the major humanitarian and aid organisations in Australia, left for Portuguese East Timor yesterday? Did the members of that group discuss their aid mission with the Department of Foreign Affairs prior to their departure? Is the Minister aware that the International Red Cross has suggested that food aid is not necessary, contrary to other information which is available to the Department? In the event of the success of this mission will the Government be prepared to make available humanitarian aid to supplement these agencies, whose funds come from the charity of millions of Australians?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Four people from the Australian Council for Overseas Aid- ACFOAwere certainly due to go to Portuguese Timor yesterday to investigate the position with regard to aid and the need for humanitarian aid there in the future. As I understand it, the team included Mr Jim Dunn, Father Mark Raper, Mr Neil O’sullivan and the Reverend John Mavor. I understand also that ACFOA hopes a similar team can visit Indonesian Timor to examine the needs there. Members of this non-government delegation have been in touch both with my office and my officials to inform them of their arrangements and the purpose of this visit. As this mission is concerned to investigate aid requirements in Portuguese Timor, arrangements were made for its members to be briefed the day before yesterday by senior officials of the Australian Development Assistance Agency, the operation of which forms part of my portfolio responsibilities. Discussions were also held with a member of my staff who is responsible for aid matters.

Arrangements have been made for the delegation on its return to inform my officials of the outcome of the mission. As Senator Gietzelt suggests, we have some information that there is or could be very shortly a food shortage in Portuguese Timor but we have had to rely on information about this from the International Red Cross which we have found in previous situations to be very good. As I explained to Senator Bonner, we have a task force dealing with the question of aid. The Government gives permanent aid to ACFOA, on several levels, one to help with its administration and the other to supplement money which it spends on overseas aid itself. It is a great organisation embodying all the aid agencies in Australia. I will keep in mind what Senator Gietzelt suggests and if something arises out of this I will certainly put it to urgent study with the aid section of my Department.

page 1207

QUESTION

WINE AND BRANDY INDUSTRY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as Minister representing the Treasurer. Has he seen figures released this week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showing a major decline in local consumption and exports which has rocked the wine and brandy industry? Does the Minister now believe that the action of the Government in increasing excise and applying other imposts on the industry has had a detrimental effect? Is he aware of the particular damage this action has caused to the South Australian wine and brandy industry which is a major contributor to the economy and to employment in that State?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that exports of Australian wines over the past few months have declined, with the exception of exports to the Japanese market in respect of which there has been a small increase. This decline is due mainly to the very competitive nature of the international wine market at present. Certainly in the 1973 Budget the Government took decisions which the wine industry has found some difficulty in absorbing and as a result of that the Government has been prepared to relax the time schedule in respect of those decisions. The future of the Australian wine industry remains in Australia and not on the export market and I am quite sure that the long term trend, especially in the consumption of white table wines, is an assurance of the future of the wine industry in Australia, and in particular in South Australia.

page 1207

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in a Melbourne newspaper in which it was suggested that telephone installation and retal fees be abolished and the charge for local calls doubled, a proposition in which I am personally interested. Has the Australian Telecommunications Commission properly investigated the proposal and has it arrived at a decision?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The matter has been examined before. As a matter of fact, Senator McAuliffe might recall that his own State branch of the Australian Labor Party put this matter to my Department. It is considered by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to be impractical. It has to be understood that the average cost of installing a telephone is a little over $2,000 and, as everybody knows, this cost is greater in country areas. It has been stated by the Commission that if all rental charges and connection fees were abolished there would be a great increase in the number of calls, particularly from the low volume users, and these services would be most uneconomic bearing in mind the high capital cost of installation. Consequently, call charges would have to be increased. This would lead to a fall off on the number of calls, which would require a further increase in charges. The Commission has looked at the matter and found that it would be virtually impossible to operate such a system in any way within its financial charter if such a system should be insisted upon.

page 1207

PASSAGE OF BILLS IN THE SENATE

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. I draw his attention to page 21 15 of yesterday’s House of Representatives Hansard and to the refusal of an Australian Labor Party Minister in that place to agree to the attempts by a concerned Liberal-National Country Party Opposition to expedite the passage of the Social Services Bill (No. 3) through that chamber of Parliament. Does the Government intend to hold up these Bills which authorise the payment of pensions at a higher rate from 4 November? If not, will the Government agree now to accommodate any Opposition moves to expedite passage of these Bills, which are not part of” the Budget, when they reach the Senate?

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

– I think it is plain common sense that these Bills to which the honourable senator refers are all associated with, or inter-related with, the passage of the Appropriation Bills in this place. I assume that if the

Appropriation Bills are not acceded to in the Senate the other Bills will not be forthcoming from the House of Representatives.

page 1208

QUESTION

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows a question asked of him earlier by Senator Wright. As the Government has 21 Bills on which a double dissolution is available to it, is the real reason the Government will not face a poll of both Houses on those bills that it is afraid of the judgment of the people?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I ask that that question and further questions be placed on notice.

page 1208

QUESTION

INDUCTION OF BIRTHS

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yesterday Senator Melzer asked me a question relating to the induction of labour in births. A reply has been provided for me by the Minister for Health. I undertook to obtain it from him.

Dr Everingham is aware of recent medical controversy condemning the practice of inducing labour at times primarily chosen to suit the attending doctor. There is no doubt that the Australian Medical Association and all responsible professional bodies would condemn induction of labour for any purpose other than the safety or well being of mother or child. Of course there are legitimate, sometimes cogent, reasons for inducing labour, and it may well be more reasonable in some cases where there is no great urgency to induce when staff and facilities are more readily available. The Minister for Health is unaware of any research being undertaken specifically into the possible ill effects of induction which has no definite medical justification. However, throughout the world there is constant evaluation of the factors which influence child birth specifically or lead to obstetric complications. I believe that the physical and psychological wellbeing and comfort of the mother and her child should be the overriding considerations of the attending doctor, and that most doctors are still not swayed from this view by considerations of the working hours they prefer.

page 1208

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

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

– On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has gone to meet the Prime Minister of Malaysia, for the information of honourable senators I present the Protocols for further extension of the International Wheat Agreement 1971, together with a statement by the Minister for Overseas Trade relating to that Agreement.

page 1208

SCHOOLS COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 14 of the Schools Commission Act 1973, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education, I present the Schools Commission report for 1976, together with a statement by the Minister for Education relating to that report.

page 1208

EDUCATION COMMISSIONS: FUNDING

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

– I present a short statement by the Minister for Education on the Government’s funding policy for the 4 national education commissions.

page 1208

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORT

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on filament, fluorescent and other discharge lamps.

Senator Rae:

– I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Rae (Tasmania) 1 1.36)- I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks at an appropriate stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1208

STATES GRANTS (NATURE CONSERVATION) ACT

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators, I present an agreement pursuant to the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 in relation to the provision of financial assistance to South Australia for land acquisition for nature conservation purposesMurrays Lagoon.

page 1208

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

1 ) That consideration of the Business of the Senate be postponed until the next day of sitting.

That Government business order of the day No. 1, namely, the Inter-State Commission Bill, be postponed until after consideration of orders of the day Nos. 2 and 3.

That Government business take precedence of general business after 3 p.m. this day.

page 1209

LOAN BILL 1975

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

– I move:

Standing order 336 relates to communication between the 2 Houses. It states:

It shall be in order at any time to move without Notice, that any resolution of the Senate be communicated by Message to the House of Representatives.

Might I indicate at the outset that I informed the Leader of the Opposition fairly early last night that I would be moving this motion at the appropriate time. The reason for moving it is simply that the Loan Bill upon which a resolution was determined yesterday by the Senate was introduced originally in the House of Representatives on 20 August. The Bill was debated in the House of Representatives and transmitted to the Senate on 27 August. It was introduced immediately into the Senate on that date. It has taken from 27 August until yesterday to have a determination of any sort made on that Bill. We all know that the debate ws brought on by the Government on a number of occasions. The determination made by the Senate yesterday was that the Bill be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people, and there was an expression of opinion in the resolution. If one looks at the Senate notice paper for today one will see that there is no reference there to the Loan Bill. That means virtually that as a result of the decision taken yesterday by the Senate the Bill goes into limbo until, perhaps, it is restored by resolution of this Senate. This Bill was and is an important part of the Government’s Budget strategy. The resolution of the Senate yesterday was that the Bill be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people.

I have already pointed out that the Bill is no longer on the notice paper. The Government having been elected to the House of Representatives, the Bill having been floated in the House of Representatives, having been debated in the House of Representatives and having been passed by that place, we now believe that a message setting out the terms of the Senate’s determination yesterday should be transmitted to the House of Representatives for the information of the members of that place and for the Government in particular. Therefore under Standing Order 336 I have moved the motion that I have proffered.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I have been fortunate enough to see the motion that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) has proposed. In the circumstances in which we have dealt with this matter, in view of the observations that have been made by us all, including himself, and in view of the fact that the Loan Bill was I believe adequately, thoroughly and properly tested and examined in the Senate, which did not happen in the House of Representatives, his proposal will be agreed to by the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1209

TEACHING SERVICE 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 Douglas McClelland) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

Mr PRESIDENT:

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

The purposes of this Bill are to make special long service leave provisions for those New South Wales and South Australian teachers who were employed in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory respectively in 1973 and who elected to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service before 1 January 1974; to enable provision to be made for the employment of teachers at technical colleges in the Australian Capital Territory; to alter the name of the Service to the Australian Teaching Service; and to make other amendments to the legislation arising from the provisions of enactments which have been made since the Teaching Service legislation was last amended.

In relation to the long service leave conditions for the teachers who transferred from New South Wales and South Australia to the Teaching Service, the effect of the Bill will be to preserve the long service leave conditions which the teachers would have enjoyed under State legislation which was in force immediately prior to their joining the Teaching Service and, where appropriate, treatment of future service as if it were State service for the purpose of that legislation. While preserving the eligibility of the teachers for long service leave in accordance with the conditions which were operative under the appropriate State law at the time they joined the Teaching Service, the Bill permits them to have their long service leave entitlement assessed in accordance with the Australian Employees Furlough Act, including future amendments to the latter Act. The Bill does not confer any eligibility for any improvements which might be brought about by changes in a State law which came into effect after the teachers concerned had joined the Teaching Service. The benefits which the Bill confers are limited to a particular group whose position was affected by the Australian Government’s decision to accept direct responsibility for the provision of primary and secondary education in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory. It is similar to the legislation which was introduced in 1973 by which special superannuation arrangements were made for this group of teachers.

A second purpose of the Bill is to allow the Commissioner of the Teaching Service to make available teachers to the technical colleges established in the Australian Capital Territory. Within the Australian Capital Territory, technical education has been provided by an arrangement between my Department and the New South Wales Department of Technical Education. In the main, the full time technical teachers employed in the Territory have been employed by the New South Wales Department. As part of the decision to establish an Australian Capital Territory Technical and Further Education Authority, the Government has decided that the teaching staff of the technical colleges in the Territory should be employed under the Teaching Service legislation. The Bill makes provision for this by a variation to the definition of an Australian Government school, and by providing that a prescribed authority may be one which is established for a public purpose in accordance with the provisions of an Act, regulations made under an Act, or a law of a Territory.

In considering the other amendments necessary to the legislation, the Government has taken the opportunity of reviewing the title of the Teaching Service and, in accordance with its general policy, has decided to vary the title of the Teaching Service to the Australian Teaching Service. The Bill makes provision for this. Other changes introduced by this Bill relate to sections 8, 30 and 37 of the principal Act. These sections are being varied to take into account the provisions incorporated in the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974. Division 5 of Part III is repealed to take into account the provisions of the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973. I believe this legislation should be given speedy passage by the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Rae) adjourned.

page 1210

MARITIME COLLEGE 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 Douglas McClelland) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the establishment of the Australian Maritime College and to prepare the way for detailed planning and development of the College. Present education and training arrangements for the Australian maritime and fishing industries are quite inadequate. The gaps and deficiencies in existing facilities and courses have long been the subject of comment, culminating in the Summers report which pointed to the need for a national, wellequipped maritime college. The Government accepts that there should be such a college and has already announced its decision to establish the college at Launceston. Steps are already under way to select a suitable site there.

The Australian Maritime College will give courses for deck, engineer and radio officers and will have many of the characteristics of a college of advanced education; but it will also be concerned with the provision and co-ordination of courses at technical college level for ratings, fishing boat crew and others. It will be a new and unique institution in the education system of this country, and there are many details of its functions and governance which will call for careful planning. In this planning process, it will be particularly important to involve those who know the special needs involved- the relevant unions, the ship owners, the fishing industry- as well as educationists. For this reason the present Bill includes provision for an Interim Council for the College, which will make recommendations with respect to a wide range of matters relating to the establishment of the College, as set out in Clause 7 of the Bill. The Interim Council’s membership will include the range of interests I have just mentioned.

Because planning for the College is still at such an early stage, the present Bill is, in essence, a temporary measure to provide the basis on which the full-scale planning and development can proceed, leading up to a more definitive Act at a later stage. The Bill is, in this sense, similar to the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act of 1970, which paved the way for the development of that Institute. There can be little need for me to elaborate on the need for maritime training or on its urgency. My colleagues, the Ministers for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), naturally have a special concern and interest in this, and recent maritime disasters have underlined for all of us the importance of providing the best possible training and education for personnel in the maritime area. There is a wide range of needs, from advanced navigational studies to short practical training courses, which can be met by the Australian Maritime College. With the establishment of this College, the Australian maritime and fishing industries can be said to have come of age. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator Rae:

– Much as I would like to see the Bill go through immediately I do, in the normal course, move:

That the debate bc now adjourned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1211

NAVIGATION 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 Bishop) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the speech incorporated in Hansard. Explanatory notes have been circulated. They are contained in a 60-page document.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This bill is in fact an aggregate of a number of separate Bills, each of which reached an advanced stage of drafting at about the same time. In the interests of simplicity, therefore, I shall deal briefly with the main provisions of the Bill in appropriate groups. Because the Bill covers a variety of subjects, explanatory notes on the clauses are being circulated for the information of honourable senators.

The first group to which I shall refer are those amendments which deal with vessels and other structures engaged in the off-shore industry, in activities associated with exploring or exploiting the natural resources of the continental shelf of Australia, or the seabed of the Australian coastal sea. In the Bill, these terms are given the same meaning as in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, and the provisions of the Bill relating to the off-shore industry are therefore placed on the same constitutional basis as the Seas and Submerged Lands Act.

The Bill draws a distinction between the small craft that service oil rigs etc. and seismic and hydrographic survey vessels on the one hand and the large oil drilling rigs, derrick barges and mineral recovery vessels on the other. The vessels that fall into the first of these 2 categories are referred to in the Bill as ‘off-shore industry vessels’. Those falling into the latter category are termed ‘off-shore industry mobile units’. The Bill applies the Act to all vessels that engage in our off-shore industry irrespective of where they are registered. It makes consequential amendments in a considerable number of the sections of the Act to deal with the special procedures that have been adopted in this industry. For example, the traditional ‘articles of agreement’ which are entered into between the seamen and the master will be augmented by the new concept of ‘contract of sea service’ which provides for an agreement between the seamen and the employer to serve on any vessel under the control of” the employer. Procedures along these lines have been in use in the industry for some time and have proved eminently satisfactory.

In respect of off-shore industry mobile units the Bill makes provision for special safety and other marine or navigation-type requirements to be imposed by regulation or direction on all such craft operating in the off-shore area. I should explain that such requirements- that is, those that are made pursuant to the Navigation Act- will not go to the techniques and the working of the craft in the exploration or mining senses and there is quite a clear distinction drawn between these 2 aspects. However because the craft are at sea, it is essential that their safety, and the safety of the people on board, from the hazards of the sea be provided for. It is appropriate that this should be done in our maritime law. A provision is included to ensure that regulations or directions under the Act, in this regard, do not have effect to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and regulations or directions thereunder. This is designed to take account of the obligations under the off-shore petroleum agreement entered into with the States not to alter the scheme of legislation set forth in that agreement.

Another of the main alterations which this Bill introduces is in respect of visiting British ships. Part II of the Act deals with crewing matters and until recently was in line with similar provisions in the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act and both laws applied to a visiting British ship whilst in Australia. The United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act has recently been very substantially changed and it would create technical problems for the master and crew of a ship and the staffs of Mercantile Marine Offices, who administer the relevant provisions of the Act, if the Australian law were to continue to apply to such vessels. The Bill makes the necessary adjustments in this regard. These are explained in the notes on clause 7 which have been circulated.

Another important aspect of the Bill is that it gives legal effect to the ship movement reporting scheme, which was introduced following the loss of the vessel Blythe Star, and which has been operating on a voluntary basis for some time. The scheme ensures that positive action is taken to search for a ship in the Australian search and rescue area if more than 24 hours have elapsed since the ship last indicated that all was well. It will also, in the event of a ship being in distress, enable the Marine Operations Centre of the Department of Transport to know immediately what ships are in the area and which of these would be best suited to assist in the emergency. In addition to improved safety, the provisions will bring about a significant saving of search and rescue resources by providing a datum on which to concentrate a search in the event of a vessel being overdue.

To my knowledge no such legislation exists anywhere else in the world. Information about the system has been circulated to members of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, where it has aroused considerable interest. In addition Australia has proposed to IMCO that a uniform ship movement reporting system should be an integral part of any internationallyagreed search and rescue plan. Details of how the scheme works in practice are given in the notes on clause 68 of the Bill, which are included in the explanatory notes which have been circulated.

The Bill also allows Australia to give effect to two international conventions, the texts of which are set out in the first and second schedules to the Bill.

The first of these is the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1 972, which will be given effect to on the widest possible basis by clause 67 of the Bill. This Convention is expected to come into operation, internationally, towards the end of next year and Australia must be in a position to sign it before that time.

The second convention is the International Convention relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea-going Ships, 1957, which is given effect to by clause 74 of the Bill. Although this Convention came into force internationally in 1968, the law in Australia, in relation to the limitation of shipowners’ liability, is still the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Acts of 1894 and 1900.

One of the main practical effects of the amendments is to increase the amounts to which a shipowner will be able to limit his liability, unless he is held to be actually at fault himself, in respect of all claims arising out of specified occurrences to which the Convention applies. The existing very low limits of about $28 per ton in the case of personal claims and $15 per ton in the case of property claims are to be increased to the equivalent of the Convention limits- about $ 1 75 and $56 per ton respectively. I might mention that even these limits are quite low and the Australian Government is participating in work being done in IMCO to increase these limits and generally update the Convention.

In giving effect to this Convention Australia, like the United Kingdom and a number of the European shipping countries, will exercise the option provided for in the Protocol of Signature to exclude the application of sub paragraph (c) of paragraph ( 1 ) of Article 1 of the Convention. This in effect means that shipowners will have unlimited liability in respect of damage to harbour works, and for wreck removal.

At the same time as Australia gives effect to this Convention it will absolve shipowners from liability in respect of certain property claims set out in the new section 338 to be inserted in the Navigation Act but by virtue of new section 59A will prevent shipowners from limiting their liability in respect of claims by crew members.

On the subject of international conventions, the Bill also repeals or revises certain provisions that were contrary to two TLO Conventions to which Australia is already a signatory. Thus, although it does not permit us to sign any further ILO maritime conventions, it removes sections repugnant to the Conventions on Forced Labour and on Seamen’s Articles of Agreement.

Another group of amendments being inserted by the Bill relates to certificates of competency for ships’ officers and masters. These provisions are being inserted to provide for the new certificate structure which the Department of Transport has been developing over recent months in co-operation with State marine authorities. Both sides of the Australian maritime industry are also being fully consulted on this matter. The introduction of these new developments will be timed to fit in as closely as possible with the new training that will be provided by the Australian Maritime College which the Government is in the process of establishing. Some machinery amendments have been made to the manning provisions to facilitate the introduction of the new certificate structure.

The remaining amendments of the Bill fall generally under the heading of ‘miscellaneous’ and comprise a variety of amendments which it is opportune to make in this Bill. Some of these are of a purely drafting or machinery nature and are set out principally in Schedule 7. Others however are of more importance, but because of the notes that have been circulated and which explain the amendments in some detail, 1 shall refer to only one or two or these, in a very .brief way.

One of these amendments is to extend the reference in the Act to the owner of a vessel to include a reference to the operator, except in a few special circumstances.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that where a duty or liability is imposed by the Act on the owner in cases where the owner is only remotely concerned with the operations of the ship- for example, if he has executed a bareboat charter- responsibility for ensuring that that duty or liability is discharged is imposed on the person who is directly concerned with the relevant operations as well as on the owner. Conversely, a benefit conferred on the owner will also, in appropriate cases, be available to the operator.

Another amendment is to provide for the Minister to make orders in relation to detailed technical requirements to be applied under the Act, so that such requirements can be quickly implemented, and varied without delay, in the light of casualties, failure investigations or technical developments.

In the Bill, apart from prescribing penalties at appropriate levels for newly-created offences, the opportunity has been taken, where sections are otherwise amended, to update certain maximum monetary penalties for existing offences against provisions of the Act and regulations and to increase some general penalties. Other penalties will need to be brought into line at a later date, however I must point out that this Bill does not purport to be a general revision of the Navigation Act. That will follow when the Government has received the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Maritime Industry, which is at present critically examining the basic concepts contained in the Navigation Act.

I trust that the explantory notes on the various clauses which have been circulated will enable honourable senators to appreciate the significance of the amendments being made by this Bill.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 1213

BOOK BOUNTY 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 Cavanagh) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to extend the eligibility for book bounty to cover law reports.

When the Book Bounty was amended in March of this year as a result of the Tariff Board inquiry into products of the printing industry, law reports were not made bountiable because evidence given at the enquiry suggested that the printing of such publications was not liable to be lost to local manufacturers.

However more recent information demonstrates that this is no longer the case and the Government accepts that the production of these publications in Australia should be assisted.

The cost of such assistance in 1975-76 is estimated at about $50,000.

I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Rae) adjourned.

page 1214

CITIES COMMISSION (REPEAL) 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 Cavanagh) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I move:

Again I ask for leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

When the Australian Government came to power in 1972 it inherited a statutory authority called the National Urban and Regional Development Authority, or NURDA.

It had been created by the McMahon Government and given the responsibility of reporting to the Parliament on a program of urban and regional development for Australia.

We decided to allow its program of consultation, research and feasibility studies to continue.

In October 1973 the Cities Commission Act was passed.

It had the effect of keeping this Authority in existence with a different name and with a different composition, but with similar functions.

At the time when this legislation was passed by the Parliament the work of the Cities Commission was already under way.

It had available to it an experienced staff largely drawn from the planning professions.

These people were able to make an immediate contribution to the development of this Government’s urban and regional policies.

Headed at the time by that distinguished planner, Sir John Overall, in June 1 973 it produced the first of a series of significant publications and studies.

This was ‘A Report to the Australian GovernmentA Recommended New Cities Program 1973-1978’.

It provided the basis for the debate about growth centres, about Development Corporations and about the virtues of controlled planned growth as opposed to the uncontrolled growth which has created so many problems in our existing cities.

The Commission has continued this process of undertaking studies, of publishing the results and of stimulating discussion and debate on urban issues.

The composition of the Commission permitted the appointment to it of senior State officers.

This contributed significantly to the development of good working relations between State Governments and my Ministry.

The major fruit of that work was the growth centres program by which we have moved to establish in agreement with the States, growth centres at Albury-Wodonga, Bathurst-Orange, the Sydney South-west sector, Geelong and Monarto.

As this process has developed the work load of the Cities Commission in growth centres has been reduced.

Because it was already operating in December 1972, it was possible to pass to the Commission many tasks which normally would have been done by a Government Department.

This enabled the Government to make a quicker start on its programs than would otherwise have been possible.

The Department of Urban and Regional Development has gradually grown in strength and capacity.

Now it can undertake all of the policy functions which the Cities Commission has done for it.

The Commission now has also completed or relinquished to the Department its responsibilities in the negotiation of agreements with the States.

We have now reached the point where the Department can now take over the roles previously performed by the Commission.

In the meantime the Department has established more firmly its research and studies program. -

Inevitably, problems of demarcation have arisen with evidence of duplication of functions.

To a degree, these problems could have been sorted out within the Ministry.

Of greater concern, however, was the confusion created in the minds of people outside the Ministry- particularly State Ministers and officials- on where the responsibilities of the Commission ended and where those of the Department began.

In all of the circumstances it seemed timely at this point to merge the two organisations.

I would have urged this course solely in the interests of avoiding duplication and cutting out confusion over roles.

It is also fortunate that such a move comes at a time when on all sides there are pleas for restraint in Government expenditure.

Merging of the two bodies will allow savings in administrative expenses.

It will also allow the same objectives to be reached with a significant saving in Second Division manpower.

A continuing need exists for my Ministry to have access to professional town planning and engineering advice.

I feel that this should be provided by establishing a semi-autonomous professional group within my Department.

I propose to create a group of this sort to provide a professional consultative service for the Australian Government.

It would also be available for use by State Governments which from time to time have a need for independent advice.

It will also be at the disposal of Local Government and regional authorities.

It could also be available to advise on overseas aid programs on occasions when it may not be appropriate to offer foreign governments assistance from private consultants.

We propose to call this group the Bureau of the Cities.

It will be created within DURD in a manner similar to the Bureau of Transport Economics in the Department of Transport.

The Bureau will have these functions:

  1. providing professional and technical advice and support to the Department, to other elements of the Ministry, to associated bodies, State Governments, Local Government and foreign governments.
  2. providing expert task forces or the nucleus of expert task forces to undertake such projects in relation to urban and regional development either in Australia or overseas.
  3. undertaking studies and research in accordance with the Department’s research program.
  4. providing advice on urban and regional investment programs.
  5. conducting engineering planning studies and investigations, and undertaking the planning, design, and construction of engineering works of an investigatory or experimental nature, including works associated with water supply, sewerage, stormwater, roads and other transportation systems within pilot projects.
  6. developing professional recommendations relating to existing urban areas, including the rehabilitation and redevelopment of existing districts and the preparation of detailed development plans of existing districts.
  7. keeping abreast of major developments in urban planning principles, practices and procedures with a view to their adaptation for use in Australia.
  8. undertaking broad reviews of completed projects to establish performance standards.
  9. formulating and undertaking studies into financial and economic assessment of new city and major urban development projects; and carrying out cost assessment and threshold cost analysis of the public sector works program required for new cities projects.
  10. undertaking studies into the desirable alternative financing arrangements for new city projects, the cost revenues and financing of the comprehensive land development base for new city projects.
  11. designing an economic model for the use of new city development corporations in the sound financial management of the planning and development of new city projects.
  12. undertaking studies of and providing advice on the sociological implications of urban development programs.

The creation of the Bureau will let me rationalise overlapping functions between DURD and the present Cities Commission.

It will let me remove a major source of confusion in the attitudes of the States to our urban programs.

The Commission has done a good job and has seen its major initiatives come to life.

But we must not hesitate to adjust all singlepurpose agencies to meet changing circumstances.

One of our prime aims is to give early evidence of our strong support for the Albury-Wodonga growth centre.

We need to give an early indication of the seriousness of our intentions toward and support for Albury-Wodonga.

Because this Bureau would not have a central role in policy formulation, I suggest that we make an early announcement of our intention to locate it in Albury-Wodonga.

I strongly favour an early transfer to AlburyWodonga of one of the bodies which played a key role in selecting and developing it as a growth centre.

It will also provide the centre with ready access to a professional body to assist in its planning and development.

The Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to abolish the Cities Commission on 4 June 1975.

Following such an announcement it was inevitable that the staff of the Commission suffered from feelings of insecurity and lowered morale.

Because of this, the Public Service Board, on the advice of the Attorney-General’s Department, agreed to transfer the staff from the Commission to the Department before this repealing legislation was passed.

I thank the Public Service Board for their cooperation in this matter.

It has reduced disruption to the work program of DURD and more importantly has made the transition for Cities Commission staff as easy as possible.

I conclude with a very high tribute to the value of the work done by the Commission and its staff during its relatively short life.

In particular, I single out Sir John Overall and Mr Eric Warrell, his successor as Chairman, for the fine work they have done.

I thank the part time members of the Commission and the members of the Cities Commission Advisory Committee for their help in fulfilling the Government’s urban and regional goals.

All of the Cities Commission staff remaining at 27 August 1975 have been offered employment with my Department.

Most of them have already accepted the offer.

I am sure that they will continue to work with the same commitment and efficiency in a new relationship with their colleagues in the Department of Urban and Regional Development.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 1216

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76

First Reading

Debate resumed from 15 October on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before we proceed with the debate on the first reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) I remind the Senate that it has before it a motion by Senator Greenwood dissenting from the ruling of the President. I call Senator Greenwood.

Debate interrupted.

page 1216

OBJECTION TO RULING

Debate resumed from 15 October.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Yesterday while speaking during the first reading debate I said words which I certainly do not repeat in full. I said that the matter should be looked at again and the true facts should come out. I said that I believed that what would come out of this was simply the device of a corrupt government, of a corrupt Minister to benefit a company of which the President of the Australian Labor Party was a director. I used those words after making a long speech in which I analysed the transcript of the proceedings of the Royal Commission. In the sense in which I used the words ‘corrupt government’ and ‘corrupt Minister’ I indicated that the device used was the device of a resigned Minister whose record of misrepresentation and concealment in relation to other matters was now evident to the world to judge. Having said that, and certainly not being desirous of being the person who moved a motion of dissent from the President’s ruling- a motion which might be carried by the Senate- I seek leave of the Senate to withdraw the motion of dissent and to submit to your ruling, Mr President. As you requested me to do, I withdraw the word ‘corrupt’.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Greenwood:

– I withdraw the word corrupt’.

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

– I assume that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition withdraws the words ‘corrupt Minister’ and ‘corrupt government’.

Senator Greenwood:

– I was asked to withdraw the words ‘corrupt Minister’. I think I have done so, as you requested, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is the expression which was asked to be withdrawn, and Senator Greenwood has met that request. Before proceeding further with the debate, I wish to make a statement relating to interjections and the conduct of honourable senators, lt reiterates a statement that I made previously; it is almost a facsimile. During yesterday’s proceedings there were complaints of interjections during debate and the protection of the Chair was sought. I did point out before that what must first be understood is that, technically, interjections are disorderly. The only interruptions allowed are those permitted by standing order 422, which relates to points of order, privilege and the want of a quorum. However, relevant questions or interjections may elucidate the meaning of the speaker and, in practice, discretion has always been exercised by Presidents in the enforcement of the Standing Orders in relation to interjections.

Generally speaking, I think that in a House of review it is reasonable to allow a debate to flow freely and some interjections may be helpful. A senator nevertheless has a right to be heard in silence and the Chair will uphold that right whenever it is claimed. Particularly will the Chair protect senators from incessant interjections, from interjections calculated to disturb the speaker, and from interjections which can only be regarded as offensive. This is the point I want to stress: If honourable senators persist in interjecting after having been warned by the Chair they may be named and dealt with pursuant to Standing Orders.

Honourable senators may recall that when I made a similar statement on a previous occasion I called for the co-operation of all honourable senators in this matter and in maintaining the best standards of debate in this chamber.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Wright:

– No.

Senator GEORGES:

– It is by way of personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GEORGES:

– If Senator Wright realised what I intend to do I do not think he would have objected in the first place. Having read this morning the Hansard report of what happened during the closing minutes of yesterday’s debate, I must say that I owe you an apology, Mr President, and I owe the Senate an apology for the number of interjections which I made and, in fact, from reading the Hansard record, I would say for my refusal to accept your direction. For that I apologise. I think I was slightly inflamed by a comment made by Senator Wood, but I do not wish to proceed with that either. My apologies.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76 First Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-Last night I attempted to make a speech in connection with a couple of matters. I shall now proceed and in view of the way in which time is pressing on us now, I shall be as brief as possible. Last evening we heard a speech by Senator Hall from South Australia in which he made some rather rash statements. He accused the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr Fraser, of ringing up newspaper offices and telling people what they should write in their newspaper.

I think that this suggestion is a bit ludicrous. Just because a man might speak to a newspaper office, under no circumstances could it be said that he tells the editor of the newspaper what he is to write. That just shows the unreliability of the statements of Senator Hall. As a matter of fact, it has been reported to me by a Senate colleague that Senator Hall is famous for the number of Press men he entertains every evening with drinks or eats. As a consequence, it has been indicated that because of this continuous entertaining of Press men no doubt he gets a very good Press. Probably Senator Hall thinks that everybody is similar to himself in seeking publicity.

It was rather revealing and entertaining to see the somersault that Senator Hall made last night. He castigated the Opposition for having voted yesterday to knock back a particular Appropriation Bill. Senator Hall is the last man who should talk about that action. As a matter of fact, he should have applauded it. As I said last night and as I restate now that things are of a calmer nature, on 16 July in this Senate, Senator Hall made a statement on the question of the loans affair. The reason why action was taken by the Opposition to put the Government before the people in an election is the scandal and the comment that came out as a result of this loans deal. Senator Hall said at the time:

This is an evolving situation. The Parliament has been tried and the Ministry has not answered. This is the second major attempt to obtain information which so far has not been available. If the Government is able to frustrate this move, something else will happen. If I were in the Opposition ‘s position i would adjourn the Senate until 1 January next and let the people decide in the meantime.

Those words mean that he would have had an election.

Senator Keeffe:

– You will not even get another pre-selection.

Senator WOOD:

– The honourable senator from Queensland is just a gasbag; that is all he is. Senator Hall’s remarks meant that he was pressing very strongly for us to have an election between when he made his remarks and now. The only way it could have been done would have been for the Opposition to knock over the Budget or some of Supply. That is what was done yesterday, only Supply was deferred. We now find that Senator Hall has done a complete somersault and is castigating the Opposition because it did exactly what he wanted previously. It indicates to me that Senator Hall has become such an acrobat that I think he would find a very good position in a circus as the world’s greatest somer.saulter. It looks to me as though he comes into this chamber and says that he is a Liberal. He no sooner says that than he yaps out with the greatest deal of contempt in criticism of the Liberal

Party. It might be that he was entertaining some of his Press friends in the hope that he would get a good Press as a result of it.

I point out that we should have some consistency in this matter. If at one stage, on 16 July, Senator Hall felt that this matter should be investigated further, even to the extent of having an election, what has made him change his outlook now? Why has his outlook changed at the present time when stronger revelations have been made by Mr Khemlani coming to this country? We know that denials were made and that Mr Khemlani was being discredited in the eyes of the public. Mr Khemlani came to Australia and was prepared to show his documents in a proper fashion. He did so. He presented the telexes. Mr Khemlani has been proved right. As a matter of fact, he is a man who can be credited with having set out to do something and with having done it. He has proved to be correct by the production of his telexes.

Senator Hall was so keen on 16 July this year to seek further information. We have Mr Khemlani in the country now. He has challenged the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to set up an open commission and said that he was prepared to come before the Senate. He said that he will give evidence and reveal all his documents so that they can be seen. Because of the smell that has been associated with this effort to obtain loans from overseas, it would be thought that the Government would want the matter to be cleared up, especially as the Prime Minister is always huffing and puffing around Australia that he is a man of great principle. Here is an opportunity to clean up the situation. Has he accepted? No, of course he has not accepted. Apparently, the Prime Minister is not likely to accept it.

Mr Khemlani has said that there is a lot more to reveal. What is more, he has said that he can reveal that others supported Mr Connor in the situation. Yet we find, despite the fact that he is prepared to bring the papers, give evidence and to prove that there is a lot more to the matter, the Government does not want to hear anything more about it. It is rather strange. If this is not a smelly subject, honourable senators would wonder why the Government would not want such an open inquiry. As a matter of fact, as I said last night, there is a lot more in this situation. I was talking about the matter to Mr Dan Thompson. He told me that he had information indicating that certain Ministers and others were involved in this situation in not the best of ways. I think that there is room for an investigation of this matter. If the Government is not prepared to have a royal commission into it, I think that the

Senate should set up a select committee in order to go into the matter fully and to reveal the situation so that the people of Australia can see clearly that there has been some hanky panky in regard to endeavours to raise these loans. That is as much as I want to say on that matter at the moment because time is pressing on.

Senator Bunton also entered the fray last night. He made certain statements in regard to the Government. In trying to exonerate the Government in respect of the position in Australia he said that the unemployment situation is caused to a certain extent or to some considerable extent by the mechanisation of industry. We know that mechanisation has been taking place but let me say this to my friend Senator Bunton: Mechanisation has been going on for years in the sugar industry. At one time, men cut the sugar cane by hand, stick by stick. They loaded it by hand. It was carted and handled manually throughout the whole process. Today, machines undertake the work. The cane is not only planted by machine but also loaded and processed mechanically, but there is still no greater unemployment on average throughout the year because of that. Other industries have utilised the manpower in other ways. So this mechanisation has not taken place in the 3 years that the Labor Party has been in government. Goodness gracious me, it has been going on for donkey’s years.

Senator Bunton:

– That is only part of what I said.

Senator WOOD:

– This is part. The honourable senator indicated that this was the position and exonerated the Government because of it. When we were in office, there were only about 100 000 unemployed. This Government, which was then the Opposition, was shouting to high heaven about the terrible unemployment situation in this country. When it was stated that the overseas unemployment rate was much higher, the reply that we received from the Opposition in those days was that world conditions had nothing to do with Australia. What a complete change has taken place. Inflation, unemployment and everything else now are attributed to world trends. My own considered opinion is that the world situation has nothing to do with this Australian situation. When the Labor Government took over, this country was prosperous, it was sound and it was developing. Today, the whole position has been changed.

Senator Bunton also talked about how the Government had helped primary industry. One of the primary industries is mining. Let me cite as an example my area of Queensland which is south of Mackay. It contains one of the great open cut coalfields of Australia. What happened there? The development of 3 mines- Norwich Park, Hail Creek and Nebo- has been held up for several years. Now of course, the Japanese are wanting more coal. The development of the mining industry in Australia has more or less reached a stalemate. Now the Government in its desire to try to stimulate industries after having knocked back and blunted development programs over a period of years is saying that it has to get them going. Time has been lost. Costs have gone up in the development of these fields compared to what they would have been a few years ago. This has happened because of this Government’s frustration of the development of those coal mining areas. If they had been allowed to develop, there would have been thousands more men employed than there are at the present time in those spheres.

Over the years the people who in the main helped to develop those coal mines were people who came from overseas with their capital. For years and years we tried to get Australian business interests involved in those areas. What did they do? Nothing. It was not until we got foreign investors, because they had sufficient capital, that we were able to get the development of those great coal fields under way. When these new mines step up production, this area will be one of the greatest coal exporting areas of the world. That indicates what has been done with the introduction of foreign capital together with Australian capital but if we are to shut our eyes to the requirements of this country and hold it back because we cannot get Australian capital to carry out the development, we will frustrate the progress of the nation. The development of that great primary industry, mining, has been severely set back over a period of years.

Let me turn to deal with the search for oil. If ever there was a matter of urgency in this country it is the finding of more oil. If our stocks of oil run down, what we will have to pay in overseas credits to get oil for this country will be disastrous to Australia. What happened to the great oil searching companies that were in this country a few years ago? They buzzed off because of the tactics and the attitude of this Government. The Government did not want them here. Soon it will be down on its knees asking them to come back. These programs were built up over a period of years. I can remember what has happened during the long term that I have been in the Senate. Years ago when the former Senator Spooner was trying stimulate oil search development, the then leader of the Australian Labor Party opposed letting private enterprise do it. He said that the Government should be drilling for oil. Can honourable senators imagine how much oil we would have found if we had the government of the day, irrespective of which government it was, searching for oil. We must have private enterprise searching for oil.

As I have said, Senator Bunton mentioned how this Government was helping primary industry. He mentioned the wool industry, the stabilisation of prices and the provision of funds by this Government. Let us recall the situation. It was the previous Liberal-National Country Party that brought about that stabilisation in the wool industry. This is a continuation of what that Government did. The credit for such schemes goes to the Government that initiated them. Looking at the situation as we find it now, I believe that the Senate had the right to take the action it took yesterday. So far as I am concerned, the Constitution gave us the power. Despite the nonsense from these woolly-minded or politically-minded professors from various universities, the Constitution gives the Senate the right that it has. If the Senate has not seen the reason to exercise that right previously, that does not under any circumstances say that the Senate cannot exercise that right. That is simple common sense. That is what I stand on.

This Senate had a right to look at the circumstances. If it feels that the situation is perilous, dangerous or damaging to this country it has a right to say, ‘The Government has to go to the country in order to get a fresh mandate from the people, to be tested by the people’. That right was given to the Senate not to use in an irresponsible way but to use in a responsible way. No Senate can use that power irresponsibly, continuously. The fear is now being expressed that this fragile democracy that we hear so much about could be shattered. What would happen if this Senate used that power irresponsibly and time after time the people re-elected the Government and said to the Opposition, ‘You did the wrong thing’. The very awareness of the people, the judgment of the people themselves, would bring a responsibility into this chamber. I do not think that any Senate will act irresponsibly in this matter. If it did, it would get a reply from the people of Australia.

My assessment at the moment is that this Government’s position is such that in the minds of the people it has brought the country to a very bad state. The people fear what is taking place and they have lost confidence in this Government. Because of the smelly factors that are emanating from the loans scandal and also the fact that this Government has brought the country into a very bad position from an economic point of view and from the point of view of future development, I believe that the Senate did the best thing that it could do for the people of Australia when it took advantage yesterday of the opportunity available to it under the Constitution of giving the people of Australia the right to say whether there should be a change of government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate amounts required for expenditure in 1975-76 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund other than those amounts provided by special appropriations and those included in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76. The amounts sought for each department are shown in detail in the Second Schedule to the Bill, and total $6,976,119,000. This Bill seeks authority for the Treasurer to issue $4,284,359,000, the balance of $2,691,760,000 having already been authorised by the Supply Act (No. 1) 1975-76. The expenditure program of the Government was outlined in the Budget Speech, and the Schedule to this Bill is the same as that contained in the document Particulars of proposed Expenditure for the Service of the Year Ending on 30 June 1976’, which was referred to the Senate Estimates Committees on 3 September for examination and report. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

- Mr Deputy President, we have been through the exercise of a debate on the motion for the first reading of this Bill. As the consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) is at the second reading stage, I suggest to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) that we are in a situation in which both Bills could be taken together in a cognate debate.

Senator Wriedt:

– I have no objection to that course being followed.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Is there any objection to both Bills being debated cognately? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator COTTON:

– The general position of the Opposition on these Bills and the Loan Bill was stated yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Fraser, and the Opposition’s Leader in this place, Senator Withers. The amendment proposed by the Opposition in relation to these Bills is the same as the amendment the Opposition moved to the Loan Bill. It is to be moved for the same set of reasons and to achieve the same general undertakings I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ):

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert: this Bill be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people, the Senate being of the opinion that the Prime Minister and his Government no longer have the trust and confidence of the Australian people because of-

the continuing incompetence, evasion, deceit and duplicity of the Prime Minister and his Ministers as exemplified in the overseas loan scandal which was an attempt by the Government to subvert the Constitution, to by-pass Parliament and to evade its responsibilities to the States and the Loan Council;

the Prime Minister’s failure to maintain proper control over the activities of his Ministers and Government to the detriment of the Australian nation and people; and

the continuing mismanagement of the Australian economy by the Prime Minister and this Government with policies which have caused a lack of confidence in this nation’s potential and created inflation and unemployment not experienced for 40 years’.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise to a point of order. In accordance with section 53 of the Constitution, I ask: Can Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) be amended?

Senator Withers:

– Madam Acting Deputy President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I point out that this is not an amendment within the terms of the Constitution; it is a procedural amendment within the Senate and it only goes to the procedures and not to the substance of the legislation before us.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Melzer)- The amendment is only an amendment to a procedural motion and not an amendment to the Bill.

Senator COTTON:

– As this is a cognate debate, my remarks will refer to the matter and material contained in both Bills. I think it can be fairly said of me that for a long time I have held the view that the Senate was the most appropriate chamber to put under severe examination and to test the general financial and economic policies and expenditures of government. I have so believed, I have so acted throughout my time here and 1 have so expressed myself. I believe that the Senate, by virtue of its committee system and the wider range of talent available to it, has a facility to test these things more thoroughly than the House of Representatives which, as has been said often, is a money House. The Senate has a chance to be perhaps more thorough and to take a longer and more objective view. In many cases of financial and economic policy a long view is highly desirable. Therefore it has become the custom and practice of the Senate to put these financial measures under quite severe examination. Therefore, I propose to take what I call a factual approach to our behaviour in this matter and to the way in which the Senate has tried to do these things.

In this instance we are talking about 2 BillsAppropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2)- that contain essentially the financial plans and requirements of the Government in an expressed form following the announcement of its Budget proposals. These matters were referred in this chamber to 7 Estimates Committees on 3 September 1975. The examination of the expenditures began on 9 September. The Estimates Committees reported variously to the Senate on 14 October. As a chamber, we have given 5 weeks’ study to the expenditures and proposals contained in these 2 Bills. There is therefore an opportunity to have a debate on the Appropriation Bills in total. Normally there would be an opportunity to talk in the Committee Stage of the consideration of the Bills about some of the matters contained in the Bills, but I imagine that, looking at this matter in its true perspective, we are going to find it unlikely that we will be examining the Bills in the Committee of the Whole of the Senate if we are to adhere to time tables that people wish to observe.

I wish to make one or two observations about Estimates Committee A, of which I had the pleasure of being a member. I want to thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the officers he brought along with him, the Senate staff and my colleagues for what I thought was a solidly conducted examination. I have observed on going through the record that in some cases there were 27 officers of a department sitting with the Leader of the Government in the Senate to answer questions and that in some cases there was the smaller number of six present. There were 13 officers present during the examination of the estimates for the Treasury. I am of the view that the Senate ought to consider whether the cost of bringing along such an immense number of officers to answer questions is fully justified.

I also had a look during the meetings of Estimates Committee A at something that I believe was very tricky indeed and needed to be examined later and in more detail. I refer to the general proposition of the bid under Appropriation Bill (No. 2)- a Bill that the Senate may itself amend- for $9,600,000 to spend in various areas of the petroleum and minerals field under a piece of legislation that was no longer valid. It seemed to me, and it is expressed in the Estimate Committee’s report, that that proposal is one that is on very shaky legislative grounds because section 83 of the Constitution says:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law.

Therefore the appropriation in relation to which $9,600,000 has been sought for a variety of purposes under a piece of legislation that has been declared invalid seems to me to be something to which the Senate will have to direct its attention. It could well be that in certain other circumstances I would have sought the support of the Senate to delete that item from Appropriation Bill (No. 2) as being an improper expenditure in the eyes of the Senate. I will not go on at length about that because we have other things to turn our minds to at the moment. In the first reading debate on this Appropriation Bill (No. 1) I listened with some care and want to make one or two observations before passing to the general area of concern- the economy. I thought the incitement to revolution by Senator James McClelland was unfortunate and the apologia pro vite Button seemed to me to contain nothing of merit and to be a large confusion of nonsense. I also felt rather sad listening to Senator Hall and Senator Bunton, who seemed to me not really to understand the great purpose of the Senate in the Australian parliamentary scene, what its responsibilities are and what its functions properly ought to be. One could dismiss most of the observations made in their speeches as being of not much value at a time like this when we are dealing with matters of serious moment.

This exercise in deferring these Appropriation Bills was not an exercise lightly taken, taken wantonly or at a moment’s notice. I want to refer now to the record of the Senate as briefly as I can. In May 1975 we were discussing in this chamber the supply Bills and the Government expenditure then, compared with 1973-74 figures, showed a proposed increase of 63 per cent. This gave us in the Opposition our first cause for alarm and apprehension and the first indication of the shape of the Budget to come and the difficulties we might well be confronted with not only as a Senate but as a group of Australian people concerned with the general wellbeing of our country. Honourable senators will recall that I mentioned the enormous increase in the Advance to the Treasurer, this area of incidentals that the Treasurer has an option himself to pick up and use under the banner of his Government. Then it was $240m, an increase of 400 per cent in 3 years. Now we see in these Appropriation Bills that it has grown again by $30m. As I said then and have said continuously since, my overriding concern is with the total quantum of government expenditure now being launched upon the Australian economic scene. I believe that this concern unfortunately has been borne out. I expressed my concern then about the need for governments and Oppositions not to be promising the people things which the system could not provide for them.

On 27 August I expressed very grave doubts in this chamber about the outcome of the Government’s Budget. The Government indicated in the Budget Speech delivered by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) that the Budget would result in a lower rate of inflation and, in the end, a reduction in unemployment and a growth of business confidence and investment. I believe that the doubts then expressed by me and my colleagues have been reinforced and sadly underlined by events and that there is a great deal more difficulty yet to come. I do not say that with any pleasure. The claims of the Government in my understanding and on the best advice I can get are most unlikely to be met. Honourable senators will agree with me that even the Government is beginning to say that itself in various places. At that time I referred to the size of the Budget deficit of $2,800m. I talked about the bad estimating of the previous year when the deficit grew by five times from $574m to $2, 567m. Everybody knows the difficulty of forecasting and I do not say that there is an error of that magnitude in this current Budget. However, I do say that the Budget is badly in error and needs to be recast.

I also referred to what I called irresponsible opinions contained in the Treasury supplement to the Budget Papers and the Reserve Bank statements. Honourable senators will remember that I said that the Budget was based upon a number of assumptions as to unemployment, government expenditure growth rate, economic growth rate, inflation, wage rises and money supply that were false assumptions and that time would prove them to be incorrect. Time is proving them to be incorrect. On 27 August I referred to the Treasury and Reserve Bank papers which are available to all honourable senators and are contained in Hansard. My comments, recorded on page 307 and others in that area, were made advisedly and carefully. I indicated that those 2 groups of responsible non-political authorities had said to us that in 1974-75 the Australian economy experienced more instability than for many years, aggregate output declined for the first time since 1952-53, consumer prices rose by 17 per cent approximately and unemployment reached nearly 5 per cent of the workforce.

I then said that the Budget outlay is expected to increase by 23 per cent but could increase by a higher rate, and that the Treasurer has said in his speech that he is budgeting on the assumption of an economic growth rate of 5 per cent plus in the current year compared with the previous year’s rate of minus two per cent. I said that that seemed to me to be a total misconception of economic reality, and if we look at the first 4 months of this year we can see that I was not far wrong. The economy is still flat, it is not growing and the expectations expressed I do not think will work out. If the inflation rate is about 20 per cent, as most people believe it will be at the year’s end despite what might be slight improvements from time to time, and on the observation that money supply will grow only at 1 5 per cent, how does the Government propose to finance the private sector, which is now in a state of considerable distress, on a minus factor of 5 per cent in the available money which in effect is the mechanism for keeping things moving. Money becomes an exchange process for labour and materials and if it is diminished to minus 5 percent where will we end up?

There is no desire in the business community to finance anything. Productivity is down, and I will quote figures later. Profit is down and inflation is eroding the liquidity of businesses. I think it is equally to be observed that revenue will be down because of the falling increase in the wage rate. Wishing to be fair, I, like a lot of my colleagues, pay tribute to Senator James McClelland for doing his best to get some discipline into the wage rate scene. So we now come to looking at the Budget based upon a heavy deficit anyway, a series of false assumptions, a Government which is beginning to run away from its own figures and the prospect therefore of a fairly heavy acceleration in the deficit. We have then to look at the method of financing the deficit.

We have been told in a serious examination which this chamber conducted into the Defence loan Bill that there would be little overseas borrowingpractically none. That was strange comment in the light of the events surrounding Mr Khemlani and others but that is what was said to us seriously and we took it seriously. There will be very little drawing on overseas credit arrangements, it was said. The Government will try to finance as much as possible from the sale of government securities preferably to the nonbanks. That may succeed to some extent but with growing unemployment, lack of business confidence and growing inflation, the Government is expecting a lot for people who are in what 1 call the non-bank area- the building societies, life offices, savings bank holders and superannuation funds- to invest the money out of their cash position into what may well be a declining net worth position. We are told that the Government will use cash. We certainly know it has, for it has used nearly all of what has been built up by previous governments. The current operating situation is clear to us all. We have seen it happening over the months. These increasing over-expenditures that are not met by revenues will be financed by the issues of Treasury notes to the banks and non banks, largely by way of borrowings from the Reserve Bank. In effect the spender government is borrowing from itself through its Reserve Bank. This is printing money. It is inflationary and it will add to the problem. There is no way in which we can walk away from this if we are realists.

I think it can be fairly said, after a serious consideration by the Opposition of the whole of the country’s economic, financial and political position, that the country is in very bad shape at this time. Unemployment is at a level which has not been seen since the Depression. The position with inflation is similar. Thoroughly decent, good, reliable people who ought not to have been put in the situation of having been pushed over the edge of the precipice have gone bankrupt. Industrial unrest is at a level which all of us know has never been greater. There seems to be no end to the unhappiness, confusion and despair brought upon us by the people who claim to be the Government of this country. It must be stated that this is due to the incompetence, the inefficiency and the absence of understanding on the part of the Government which, in its desperate wish to achieve a massive rate of social change and be so recorded in the history books, has forgotten the ordinary common facts of life that must affect it, as they affect all of us.

Whether or not the Government likes it, the company structure in Australia is extremely important. We must look at the unemployment scene and where the unemployed are. They are not in the Public Service. Farming employs a very small fraction of the Australian work force. Manufacturing, particularly the areas in which companies are involved, employs directly 25 per cent, and dependent upon that is a further 25 per cent in the service and tertiary industries and in transport. So 50 per cent of Australia’s work force is tied up in the company scene. Companies cannot earn the profits necessary for growth and expansion or for employment. Figures are available for the Australian corporate scene. I do not have them with me. It would take a long day to quote them. They come from the Institute of Applied Economic Research in Melbourne. They supplement and confirm other figures available to me. They say: ‘If you take the total Australian corporate capital scene in the private sector and put the banks to one side, you are looking at a scene in which the whole of the Australian company scene, if you correct its figures accurately for tax, etc., in the year ended June 1 975, was in a total loss phase’. The total loss phase figure is between $300m and $500m. This is part also of the problem of the tax bite based upon inflation. Some companies are paying 75 per cent of their profits in tax.

There is a problem with the financing of stock. In that scene, how can we expect a depressed private sector, induced by the Government’s actions, to have any chance at all of recovering with this Government in office, and any chance at all of there being an improvement in the Australian scene? Dividends in this country are being paid largely out of capital, and the cash flow is dwindling. To restore profitability which will make employment and initiative in the private sector worth while is the first task. Whether the Government likes it or not, if there are no profits there are no employment opportunities. What are profits? In genuine, measured terms they are the surplus between the expenditure total and the income total that is available for expansion, dividends and keeping going. If, on the other hand, the expenditure total is greater than the income total, a business is headed towards economic disaster and the bankruptcy court, as many small businesses have found out.

Companies are reducing the scale of their operation and are using much more debt cover than previously. Their equities are shrinking. Their earning power in real terms now is not capable, in many cases, of servicing the debt structure they have now, let alone the debt structure they need to get back to a line ball. The estimated figures which I have indicate that the Australian company scene needs approximately $ 1,374m just to get back to a line ball- to get its liquidity right- without even starting to make money and to carry on. In this scene, where does it all go? The Government’s share of expenditure is continuing to rise. Business share of expenditure is falling. The Government is taking too much for its extravagant and fancy schemes. The numbers of real people, those groups and companies who employ 50 per cent of the work force, in effect have shrunk.

Sitting suspended from 12.34 to 3 p.m.

Senator COTTON:

– Before luncheon I was talking about the problem in Australia of declining productivity and declining performance. Just for the record, I note that production figures for a total of 34 items across the general spectrum of manufacturing for the year ended June 1975 showed a decline in 22 areas, and in nine of those areas the decline was by more than 20 per cent. Steel production is down; heavy castings and foundries are at their worst level for many years. Small businesses are facing disaster- possible bankruptcy in many cases, and certainly some closures. I mentioned earlier that these Appropriation Bills are founded on false assumptions, with growth rates indicated in the Budget not being achievable, and inflation and unemployment not being brought within bounds. Therefore, I think that a difficult situation is ahead of the Government and, through it, the Australian people. In order to continue to finance this series of mistakes there will have to be a heavy increase in the money supply by printing money, which will itself lead to further trouble. For the reasons I have mentioned, I think that the deficit is going to be well above the figure indicated in the Budget.

I believe that we are looking at a critical situation. The defence Loan Bill was examined very carefully in the Senate, and after a long examination Senator Carrick ‘s questions seemed to prove clearly the point which the Opposition had been making. I have the view that the Government is now in a situation where what it really ought to be doing is looking at up to date or new appropriation Bills. The figures in the Bills are based, in effect, on Government calculations of expenditure. As we know, they are quite early figures, perhaps from March to May. That situation would be a great deal less serious at a time when the deficit was almost minimal, but in times of large deficits and heavy and increasing costs it does become a factor of considerable importance. I am of the view that the time has come for the Australian people to be given the opportunity to check the Government. I do not think that Australia will recover until the Government changes. I have said it before and I will say it again. I do not think that some of the things that are being said are wise and sensible. The general inciting of people to put on a sort of revolt seems to me to be most undesirable. It might be regarded perhaps as reprehensible behaviour.

The Government has had nearly 3 years in office and I think that its time is about up. I have not heard any arguments from anybody that justify any of the propositions the Government is making. I cannot see how a democracy can be destroyed by giving the people a chance to judge their Government in a time of crisis. I believe that this is a time of crisis. I believe that until the Government changes there will be no return to profitability, which would of itself revive investment and begin to reduce unemployment and inflation. I say again that in my considered view that will not happen until the Government changes. Much as we all want to do it, we cannot build a more just society with higher living standards on a base of economic chaos. That is one of the principal reasons why the Opposition is taking its stand in bringing these amendments before the Senate. We believe that the Australian people should have their chance to judge the Government they have had for 3 years. We do not think that the Government’s posturing will stand much examination against the potential destruction of a fine country and a great people. This issue is simple to the Opposition. The Government has had nearly 3 years. Its record is there to be seen. Its time is up. In the Opposition’s view, the people should now be given a chance to decide.

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr President, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– Unlike speakers in the debate on the first readings of the appropriation Bills, which got very emotional and very heated, Senator Cotton led for the Opposition in a quite cool manner, and I congratulate him on his speech. He referred to a lot of figures which, without an examination in order to contradict them, seemed somewhat convincing. What Senator Cotton forgets is that that is not the question that is going to win the election. The figures to which he referred, although he dealt with them in an orderly and expert way, are not going to win the election. It will be remembered that in 1974 the gallup polls were sufficiently against Labor for the Opposition to believe that it could postpone appropriations, go to the people and gain government. The election was fought on obstruction in the Senate. A double dissolution was called because of the number of Bills the Opposition had obstructed in the Senate and the result of the election was that the Government was returned to office, which was quite contrary to what had been indicated by the gallup polls. Today, because the gallup polls indicate that the Opposition would win an election, it again seeks to go to the people in the hope that it will gain office. The Government has indicated that this election will be fought on the right of the Senate to reject the twice expressed opinion of the Australian electors and to become a dictatorship in its own right. That will be the issue.

Let us look at the position. An amendment moved yesterday to the defence Loan Bill was carried by 29 votes to 28. The same amendment has been moved to procedural motions on these 2 appropriation Bills and it can be expected that the amendments will be carried again by 29 votes to 28. If they were not carried, the alternative would be for the Opposition to support the appropriations or to oppose them. The Opposition would not have carried the amendment yesterday with 29 votes but for the unfortunate death of one of our colleagues and the breaking of convention by replacing him with someone who does not follow the Party that the deceased member followed. If that course had not been followed there would have been a draw in the voting on the amendment, which would have meant its rejection. The Opposition would then have had to face up to whether it supported or opposed the second readings of the appropriation Bills. The Opposition sneaked around coward ‘s castle and hid behind the death of our colleague its preparedness to oppose the Loan Bill. Today the Opposition is trying to win again through the unfortunate death of our colleague and the same result will occur.

I want to establish merely that the Government has the right and the responsibility to remain in power, despite the postponement of the appropriations, a move which is succeeding as a result of the death of a Government senator. The election will be fought on the obstruction of that right and, whether one likes Labor or not, it is an issue that is in the forefront of people’s minds and they will vote accordingly. My State has a Government which is in an unassailable position because it fought an election on this very issue. There has been a great demonstration today on the lawns outside Parliament House. The workers of Canberra spontaneously took 2 hours off work and revolted in protest.

Senator Webster:

– Orchestrated, lined up by the socialists.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Perhaps there are other protests. On returning to my office after today’s reception I was given a telegram, which was sent to Senators Bishop, Cavanagh, Cameron, Drury and McLaren. It states:

We the undersigned brokers in South Australia -

Not knowing too many brokers,I do not know any of the signatories.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are they Liberal brokers?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am of the opinion that they are not our supporters. The telegram continues. deplore in the strongest terms the intended action of the Senate to reject or delay Supply stop We believe Constitution empowers the House of Representatives and only the House of Representatives the right to make or bring down governments stop We urge you not to be a party to any action that would precipitate constitutional chaos and prejudice future constitutional government in Australia stop

They are strong words.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Who were the signatories?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I will tell the honourable senator in a moment. The telegram continued:

We the undersigned support and vote for parties across the political spectrum but jointly believe the intended Senate action to be wrong stop

South Australian senators on the other side may know the signatories to this telegram. They are: Moller, Kitto, Brien, Chambers, Jolly, McGuir, Speights, Burgess, Wildson, Silverwood, Richards, Deheleng, Plush, Poole, Cameron, Kennedy, Davis, Roman, Howland, Keuning, Wright, Clarke, Barnett, Hargreaves, Maniulis, Jerome and Haselgroves. There are 27 of them.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Will you identify them?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– They are all brokers from South Australia. I am suggesting that the honourable senator’s colleagues from South Australia might know the brokers.

Senator Greenwood:

– Do they vote for the Labor Party?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-They say that they vote across the political spectrum. Therefore the issue that will be fought is the right to obstruct the people’s democratically elected House. This is shown by the concluding remarks of Senator Cotton, and by his amendment, that the Opposition will adjourn consideration of the Budget until Whitlam goes to the people. But Whitlam has a responsibility to uphold, the mandate that he got on 2 occasions.

I would like to refer to some aspects of the Constitution which are often quoted but not properly looked at. I would question the right of the Senate to reject Supply. As a preliminary I draw the attention of honourable senators to section 1 of the Constitution, which states:

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen -

In effect the Governor-General- a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called ‘The Parliament’, or ‘The Parliament of the Commonwealth’.

So we have 3 bodies which constitute this Parliament, and the law is vested in the Parliament. What most people forget and what the Opposition refuses to accept is that the 3 parts of this trinity do not have equal powers. While it has been generally believed that they have equal power, section 53, which makes provision for some restriction of the Senate’s power in respect of money Bills, concludes by stating that in all other respects the Senate has equal power with the House of Representatives in relation to Bills and only in relation to Bills. But we find that section 57, which provides for a double dissolution, gives power only to the House of Representatives to initiate legislation and to the Senate to reject legislation and the House of Representatives again to initiate the same legislation.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Oh no. To the contrary. You can initiate legislation in this House.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator was not listening to me. Section 57 of the Constitution provides that legislation has to be initiated in the House of Representatives for there to be grounds for a double dissolution to permit a joint sitting of the Houses. Section 128 permits legislation which is designed to alter the Constitution and which has been twice rejected to be put to the people by way of a referendum. This is a power that embraces both Houses of the Parliament. Whereas section 128 gives power to both Houses of Parliament section 57 does not because section 57 touches upon the dismissal of a government. Nowhere is this power given to the Senate. Whilst section 53 is interpreted as giving the Senate right to reject legislation, I do not know whether it was ever envisaged that a government might have to resign as a result of the Senate using that power.

Section 5 of the Constitution gives the Governor-General the right to dissolve the House of Representatives but he has no right, other than under section 57, to dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. Whilst the Governor-General has and always has had this right, he has never exercised it other than at the request of the Prime Minister at the time. Section 7 provides that senators shall be chosen for a term of 6 years. Section 13 is concerned with the rotation of senators. This is the only section, other than section 57, which is concerned with the election or retirement of senators. Section 28 of the Constitution states:

Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General.

So there are 2 methods of terminating the life of the House of Representatives, and only two. One is by the expiry of time and the other is by a decision of the Governor-General. There was the double dissolution of the Menzies Government, and in my time in the Parliament there was the early election in 1963 when the GovernorGeneral dissolved the House of Representatives and the 1974 double dissolution. All of these were held at the request of the Prime Minister of the day who asked the Governor-General to exercise his power. The Prime Minister does not have the power to dissolve the Parliament.

Whilst section 53 will not permit this House to amend money Bills- I will come to the question of what is a money Bill- it permits this House to make recommendations. Section 53 states in part:

The Senate may not amend proposed laws . . .

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein.

We can make requests by message. Section 57 of the Constitution relates to a double dissolution. Between the first rejection of a Bill and the second rejection of that Bill 3 months have to expire. We find the section worded in this way:

If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of 3 months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested or agreed to by the Senate . . .

Nowhere else, other than in section 57, do we find the word ‘suggested’. Obviously, in this section the word ‘suggested’ is used because it applies to a money Bill. But what the Senate suggests may not be accepted by the House of Representatives, and the Bill can be utilised for the purpose of a double dissolution. The framers of the Constitution clearly saw that the defeat of the Government did not rest on the rejection of a money Bill. This is understandable when we look at 1901 which is when the Constitution was formed. The records of a debate in 1901 show that legislation to which the Senate objected appropriated £500,000. The second clause of that Bill stated:

The said sum shall be available to satisfy the warrants under the hand of the Governor-General in respect of any services voted by the House of Representatives in this present session of Parliament.

That is a recognition that the Senate had no say in money Bills. The Senate had to vote them out because section 83 makes it clear that for the ordinary expenditure the House of Representatives would decide the expenditure after the appropriation was made. In 1901 the objection from the Senate was that it wanted a detailed list of the expenditure and how the money would be spent. The Senate, having got the detailed list, passed the appropriate Bills. If the Senate had refused to pass such a Bill obviously the legislation in relation to money for that coming session of Parliament would not have been passed, but on such an occasion, the Government would have continued in office. But now we have a contradiction which negates section 28 of the Constitution. We have a third tier at the present time which claims that it can decide when governments shall resign. This is contrary to the intention of the Constitution. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 October Mr Ellicott concluded with these words:

But, in any event, it is a futile exercise, for undoubtedly, in such a case, the Governor-General would have a clear duty to withdraw the Prime Minister’s commission. No government can continue under our constitutional system without Supply.

We have to admire Mr Ellicott ‘s legal capabilities. He is a former Solicitor-General and now he is the shadow Attorney-General in the other place. Mr Ellicott recognises that there is no alternative but for the Governor-General to ask the Government for its resignation because the Senate has taken power which is reserved to the Governor-General. The Senate has become another power. It can never be upheld as such. It is reasonable to suggest that section 53 was intended- and can reasonably be read that way- to give the Senate power to reject. But I ask honourable senators whether that is the interpretation which should be given to the section today because of the absurdity and the chaos it would create. This position wants examining. It is essentially a question of the law. I recognise my inability to discuss the legal aspect but I bring to my aid those legal luminaries in the past who have written on the question of interpretation. If we look at section 53 we see that it states:

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties . . . The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual service of the Government.

Those are the only 2 laws we cannot amend. Honourable senators will remember the 1964 debate. The argument was that the Senate was getting one Appropriation Bill. Some parts of it contained provision for the ordinary annual expenditure and some of it contained provision for capital expenditure. As the result of a debate in this place the then Prime Minister, Mr Holt, said that he would bring down 2 Bills, one which we could amend and one which we could not. Section 53 continues:

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

If we look at section 54 we see that it states:

The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation.

Section 55 states:

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

The Constitution has limited to very fine grounds those laws which the Senate cannot amend, namely, only laws proposing taxation and those relating to the ordinary annual expenditure of government. Any other money Bill apart from that relating to ordinary annual expenditure we have the right to amend. The only question we have to visualise is: Does the Government have to fall if the Senate stops appropriation? That is accepted today. I do not agree with the theory of the present Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) that because we have not used the power, we have lost the power. I do not agree that there should be any attempt to ask the Governor-General to sign an Appropriation Bill if it has not been passed by the Senate unless, in fact, the Senate has not the right to reject. We come to the question of refusal. Does the right to amend include the right to reject? As I said, I have relied on some authorities. I have sought the assistance of the Parliamentary Library which has looked up authorities which would help in deciding this matter. The Library gave me Howard’s Australian Federal Constitutional Law. On page 6 of that volume we find reference to the difference between the interpretation of common law and constitutional interpretation. On common law and constitutional interpretation he states:

The opposing influence is the need to give a document which is intended to provide the framework, but no more than the framework, of a system of government enough flexibility for the system to work in practice, and particularly for it to respond to changing social facts. The most interesting and important characteristic of Australian constitutional law is the continuing tension it displays between common law and federal attitudes.

Therefore an interpretation must take cognisance of changing social factors. I am inclined to believe that court records do exist- I had no time to check this- in the case of Kavanagh v. the New South Wales Railways. It was in that case that it was found that injury occurring at sport during the lunch break was deemed to have arisen out of or in the course of employment. That decision was a reversal of a decision of the High Court in a previous case. I am inclined to believe that the decision in the Humes Pipes case or the Rocla Pipes case which gave the Commonwealth powers over corporations was a complete reversal of the decision in the previous Huddart v. Moorehead case because the court was applying itself to an interpretation of the changing social functions of our society. Howard goes further and points out on page 7:

There is much to be said for the point of view that it is no part of the judicial function in a federation, any more than anywhere else, to enter into the social and political motivations of legislation, and that to the extent to which the courts do so their standing in the eyes of the community is diminished, to the loss of all. Nevertheless, as applied to constitutional questions the theory of impartial legalism can be argued to nave the serious defect of being an abdication rather than an assumption of responsibility.

Suppose for example that the States complain that the Commonwealth is using its legislative powers in a manner which can be accommodated within the literal words of the Constitution but has the intention and effect of substantially diminishing the legislative powers of the States. The substantial issue thereby raised is whether the shift in the balance of legislative power should be allowed to take place, at all events in this fashion, or not. Strict legalism requires that the issue be decided by reference to the words of the Constitution, but on the facts given this approach begs the question, for it is common ground that the Commonwealth is acting with literal propriety. The court thereby decides an important question without reference to many factors which, to put it at its lowest, can reasonably be argued to be relevant. These include: whether it was originally intended that the Commonwealth should be able by unilateral action to bring about such a change otherwise than by formal amendment of the Constitution; if not, whether there is any such ground for departing from the original intention as factual changes in the relative responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States, or in the place of Australia in the international community, or in economic and social developments since federation; and whether as a general principle legislative powers can be used to attain ends unrelated to the purpose of the power.

Professor Howard further on states:

In 1964 in Lansell v. Lansell Menzies J. expressed an identical point of view in relation to the matrimonial causes power of Constitution s. SI (22): ‘It is right, in construing a grant of power, to ascertain as a starting point at least what the words used in the Constitution meant in 1901 when the Constitution was enacted -

This is the important point- but it is quite another thing to attempt to confine the legislative power of the Parliament to making the kind of laws then in existence’. He directly quoted Higgings 3. in the earlier case. In Fishwick v. Cleland in 1960 the whole court summed the matter up with brevity in a reference to ‘a constitution intended to endure and apply to changing conditions’.

My contention is that there are authorities to say that we have reached the stage mentioned by Mr Ellicott in his statement and by Senator Withers, who is another legal man, in his speech yesterday: The Senate cannot continue and the right thing is for the Government to go to the people. Mr Ellicott said that we must go to the people. In that suggestion he is giving to a third tier power to dismiss the House of Representatives as a government. What he suggests negates section 28 of the Constitution. There is no authority to do it. I would question why he says that the Constitution was interpreted properly in 1 90 1 when changing conditions did not result in the dismissal of the Government and why in 1975, because of our convention of presenting appropriation Bills in this place, the changing conditions should result in the dismissal of the Government. I would question seriously whether the words amend or reject’ should not be read into section 53.

I call to aid some other authorities, again by the courtesy of the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. D. C. Pearce in Statutory Interpretation points out that there are 3 rules to be applied in interpretation. He calls them the literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule. He points out also that the judiciary has a tendency to accept, although he thinks that they should be taken together in arriving at a decision, one of the criteria and apply it to the interpretation of a particular document which then becomes law. The most pertinent rule is the one he refers to as the golden rule, which is that it is permissible in interpretation to include in a document words to make it read sensibly and which make it realistic at the time. He quotes the words of Lord Wensleydale in the case of Grey v. Pearson, 6 HLC

  1. . the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, . . . so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.

The time available for debate is very short. We want to take a vote on this Legislation tonight and other honourable senators want to take part in the debate. However, in reply I want to point out what Pearce said. Under the law in Western Australia it is an offence to be in the vicinity of a prohibited area. There was a case of one person on such a charge. He was not in the vicinity of a prohibited area; he was in’ a prohibited area. There was nothing in the Act to say that it was an offence to be in a prohibited area. But the commonsense of the principle was that as it was an offence to be in the vicinity of a prohibited area therefore it must have been an offence to be in a prohibited area. The judiciary was justified in construing the words of the legislature to mean in a prohibited area or in the vicinity of a prohibited area’. We had a classical case in South Australia where it was a breach of by-law to dress or undress in a public toilet for the purpose of bathing. The prosecution had to prove that the reason the person who had wet bathers on and his dry clothes beside him was in a public toilet was in order to change after bathing. This was proof that could not be obtained, lt is necessary under a particular law to read meaning into words from time to time.

The question now before us is whether we have the right to give a certain House of Parliament the power to dismiss a government. Would the right of dismissal negate section 28 of the Constitution? If so would a judicial authority interpreting that section have to take that into consideration? May it not be that under present social conditions it is necessary for the interpreting authority to read into the provision that we do not have this power? This is one of the questions which I suppose the advisers to the Governor-General would have to decide if the Prime Minister decided to request the GovernorGeneral’s signature because the Senate had acted contrary to the Standing Orders.

I am unable to quote all the authorities because of the limited time available to me. I have quoted some as I said, not as an authority, but in the hope that it promotes some thought on the question of interpretation and justification of the actions of the Prime Minister. If he is to uphold the vote which the people gave him in 1972 and 1974, the Prime Minister has a responsibility to stick in government as long as possible.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– To the motion for the second reading of each of the Appropriation Bills, Senator Cotton has moved an amendment which I rise to support. Each amendment states that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the Government has agreed to submit itself to the judgment of the people. There is then set out the reasons why the Senate proposes that that course should be followed. It should be understood that the procedure which the Senate is following is the traditional procedure whereby in a bicameral legislature the second chamber brings about a general election at which the government goes to the people. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) of course has said that this is adopting a course which will lead to the Government’s being unable to govern. He said that it is adopting a course which delays Bills until the money runs out. But let there be no mistake that the Government is in control of those Bills. It is not the Opposition which will be responsible if that result, which the Government, if it chose, could avoid, comes about.

It is the accepted true fundamental convention of the Westminster system of responsible government that if a government cannot secure the approval of the Parliament of its Budget or money proposals with which to carry on the government, then the monarch is so advised and one of 2 consequences ensues: Either the monarch or the monarch ‘s representative calls upon another member of the Parliament to form a government in the belief that that new government will secure the approval of its Budget or monetary proposals; or the defeated Prime Minister is given the right to have an election and, in a democracy, to let the people make the final decision. That is the true position. Pending an election, Supply is afforded so that the election can take place. If the Prime Minister declines to take that course he is the person who is acting in the face of the traditions under which our system has at all times operated.

Let it be clear that the Opposition’s purpose is to secure an election. Once again the Prime Minister erroneously said that the purpose of the Senate was to change the Government in the House of Representatives. That is the ultimate hope which the Opposition in the Senate has. But our purpose is to let the people decide. When in a democracy should a democrat cavil at the people’s judgment? Why should not the people, if they so decide, heap upon an opposition which has chosen the wrong course, all the infamy which ought to come to people who make a judgment which is wrong and threaten the stability of the system? But if, on the other hand, the people of Australia are dissatisfied with the course which this country is taking, are dissatisfied with the performance of this Government and show by their vote that they want a change and that they want permanency and honesty in government, why should those in power at the moment deny to the people the opportunity of making that decision?

It is said that we are in a constitutional crisis. If there is a constitutional crisis, it is one which the Prime Minister is making. Our Constitution provides for the resolution of deadlocks. The founders of the Constitution laid down a procedure under which deadlocks could be overcome. That provision is contained in section 57 of the Constitution. It simply means that there is what is so obviously a sensible solution- a dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament. That is the proper way and it is the way that the Prime Minister, if he chooses, can follow.

Let us look at the short history. In may 1 974, the Government was returned with a majority in the House of Representatives but it was denied a majority in the Senate. That was the result of the vote of the people electing a House of Representatives on electorate boundaries within a State and electing a Senate on the boundaries of the State. The plain fact is that the 2 verdicts of the people were given at the one time. Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has a mandate more recent or more valid than the other House and a true deadlock has resulted. The deadlock in regard to the particular Bills which precipitated the double dissolution was solved. It was solved by a joint sitting of both Houses.

At the present time, doubtless anticipating the need for some similar solution, the Government has presented to the Senate no less than 22 Bills which the Senate has rejected twice. In regard to each one of those Bills, the Prime Minister could have a double dissolution. Why does he not have a double dissolution? Why does he put all these Bills before the Parliament, creating a situation which would resolve the deadlock once and for all and yet draw back from the ultimate decision? The real reason- and the people of Australia know it is the reason- is that the Prime Minister is frightened to face the people. The Government has not chosen the proper course if what it is contemplating and what is rumoured is correct. There is a constitutional, legitimate course open for this Government. The proper course should be to have a double dissolution. But if the Government does not choose to have a double dissolution, it may have an election for the House of Representatives. If it chooses, although senators will not take their seats in the Senate until next July, it is constitutionally empowered to have an election for half the Senate at the same time.

What I believe the whole pattern and tradition of our history and the requirements of our system will not permit is for the Prime Minister to hang on, to toughen it out. He should remember that the last figure in history who sought to toughen it out, with sorry results, was Richard Milhous Nixon. What the Government is showing is its underlying fear of the judgment of the people, the people who it must be recognised voted this Government into office with high hopes but who have seen in a very short time that these hopes, far from being realised, have been dashed. With a mixture of sorrow and indignation they see that the Government has become a disaster for Australia.

I simply say that the Constitution provides a remedy, and the Government is concealing from the people the fact that that remedy exists, and is thwarting the people’s judgment when it does not exercise that remedy. What the Senate is doing in the present circumstances is following a course which is followed because there are unprecedented circumstances. We have the unprecedented circumstances of a parliament in deadlock. We also have the circumstance of a government which may fairly be described as the worst government in our history. It is a government which is being increasingly exposed for its deceit, its misrepresentation and its evasion. It is being exposed for a murky record of attempts to subvert the Constitution and the laws of the land and for its destruction of the fabric of our democratic society. It has presided over inflation and unemployment unparallelled over a period in this country. What moral right do members of the Senate have to refrain from giving to the electors- the ordinary people of this country- the right to change the Government and to change the direction in which this country is moving when they have given to them the power to provide that opportunity?

I have never changed or flinched from my acceptance of the fact that when we were elected in 1974 those who were given the majority in the House of Representatives were given the mandate to govern and those who were given the numbers in this Senate with the power to qualify that power of judgment were given it for a purpose. The judgment of the people in 1974 was a qualified judgment. They can be given the opportunity once again to determine who is to govern in this country. Why should one man in the House of Representatives who simply happens for the time being to be the Prime Minister of this country say that he shall not allow the people to pass judgment upon him and his performance? What he fears, of course, is the wrath of the people. Mr Whitlam said in 1 972 in words we remember from his policy speech:

Are you prepared to maintain at the head of your affairs a coalition which has lurched into crisis after crisis, embarrassment piled upon embarrassment week after week? Will you accept another 3 years of waiting for next week’s crisis, next week’s blunder? Will you again entrust the nation’s economy to the men who deliberately, but needlessly, created Australia’s worst unemployment for 10 years?

The present Prime Minister created the criteria upon which he asked the previous Government to be judged. The same criteria he ought fairly after 3 years apply to himself and his Government’s performance.

The Senate has the undoubted power to reject or to delay the Bills which are before us. Contrary again to what the Prime Minister stated yesterday, the Senate does have a power, if it chooses to exercise it, to amend certain money Bills. It certainly has the power to reject or to defer. Recently, the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) said that the Senate did not have that power and suggested that the Governor-General might be asked to pass into law Bills which had passed only one chamber. When we received that surprising advice, the Opposition Parties sought legal opinion. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek to table and to have incorporated in Hansard the text of opinions from Mr S. E. K. Hulme, Q.C., of the Melbourne Bar and of Mr T. E. F. Hughes, Q.C., of the Sydney Bar, a former Attorney-General of the Commonwealth.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Senator Greenwood, have you shown the extract to the Minister?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-The Minister in charge of the Bill was speaking at the time. But I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard and tabled.

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

page 1231

QUESTION

OPINION

Two specific questions have been submitted for my opinion, viz:-

  1. . Has the Senate the power under the Australian Constitution or otherwise to reject Appropriation and Supply Bills which have been presented after passing the House of Representatives?
  2. Would the Prime Minister or the Attorney General act in accordance with proper constitutional practice if they were to advise the Governor General to give assent to any Bills which have not passed the Senate?

I am also asked to advise generally.

For the purpose of answering the specific questions I shall refer to the relevant provisions of the Constitution.

The legislative power of the Commonwealth is by section 1 of the Constitution “vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives”. Section 2 provides that the GovernorGeneral shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth and that he shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure but subject to the Constitution such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

Section 53 is as follows:-

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for service under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws’.

The terms of this section make it clear beyond all argument that so far as the letter of the Constitution is concerned the Senate may reject proposed laws for the appropriation of revenue or moneys or for the imposition of taxation. While the Senate may not originate or amend any such proposed laws it may request amendments to them; and it has within its armoury of legislation authority the ultimate weapon of rejection.

Section 58 defines the Governor-General’s duty, and the ambit of his discretion, in relation to the giving or withholding of the Royal Assent to any proposed law.

In the context of the questions submitted, the important point about section 58 is that according to its terms the Governor-General ‘s discretion to give or withhold assent to a proposed law or to reserve it for the Queen’s pleasure arises when and only when it has been passed by both Houses. Of course section 57, with its complex procedure for the resolution of deadlocks, is a qualification of that proposition; but that section is so framed as to demonstrate that no proposed law may be submitted to the Governor-General for the Royal Assent solely on the basis of its passage through the House of Representatives.

I answer question 1 and2 as follows:

  1. In my opinion, the Senate does have power under the Constitution to reject Appropriation and Supply bills which have been presented in that House after being passed by the House of Representatives.
  2. In my opinion, except in the situation provided for by section 57 of the Constitution, neither the Prime Minister nor the Attorney-General would act in accordance with the Constitution, or in accordance with constitutional practice if they were to advise the GovernorGeneral to assent to a Bill that had not been passed by the Senate. I express this view on the basis that any ministerial advice to the Governor-General to do that which under the Constitution His Excellency clearly has no power to do would transgress against constitutional propriety in both the legal and the conventional sense.

Generally:

The view has been advanced that the Senate’s power to reject an appropriation bill has atrophied and is a dead letter. In a legal sense this just cannot be correct: section 53, which, subject to its express limitations on the powers of the Senate in relation to ‘money’ and taxation bills, vests in the Senate ‘equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws’ is, notwithstanding the passage of 75 years since Federation, a subsisting provision in a living Constitution. Whether particular circumstances have arisen to justify the Senate’s exercise of the great power to reject an appropriation or supply bill against the will of the majority of the House of Representatives is a question for fine political judgment; it is in no sense an issue involving any doubt as to the Senate ‘s power under the Constitution.

I expressly refrain from offering any observations about matters involving political judgment because to venture to do so would trespass beyond the limits of the legal questions submitted to me.

T.E. F.HUGHES

Chambers, 22nd September 1975.

THE LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA

– re-

SECTION 53 OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION

OPINION

  1. . I am asked to advise firstly on the following question:
  2. Has the Senate power under the Constitution to reject Appropriation and Supply Bills?’

Until recently, one would have answered that question solely by reference to the terms of the Constitution. I am instructed, however, that in the last day or so the Attorney-General has made the following statement:

The Attorney-General said that the Senate had never rejected a money Bill in 75 years of Federation. The power had atrophied and become a dead letter’.

Accordingly I am asked also to deal with the further question whether, if the Constitution itself did give the Senate such power, that power can be and has been lost by non-use. 2.I should make it plain that I am not concerned with any question as to the propriety of the use of the power on any particular occasion; am not concerned with the question whether any convention exists as to the use of the power. I am concerned with the anterior question, whether there is legal power to reject Appropriation or Supply Bills for the ordinary annual services of the Government (which Bills I will for convenience call ‘ Money Bills ‘).

  1. The relevant provisions of the Constitution are as follows:
  2. . The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called ‘The Parliament’, or ‘The Parliament of the Commonwealth ‘.
  3. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

  1. The proposed law which appropriates revenue or money for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation’.
  2. Firstly, on pure principle. The question put to me, like the Attorney-General’s statement, is couched in terms of power to reject, as if the power to reject were something distinct from the power, as one of the two legislative chambers to consider and vote on a Bill- for the Attorney-General’s statement accepts that the Senate has considered and voted on all Money Bills since Federation. 1 confess my total inability to comprehend a position that a legislative chamber has power to consider and to vote on a Bill, but that it may not reject it. To say that the Senate cannot reject, is fundamentally to say that no Senator may vote against: for if one Senator may vote against, so may more than one. And if each Senator remains free to vote as he chooses, how can the position be prevented of a majority of Senators voting against? And that constitutes rejection of the Bill by the Senate. Certainly no Court would interfere in the casting of a vote by a member of either chamber. If there is power in the Senate to vote on a Bill, there is power in each Senator to vote for or against it. That is involved in there being a power to vote. The existence of the power to vote necessarily involves the existence of a power to reject. There cannot be a power to vote, unless there is a power to vote against.
  3. In my clear opinion the constitutional position is beyond doubt or argument, that the Senate is legally entitled to reject a money bill. The Constitution so provides. A Bill, to become an Act, requires an exercise of the legislative power of the Commonwealth. That power is vested ‘in a Federal Parliament’: section 1 of the Constitution. That Federal Parliament consists of the Queen, the Senate, and the House of Representatives: section 1. It follows that on the terms of the Constitution the Bill becomes an Act only if all three components of the Parliament assent. It follows equally, that each chamber can exercise its share of the general legislative power given to it by Section I , save only to the extent that the Constitution imposes some particular limit. Section 53 does impose certain particular limits. It provides that Money Bills shall not originate in the Senate. Only in the House of Representatives may a Money Bill originate. The Senate may not amend a Money Bill (though it is given power to request amendments). Subject to those limitations, and those limitations only, the Senate has in relation to a Money Bill all the powers it has in relation to any other Bill. Section 53 says expressly:

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws’.

That ‘equal power’ includes power to reject.

  1. I have said that the matter is transparently clear. I am not aware of any commentator having ever doubted it. I quote from the earliest and the most recent of the commentaries.

On the other hand, in the case of a bill which the Senate may not amend, the House of Representatives alone is responsible for the form of the measure; the Senate cannot strike out or alter a word of it, but can only suggest that the House of Representatives should do so. If that House declines to make the suggested amendment, the Senate is face to face with the responsibility of either passing the bill as it stands or rejecting it as it stands ‘.

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

Quick and Garran ‘The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth’ ( 1901) pp. 671, 673 (my emphasis).

This part of s. 53, therefore, gives recognition to the superior authority of the government in relation to the revenue policy to the extent that the second chamber is not authorised to make any amendments to (although it may reject) Bills of the categories specified ‘.

Lumb and Ryan ‘The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Annotated’ (1st edn. 1974) at p. 199. (My emphasis).

  1. The second aspect of this question, is whether, if the terms of the Constitution do give to the Senate power to reject a Money Bill, that power ‘has atrophied and become a dead letter’. To ‘atrophy’ says the Oxford English Dictionary, is to waste away through imperfect nourishment. It is difficult to see how one would nourish a legislative power, perfectly or imperfectly. I take the Attorney-General to use atrophied’ in a new sense, referring to a loss of power through non-use.
  2. It is not easy to see how a power to reject could be lost through non-use. I have said that every Money Bill since Federation has gone to the Senate for consideration by it. The Senate has voted on each such Bill. So the power to consider and vote cannot have become atrophied. The proposition is, therefore, that the Bill must go to the Senate, and be considered by the Senate, and be voted on by the Senate: but that the Senate, like the girl in ‘Oklahoma’, ‘jist cain say No ‘. As I said at the outset, I am unable to comprehend the concept of a legislative chamber having a power to consider, and a power to vote, but not a power to reject. If a Senator seeks to vote against, is his vote to be rejected? If not, how can the Senate be prevented from rejecting a Bill, if that is how the majority of Senators vote?
  3. There is of course a more fundamental difficulty in the way of the suggestion of atrophy by disuse. It is, quite simply, constitutional nonsense to say that where the terms of the Constitution put power in some entity, non-use can take it away. From 1920 until the present time the Commonwealth’s power to establish an Inter-State Commission (c.f. section 101 of the Constitution) has not been used. From 1901 to 1959 the Commonwealth did not use its power to make laws with respect to marriage, divorce, and matrimonial causes (c.f. section 5 1 (xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution). Examples could be multiplied. I have never ever heard it suggested that these powers were in danger of being lost by continued non-use. The plain fact is that the doctrine of atrophification through non-use does not exist. I have not previously heard of any commentator suggesting that it does.
  4. The second question put to me is:

Would the Prime Minister be acting in accordance with proper constitutional practice if he advised the GovernorGeneral to give assent to a Bill which has not passed the Senate?’

I find it difficult indeed to conceive of a Primate Minister giving such advice, for in my opinion the giving pf such advice would constitute the utmost possible constitutional impropriety on the most fundamental matter. It would constitute the giving of advice that the Governor-General should act on the basis that portion of the legislative power of the Commonwealth lay not in the Parliament (where the Constitution vests it), but somewhere else, namely in a combination, unknown to the Constitution, of the House of Representatives and the Governor-General. On this matter the Constitution is clear, and the High Court has spoken clearly:

Section 1 positively vests the legislative power of the Commonwealth in the Parliament of the Commonwealth.’

The Queen v Kirby: ex parte the Boiler-Makers Society of Australia (1956) 94 C.L.R. 254 per Dixon C. J., Mctiernan, Fullagaor, and Kitto JJ. at p. 275.

The contemplated advice would be advice to the GovernorGeneral to join in an act constituting a denial of the authority of the Constitution and of the High Court, and the establishment of an authority unknown to and contrary to the Constitution. The associations of the word are regrettably dramatic, but the fact remains that to attempt to take legislative power away from the Parliament, and to vest it in some other body, all contrary to the express terms of the Constitution, would amount to what could only be called an act of revolution: albeit a revolution which would be likely to be fought in the High Court, not at the barricades. 11.I would expect a Governor-General to whom such advice was given, to take the very unusual but not unprecedented step of obtaining his own advice. 1 would expect that advice to be, that the advice given to him by the Prime Minister was so fundamentally improper that if the Prime Minister persisted in tendering it then the Governor-General must take the further step, again very unusual but not unprecedented, of refusing to accept it, and resolving the impasse so created by withdrawing the Prime Minister’s commission. An election would necessarily follow. In short, the giving of such advice by the Prime Minister would in my opinion be completely and quite obviously improper.

  1. As the Attorney-General’s statement refers to the events of 1909 to 191 1 in the United Kingdom, I add that although the propriety of the rejection of the 1909 Budget by the House of Lords was much discussed, to my knowledge no one ever suggested that that rejection was legally ineffective, or that it would be proper to present the Bill for the Royal assent until the House of Lords had in fact passed it. And the Australian Senate, a fully elected body, has never been regarded us being as limited in its powers in relation to Money Bills as is the non-elective House of Lords.

S.E. K. HULME

Owen Dixon Chambers. 22nd September 1975

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It is quite clear also from other authorities that the Senate has this power. Those learned authors of the annotated notes to our Constitution, Sir John Quick and Sir Robert Garran, have said that the Senate has coordinate power with the House of Representatives to pass all Bills or to reject all Bills. Its right of veto is as unqualified as its right of assent. The real question is: When should the Senate exercise this power? Mr Fraser, in a speech which ought to be regarded as historic for its statement of the competing considerations, said last Sunday that there were 2 competing principles: It was not a conflict between expediency and principle as some would like to portray it; it truly is a conflict between 2 important principles. One principle is the principle of continuity in government, the right of a government which has a majority in the lower House in the ordinary course of events to run its full time. That was what Mr Fraser has always said and those who know him know that it is a view which he holds fervently as a sound and important principle of our constitutional practice, a principle which he declared as one on which he places very great weight. He said:

Reasonable continuity of government depends on observance of the principle that, in the normal course of events, the government supported by the lower House is entitled to Supply, our system of government would not work if it were not the case.

Then he said that there was a competing principle. It was the principle which any Opposition Party which had power in one chamber had to the people of Australia. He set out so much of what was damaging to this country in the performance of this Government. He said:

The incompetence, the damage, the failures of the worst government in our history cannot be ignored. The conditions of Australia must be weighed in the balance against the principle of continuity of government.

That need to weigh these 2 principles and to make a decision responsibly is surely the only way in which the Senate can view the exercise of this immense power which it has. Mr Acting Deputy President, may I say that this same way of approaching the matter was the approach of the Australian Labor Party in Opposition. It was the approach which was adopted in 1 970 by the Labor Party, as the record discloses. It was accepted by them, although they did not like it, in 1974 when they went to the people and received that qualified victory to which I have referred. It still is the same principle today. What is that principle? The former Senator Murphy as the Leader of the Government in the Senate expressed it in these words:

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

What did Mr Whitlam say? He said, in the debate on the same Bill in the House of Representatives:

This Bill will be defeated in another place. The Government should then resign.

Mr Odgers, our Clerk of the Senate, in a work which most students of politics in this place acknowledge has likewise written:

The only restrictions on the exercise by the Senate of its financial powers are the restraint which it traditionally exercises and the electoral sanction. A Senate which used its powers capriciously could suffer only one fate- punishment at the ballot box. But a Senate, which correctly interprets the mood of the electorate, has a quite remarkable annual opportunity- by refusing to join in the grant of Supply -to bring about the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the resignation of the Government which that House virtually appoints.

There is therefore no reason for the Government now to claim that this is a convention which is completely inviolable. In earlier times the Labor Party had relied upon that power and had sought to use it.

The only reason why today it regards a practice of sound reason that is ordinarily applicable as not being capable of being applied now is the fear which it has that the people will subject it to a judgment which it does not want. Indeed, in the Budget of 1970 Mr Whitlam himself proposed the taking of the same action as we are now taking and that was at a time when the Gorton Government had been in office for barely 10 months. What did Mr Whitlam say? In the course of a Budget debate in the House of Representatives he said:

Let us take this Budget and the Government, which produced it to the people themselves. The Parliament has already voted Supply to the end of November. By that time, there can bc an election for both Houses. An election therefore would cause no disruption. The only thing that will cause disruption is the continuance of this Government.

This man, who is the Prime Minister today, denies the words of the policy and the course which he proposed in 1970.

Senator Young:

– Who said that?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-That was said by the Prime Minister of today when he was the Leader of the Opposition. There is no mistaking what he was intending because at the time he said it he also said:

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

He went on to say:

We all know that in British Parliaments … the tradition is that if a money Bill is defeated … the government goes to the people to seek their endorsement of its policies.

There is humbug in the sorts of statements which are emanating from the Government today because it can be shown by the records to have adopted a precisely opposite course when it was in Opposition. There is no principle involved; it is basically this fundamental question in a democracy: Shall the people have an opportunity to judge and shall we abide by the decision of those who are the masters of us all?

The fact that the power to withhold Supply has seldom been used is fairly simply explained. On very few occasions has a Federal Government been faced with a totally hostile Senate. The present unprecedented circumstances include, as I have indicated, the entirely unexpected outcome of a double dissolution electionand only three of those have happened in our history- where a government was returned without control of the Senate. That has never happened before. Is it any wonder that in the present unprecedented circumstances we are faced with unusual courses.

It is absolutely pointless to use arguments about the House of Lords because it was the Parliament Act of 1 9 1 1 in England which expressly took away the power of the House of Lords to reject money Bills. The fact that the House of Lords cannot interfere with money Bills today does not rest upon convention; it rests upon an Act of Parliament of 1911. The practice of the House of Lords which had been exercised before that date has been curtailed by law and not by convention. Until a constitutional amendment like the Parliament Act is enacted in some form in Australia the English analogy just is not applicable. Indeed, arguments likening the Senate to the House of Lords are absurd. The Senate is responsible to the electorate; the House of Lords has always been hereditary. Section 49 of the Constitution gives to this Senate the powers, privileges and immunities not of the House of Lords but of the House of Commons. Moreover the Senate is as democratically elected as is the House of Representatives.

Arguments which are derived from the days when upper Houses were hereditary, were property based or were elected from a restricted franchise have no relevance. The often quoted dictum of Sir Isaac Isaacs in 1947 that the Legislative Council of Victoria erred in withholding Supply in 1 947 was directed towards the impropriety of a House elected on a restricted franchise frustrating the will of a House elected on adult franchise. It has absolutely no relevance to the present circumstances. Indeed, in 1952 in the State of Victoria the upper House, which at that time was partly elected on a restricted franchise but which was controlled by the Australian Labor Party, used its powers in the Legislative Council to take to the people a government of a different colour. The justification for what the Labor Party then did was that it believed that there ought to be an election because the people would vote it in. It was correct because the people did vote into office the first Labor Party government which had an absolute majority in Victoria ‘s history.

It ought not to be overlooked that a refusal by the Senate to grant the money to enable the Government to govern must lead to an election. There can be no doubt that no matter how much the Prime Minister procrastinates there must be an election. I venture to suggest that the longer he delays the greater will be the judgment inflicted upon him because it is quite clear that if the Government is going to throw this country into greater chaos than it already has been subjected to then the people’s judgment will be a judgment which is thoroughly justified.

One may wonder why it is that there is this curious reluctance to face an election. I have stressed that we have a deadlocked situation in the Parliament. The Government lacks a majority in this chamber. For the good fortune of Australia, for stability in government and for the ability to pursue policies either Party ought to be given the opportunity to be given a mandate which will enable that result to occur. It seems to me that the Prime Minister virtually has a vested interest, particularly when he talks about holding a Senate election at this stage when it is not necessary to do so until some time towards the middle of next year, in maintaining the chaos which is currently existing as a result of his Government’s indecisions and inabilities rather than giving the people an opportunity of deciding which of the two competing Parties should be able to govern in this country.

Where there are 2 democratically representative chambers, each elected at the same time but existing in constant conflict, why should the people not be given the opportunity to resolve that conflict? Normally there are no fundamental difficulties. The majority in the lower House may call an election at any time. There are few governments in our history which have lasted the full 3 years that the Constitution says is the absolute limit upon their existence. Most governments last for a lesser time and some governments last for a much shorter time. The fact is that when things are going well a Prime Minister may seek the vindication of the people. When the opportunity and the right exist and when things are going badly for the country why should the people not be given the opportunity of passing their judgment upon whether the Government should continue?

There is much which could be said on the question of whether the Senate is acting in accordance with convention. I know, and I seem to recall Senator Cavanagh adverting to it in what he has had to say, that there has been some correspondence running in the newspapers and there have been commentaries expressed on television by persons who I believe are using their position as professors of law to express their own political opinion. 1 know that there were professors of law who last week advanced their opinions, but they certainly advanced no proposition of law. Professor Howard, one of the signatories, concealed from the newspapers and from those who would listen to him on radio the fact that he is currently on the payroll of this Government at $35,000 a year. It ought to be a relevant consideration so that people may assess whether what he is saying may in some way be affected by the interests which he has. They are persons, of course, who have a perfect right to express their view as any citizen in this country has a right to express his view, but they ought not to misuse the standing which their professional office gives them. What it has led to has been the expression of other opinions which indicate that the Professor’s view is essentially a political view.

I notice that there was an article, published in the newspapers today, written by Professor Lane who is a professor of law at Sydney University. I think it is useful to refer to that article. It read:

The Senate had the power to do so; there was no convention preventing it using that power and that was that.

The leading writers in the field accept the refusal of Supply by an Australian Senate as machinery to bring a Government to the people,’ he said, supporting his statements with the views of eminent constitutionalists of the past, and an odd couple- Mr Whitlam and the former Senator Murphy -from the present.

For emphasis, he added: ‘The refusal of Supply by a Senate is an accepted way of bringing a Government to the people- not half the Senate but the Government’.

Professor Francis West of the Australian National University made what I think is a salutary remark when he said:

When professors of law contend that while the Senate has explicit power to refuse Supply, it should seldom if ever exercise that power, they are offering a political judgment, not a legal one. They say, with Sir Isaac Isaacs, of the Victorian upper House’s rejection of Supply in 1947, that rejection is a grave blow to democracy. They add that it would make stable government impossible. Since Victorian democracy and stable government still flourish, perhaps one should conclude that good lawyers make bad prophets.

I have heard many arguments advanced as to why the Senate should not take the course it is taking. They are essentially political judgments and political judgments will be tested by those who in a democracy are the ultimate judges. This is what we in the Opposition are seeking to achieve by the course which we are following. We offer this amendment so that the Government will know that the Appropriation Bills will not be debated and passed by this chamber until such time as the Government has had an election. We believe that the Opposition has no choice. There are 2 competing principles of great validity but we have reached the stage where in the view that the Opposition holds as to the fate of this country if it continues under the present Government, we should use our power responsibly. We should use it not to change the Government by the power which we have in this place but to give to the ultimate judges the right to decide, and if there is an element of reiteration in that point I hope it will be reiterated throughout the country that what is being done is affording the people the opportunity to judge and what Mr Whitlam is doing is frustrating that opportunity being given to the people. That is the indelible issue which is involved in the Senate’s position at the moment.

We seek to use the power vested in us by the Constitution to delay the passage of the Government’s money Bills through the Senate until the Parliament goes to the people. Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition and we hope that when that election takes place, as it must, the verdict that the people give will be a verdict which gives either to the present Government a continuing mandate or to the Opposition Parties a mandate to ensure stability in government because when that election is fought the basic and fundamental issue upon which people must make their vote is what sort of government they want in this country. At that time the considerations which I have been urging today and which others will be raising in the course of the next few weeks will become relatively unimportant because, as everyone will appreciate, when the election is on it is the choice of government which becomes paramount. It is that opportunity which we are seeking to give by our amendment.

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

– The proposition with which we are dealing today is a dangerous proposition which has been introduced in dangerous times. The debate which is taking place here and which will continue outside this Parliament is a debate which will produce a great deal of emotion and already has produced a great deal of emotion. I shall try as best I can not to display the emotion which I feel about this subject. The proposal which is being put by the Opposition is, in effect, that the Government which was elected twice within the last 3 years, should be subjected to a third election within 3 years. This is being done in dangerous times because it is being done at a time of world wide economic depression and, without engaging in debate as to what extent, if any, this Government is responsible for any inflation or unemployment which occurs in this country, the fact remains that throughout the whole of the capitalist world there is at present massive inflation and unemployment.

These are dangerous times, dangerous periods in history which have produced dangerous and damaging consequences. One needs only to look back at the last great depression which began in 1929 to see how, as a result of that great depression and how as a result of the fact that certain persons took advantage of the disorders which were created by that depression to push their own narrow interests, democracy was destroyed in a great many countries throughout Europe. I believe that we are in a similar international situation and for the first time, except for the brief emergence of the New Guard in New South Wales in 193 1 , we in Australia have been placed in a similar position where what is under threat is the future of the democratic system.

I do not propose to engaged in debate about the legalities of the Constitution. I have no opinions from learned counsel or professors of law but I do put to the Senate that the position at present is that in December 1972 and again in May 1974 the Australian people elected a Labour government. They have found since they elected that Labor Government in 1972 and reelected it in 1974 that constantly that Government has been unable to introduce major parts of its program, that most of the things which it was elected to do it has been unable to do and has constantly had to conduct its business in an atmosphere of crisis and under the threat of being driven from office, a situation which is intolerable at the best of times and especially damaging in the situation in which we find ourselves at present.

It has been said before- I will say it againthat democracy is a very fragile plant. There are not many countries where the democratic representative parliamentary system survives and only recently we have seen how, in a number of countries with long traditions of the democratic parliamentary system, that system has been destroyed. For example, it has happened in Chile which, despite some of the humorous remarks that have been made about that country by people sitting opposite, is not a banana republic but a country with a long constitutional democratic history. One of the parties which was represented in the Congress of that country, a fraternal party of ours in the Socialist Internationale, the Radical Party, had over 125 years of continuous representation in the Parliament of Chile, but that Parliament has been destroyed. In the neighbouring countries of Argentina and Uruguay, particularly Uruguay which is a country with a model social services system- again, no banana republic- a country whose system of government was based on a parliamentary system with a most complex system of proportional representation, democracy has been destroyed. The same thing happened in the 1930s when democracy was destroyed in Germany, Austria and Spain. I do not believe that I am being unduly dramatic when I say that the atmosphere of Berlin in 1 933 is being recreated in Australia now. The atmosphere has been generated by those who are prepared to destroy the democratic system in order to carry out the behests of the people whom they represent.

I am not one of those who have ever said that the people who sit opposite us are born to rule. They are the lupine elements from the petty bourgeoisie- the life underwriters, dentists, car salesmen and realtors. They are not born to rule, but they represent people who elected them. They represent the people who were celebrating yesterday at the Sydney Stock Exchange when Mr Connor was removed from his position as Minister for Minerals and Energy. Senators opposite are prepared to carry out the behests of their electors, in the same way as Pinochet and the gangsters in Chile carried out the behests of their supporters when they destroyed the Government of Chile and murdered the President of Chile.

What is contained in the amendment? It is that because of the letter of the Constitution the people of Australia should not be entitled to have the Government which they have twice elected within 3 years. I do not want to speak at length on this subject. I want to say only a few things about it. I want to warn senators opposite of what they are doing. I believe they are taking a very grave risk. I think it can fairly be said that in years to come historians will say that there is blood on the hands of those sitting opposite today. I say that quite literally. There will be blood on their hands. They are destroying something which was built up by a very painful process in this country. I refer to the traditions which we inherited from Europe, including the tradition of the election of parliamentary government. One of the traditions is that when a government is elected for a term it sees out that term. The Opposition is attempting to destroy that tradition. It is attempting to do so by the most despicable means- by departing from the principle that a person who is appointed to fill a vacancy caused by the death of a senator shall be a member of the party of which the deceased person was a member.

How was the Opposition’s resolution carried last night? Because our colleague Senator Milliner had died. The Queensland Government did not have the honesty or decency to replace him with a member of the Australian Labor Party of which he was a member. Last night the Opposition’s resolution would not have been carried if Senator Milliner had been living or if senators opposite had acted with one skerrick of decency or one skerrick of respect for the democratic traditions of this country. They did not.

They are committed to the destruction of the system of which they set themselves up as the exponents. A former Attorney-General has blackguarded the High Court and one of its members, Mr Justice Murphy. The Government has never blackguarded the Chief Justice, a former Attorney-General, who was a member of one of the Opposition parties. He has also dealt with matters relating to the representation of the Territories. We have never blackguarded him. Senators opposite blackguarded our former colleague who is now a member of the High Court. The Governor of Queensland has used his high office to denigrate the Australian Government in the most unpardonable way. There was not one word of reproach from the Opposition.

What is the problem with which we are faced? I have seen the sheepish looks on some of these great democrats on the other side. I have seen how they voted. They have voted the same way as the Centre Party and the Liberals voted for the enabling Act which made Hitler the Chancellor of Germany. That is what senators opposite did. That is what they would do if they were in Germany. They would be very apologetic about it, but they would do it just the same. I have seen them vote for motions to bring down a democratically elected government, while people on this side have argued that democracy should be preserved. We have often had a difficult task because there are people in this community who are prepared to reject the system. Nobody could agree more with senators opposite than I do when they speak of the capitalist system. When they talk about the parliamentary system, I do not agree with them. How can we now go to working people throughout this country, some of whom are looking for an excuse to cause trouble, and say: ‘You must abide by representational democracy and the parliamentary system’ when they will be able to say: ‘Whitlam won 2 elections in 18 months and we have seen what happens’.

The Queen ‘s representative, the Governor of Queensland, has absolutely prostituted his office. The Parliament of Queensland has appointed to this Parliament a scandalous wretch, to replace a man who had been elected by the people of that State. Every convention- I do not use the word in any narrow legal sense- which it is necessary to have to maintain a democratic system has been flouted. Senators opposite are doing this in dangerous times. They are doing this in the era of plastic bombs and guns in the street. During the last few years in Northern Ireland a substantial number of people decided that elections were a charade. In that province a number of people took certain steps. I predict- in predicting it, I deplore it- the steps which are being taken now will produce precisely the same result in Australia. This Government has been trying to maintain the economy of this country on an even keel, by advocating wage indexation and by restraint in public expenditure. If we are removed, will Opposition members be able to convince the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union or the Miners Federation to restrain their wage demands? Why should the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union or the Miners Federation restrain their wage demands if they know that they are living in a society in which anything goes, in which it is the ruthless who -

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

– It is the law of the jungle.

Senator WHEELDON:

-As Senator Douglas McClelland said, it is the law of the jungle. Where that law prevails, why should they restrain themselves? I see Senator Chaney sitting there in all his sheepish righteousness. But if he and his colleagues are elected, it is they who will have to talk to the coalminers and to the workers in the building industry and in the metal trades industry. I think I can predict now the exact answer. Their stupid narrow approach to this question will not only destroy this political system but will also hasten the destruction of the economic system, which is their primary reason for being in politics.

These are the warnings that I give them. I do not believe that this matter will be resolved by quoting opinions from the honourable T. E. F. Hughes, Q.C., or any professors of law, whatever side they might take. This question must be resolved on the reaction of the people to what has happened and to what is happening at present. The reaction of a substantial number of Australians will be that the parliamentary system is a farce. Just like the Provisional IRA, the Black Panthers and a number of organisations which are to be found in almost all countries, apart from those which adhere strictly to the democratic system- countries which have Labour governments such as the Netherlands, Sweden, the rest of Scandinavia, West Germany and Austria- there is violence at present. The same sort of situation will be created here by an Opposition whose members are so anxious to get back into their Commonwealth cars, grab the fruits of office and be taken to lunch by the Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange that they are prepared to risk the destruction of the whole system, because they are risking the destruction of the system.

They will have the problem of trying to keep the economy running when the unions say, as Senator Douglas McClelland said: ‘This is the law of the jungle. If you live in the jungle you act as if you live in the jungle ‘. At the same time they are opening the doors to the total destruction of the democratic system, in the same way as Franco destroyed the democratic system in Spain in 1936. This is what they are doing. This- not some issue about who borrowed money from whom- is what is facing the Australian people at the present time. These are the questions which shortly, in one way or another, the Australian people will answer, and on that answer depends the future of this country.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I want to speak for only a few minutes because I had something to say yesterday about the general principle of what the Opposition is doing. I do not want really to clash with Senator Greenwood in his claim for virtue and honesty which he made in this House. All I can say is that I left half way through because that was all I could take of the claim. But I must say that it is evident to most members of Parliament that the public reaction is antagonistic to the Opposition in an overwhelming manner and the public reaction in all forms of the media around Australia means that the Opposition is committing political suicide on this course. That is said easily, but it is not the main thing that I want to say at the end of the week. The public knows that the Opposition will create extreme hardship in the community, and the Opposition cannot turn around the meaning of its action and blame the Government. It is clear to the public that the Opposition has taken this action and it is responsible for the consequences. Extreme hardship is confronting Australians, who already are ringing their bank managers to see if they have enough savings to tide them through the festive season. I raise this point: This is the first Party that has ever tried to cancel Christmas. Mr Fraser will be the first political leader in Australia to go down as the leader who tried to cancel Christmas.

I predict that, because of overwhelming public reaction within 24 hours of the Opposition’s move, the Opposition will give in. I noticed this morning that the media had started already on this, despite some of the favourable or semifavourable editorials. There was a significant argument in the Melbourne Age this morning which said that if the Opposition gets half the Senate it should respond by passing Supply and I know what the reaction is going to be. I forecast that within 3 weeks this Budget will be passed completely in the Senate because public pressure will be overwhelming in one week’s time. I appeal to the Opposition. It has not taken this position from any stance of principle. In fact, Senator Greenwood took some time to say that there was no principle involved. His words on this issue will be clear in Hansard. The Opposition has taken a pragmatic move for the sake, as Senator Wheeldon has said, of grabbing the fruits of office. Having done that, surely therefore the Opposition will be subject to the pragmatic reaction of the public. The Opposition is not standing on principle; it is standing simply on the numbers, and the numbers are not with them. I forecast that within 3 weeks the Opposition will reverse its decision.

But I say this: The Opposition will make it easier for itself, it will defuse the issue and remove a tremendous amount of the disquiet that has entered thousands of Australian homes, if it acts quickly. I know that it is too much to expect a reversal of this vote today, but I expect that the matter will come up in the Senate next week and I hope that by then common sense will pervade the Opposition and that it will pass what it will pass inevitably in any case. In making this appeal I say that it would be good for all Australians to approach the Opposition with a single minded slogan: ‘Don’t cancel Christmas’.

Senator GREENWOOD ( Victoria)-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented and 1 claim the right to be heard. I wish Senator Steele Hall would tell the truth. I did not say that no issue of principle was involved. I said- and I want it corrected in the record simply so that it cannot be used on the basis that Senator Steele Hall’s remark went unchallenged- that the issue was a decision between 2 principles, the principle of continuity in government, which is a sound principle, and the other principle that where you have the power then you have got to think of the country and what is in the country’s interests. That is the difficult conflict which the Opposition had to decide, and it is quite wrong to say that I said that no principle was involved. That is a misrepresentation.

Question put-

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

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1241

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1975-76

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 October on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– Having discussed this matter earlier when I spoke during the cognate debate and having had my amendments circulated, on behalf of the Opposition I formally move:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert: this Bill be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people, the Senate being of the opinion that the Prime Minister and his Government no longer have the trust and confidence of the Australian people because of-

the continuing incompetence, evasion, deceit and duplicity of the Prime Minister and his Ministers as exemplified in the overseas loan scandal which was an attempt by the Government to subvert the Constitution, to by-pass Parliament and to evade its responsibilities to the States and the Loan Council;

the Prime Minister’s failure to maintain proper control over the activities of his Ministers and Government to the detriment of the Australian nation and people; and

the continuing mismanagement of the Australian economy by the Prime Minister and this Government with policies which have caused a lack of confidence in this nation’s potential and created inflation and unemployment not experienced for 40 years. ‘

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the motion seconded?

Senator Greenwood:

– I second the motion.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That Appropriation Bill (No. 2), as amended, be agreed to.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

In division:

AYES

NOES

Senator WRIGHT:

- Mr President, you put the question that Appropriation Bill (No. 2), as amended, be agreed to. I beg to suggest that the proper question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question before the Chair is:

That the motion for the second reading, as amended, be agreed to.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1243

APPROPRIATION BILLS

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That, under standing order 336, a message be sent to the House of Representatives communicating to that House the resolutions agreed to by the Senate on 16 October 1975 in connection with the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No.1) 1975-76 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76.

page 1243

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! In conformity with the sessional orders relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 5.2 p.m.

page 1244

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Australian Broadcasting Commission: London and New York Offices (Question No. 781)

Senator Rae:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the actual annual cost, over the last 10 years, of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s London and New York offices.
  2. Could the Minister provide a detailed break-down of the figures.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The annual cost over the last 10 years of the London and New York offices is as follows:
  1. A further breakdown of costs beyond the categories Salaries’ and ‘Expenses’ is not readily available.

Government Cars (Question No. 796)

Senator Gietzelt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

What was, or is the cost to the Australian Government of providing motor vehicle transport to the following honourable members:

B. M. Snedden, Q.C., for the duration of his leadership of the aforementioned party;

b) J. M. Fraser, the present Leader of the Liberal Party; and

P. R. Lynch from December 1 972.

Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my answer to House of Representatives Question No. 2465 (Hansard, 1 October 1975, pages 1583-1584).

Department of Environment: Unpublished Documents (Question No. 859)

Senator Rae:

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

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

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 885 (Senate Hansard, page 930 of 2 October 1975).

Department of Education: Unpublished Documents (Question No. 876)

Senator Rae:

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

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

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

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the answer to Parliamentary Question No. 885, (Hansard, 2 October 1975, page 930).

Department of Administrative Services: Unpublished Documents (Question No. 879)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

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

Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the reply by the Prime Minister to Senate Question No. 885 (Hansard, 7 October 1975, page 952).

Australian Research Grants Committee: Funds

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On 30 September 1 975, Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs the following question, without notice:

Has the Minister received, or is he aware of, strong protests from eminent and responsible leaders of the 3 Victorian universities against the 66 per cent reduction in research funds provided in the Budget? ls this the most severe Budget cut affecting any group in the Australian community? Will it lead to widespread retrenchment of research projects and to the breakup of irreplaceable research teams? Does it not add to the criticism contained in the 1 974 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examiners’ study of the low level of government support in Australia for research in universities and other institutions? Does the Government propose to review this decision and, if so, to what extent?

The Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Representations relating to Australian Research Grants Committee funds have been received from people in the 3 Victorian universities and from many other people in Australia. As a result of these representations the amount available for 1976 grants has been reconsidered and increased from $3.0m to $7.2m. This increase should avoid the consequences to which the honourable senator referred.

Australian Legal Aid Office

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

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

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

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

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19751016_senate_29_s66/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant