Senate
30 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 1595

PETITIONS

Fraser Island

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from. 9 citizens of Australia:

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:

That the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and

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.

Petition received and read.

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 40 citizens of Australia:

To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we are fearful that any further delay by the Senate of the Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills will bring Australia into a constitutional, economic and social crisis, leaving indelible scars on our democratic institutions.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should proceed forthwith to allow passage of these Bills so that the government, legitimately formed by a majority of the members of the people’s House (the House of Representatives) may proceed with its administration without further disruption.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 6 1 citizens of Australia:

To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we are fearful that any further delay by the Senate of the Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills will bring Australia into a constitutional, economic and social crisis, leaving indelible scars on our democratic institutions.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should proceed forthwith to allow passage of these Bills so that the government, legitimately formed by a majority of the members of the peoples’ House (the House of Representatives) may proceed with its administration without further disruption.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator KEEFFE:

– I present the following petitions from 1 82 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully shows that we protest at the Opposition’s campaign to force a General Election by their decision to prevent the passage of Supply Bills.

Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Opposition will allow the passage of the Supply Bills and cease their campaign for a General Election forthwith.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation.

Income Tax

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

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 Mulvihill.

Petition received.

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

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

That we are fearful that any further delay by the Senate of the Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills will bring Australia into a constitutional, economic and social crisis, leaving indelible scars on our democratic institutions.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should proceed forthwith to allow passage of these Bills so that the government, legitimately formed by a majority of the members of the peoples’ House (the House of Representatives) may proceed with its administration without further disruption.

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

Petition received.

page 1596

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1596

QUESTION

SUPPLY FUNDS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government representing the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer regularly supply figures showing the expended and unexpended percentages of supply money granted by Parliament for the 5 months from July to November? Have the figures been published and if not, why not? Do the figures show that less than half of total supply funds was spent in the first half of the period?

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

– I am not able to answer a question of that nature. I will have to refer it to the Treasurer to get a proper answer.

page 1596

QUESTION

TELEPHONE INTERPRETER SERVICE

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Social Security: Can he say whether a study of the pattern of calls to the Department of Social Security’s Telephone Interpreter Service has been made and, if so, is he able to say whether there is sufficient community awareness of the service to justify its continuance?

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

-A study of this has been made and it shows that the number of calls to the Service is increasing. I hope to be able to make a report to the Parliament shortly on the full extent of these calls. This is one of the most valuable services that have been introduced. It gives an opportunity to a number of people, particularly migrants, to obtain information about the social services available to them in a more convenient way than was available previously.

page 1596

QUESTION

AUSTRALIANS IN LEBANON

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the continuing deterioration of the situation in the Lebanon and the war-torn city of Beirut, can the Minister provide any information additional to that which he already has given to the Senate in reply to questions by Senator Devitt and me relative to ensuring the safety of Australians there?

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

-I am afraid that the situation in the Lebanon is no better, if it is not worse. Our Embassy in Beirut is now suggesting to Australian citizens in Lebanon who seek the Embassy’s advice that they should consider leaving Beirut unless they have overriding reasons for remaining. If the fighting in Beirut gets much worse the Embassy may have to make a more general recommendation. I hope that Australian citizens in Lebanon will heed the Embassy’s advice. While the Embassy will do what it can to assist Australian citizens in whatever circumstances may develop- we have been looking at possible arrangements for some time- it is clearly better for Australians to make their own plans in good time and while circumstances allow.

I deeply regret the developments which have made this kind of planning necessary. For a long time Lebanon has fulfilled a role in the Middle East which has been of value and importance to the rest of the world. In Australia we have come to value the strong links which have been forged between the Lebanese and Australian peoples. I am sure that all Australians will share my hope and that of the Australian Government that the fighting will be soon ended and a democratic Lebanese state will again be at peace and able to make its unique contributions to the world.

page 1596

QUESTION

SALARIES OF HEALTH INSURANCE FUND OFFICIALS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. On 10 September 1975 the Minister was asked whether it was true that the Director of the Hospital Contributions Fund of Australia in New South Wales, Mr Turner, and the General Manager of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd in New South Wales, Mr Cade, had recently had salary increases raising their annual earnings from $31,000 to $50,000. The Minister was further asked whether he would present the Senate with a rundown of the salaries and allowances of officials of all or any of the major health insurance funds. Has the Minister been able to obtain the information from the funds?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-As a result of that question I asked the Director-General of Social Security to try to obtain that information. He wrote to the various hospital and medical benefit funds on 10 September seeking that information. Three funds replied declining to give the information. They were the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia in New South Wales, the Hospital Contributions Fund of New South Wales and the Mutual Hospital Association of South Australia. One organisation- the Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia- said that the matter would be discussed at its next management committee meeting, but so far either that committee has not met or we have not been told what it decided. The other major organisation- the Hospital’ Benefits Association of Victoria- has not even taken the trouble to reply. I may say that it does seem that although the salaries of the executives of the health insurance funds are paid from the contributions of their members the funds obviously are going to continue to refuse to divulge to their members what salaries are paid to those executives out of the funds that are contributed by the members.

page 1597

QUESTION

REPORT ON MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister for Manufacturing Industry tell the Senate when the report of the Jackson Committee on the manufacturing industry will be made available to the Parliament?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand that the report is to be tabled today.

page 1597

QUESTION

RELATIONS BETWEEN POLICE AND ABORIGINES AT ALICE SPRINGS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Customs. I refer to a question I asked the Minister on 14 October concerning relations between Aborigines and police in Alice Springs. In reply the Minister advised that he would be visiting Alice Springs to have discussions with a Reverend Downing and the police to see whether it was possible to develop a more accurate system of law enforcement. Due to the fact that the Senate is now sitting and will be sitting again next week, thus rendering the Minister unavailable for that visit, could the Minister advise the Senate what action he has taken in relation to the establishment of an inquiry into the alleged rape and murder of Paula Sweet?

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

– The arrangements concerning my visit to Alice Springs understandably have been disrupted because the Parliament will be sitting next week. I shall go there at the first available opportunity after the passing of the Appropriation Bills and when the Parliament has some respite from continuous sittings. In a Press release on 20 October I announced the establishment of an independent police inquiry into the matter by policemen from the Australian Capital Territory Police Forces. Superintendent G. Kent and Sergeant K. Harley of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force went to Alice Springs and commenced their investigation on 2 1 October. They have been asked to make a report to me on their inquiry and recommendations on future police investigations involving Aborigines. They will be assisted in Alice Springs by Inspector Plumb of the Northern Territory Police Force.

page 1597

QUESTION

CYPRUS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs detected any improved prospects in the quest for a just settlement in Cyprus in the light of recent developments in Turkey following the election of a new government?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I have a couple of comments which, hopefully, will bear on the Cyprus situation. Following the partial lifting of the United States embargo on arms for Turkey, talks between the Turkish Government and the United States Administration on United States bases in Turkey are expected to resume shortly. Elections have been held in Turkey, which may make it possible for the Government there to devote more attention to the pressing need for a political settlement in Cyprus. It is not yet known when the next round of inter-communal talks between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots will be held, but there now appear to be fewer obstacles to the resumption of these talks than existed a month ago. High on the agenda of these talks will be the definition of the boundaries of the 2 zones. It seems certain that future constitutional arrangements will be discussed also. Australia has consistently taken the view that the solution to the problem of Cyprus must be worked out by the Cypriots themselves. We hope that the discussions will be resumed soon and that they will be continued without interruption until a settlement is reached.

page 1598

QUESTION

MEDIBANK OFFICES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. It relates to the acquisition of office space for Medibank in Victoria. Is the Minister aware that owners of office space in Melbourne suburbs and Victorian provincial cities have been offered rentals at the rate of $6.50 a square foot, without negotiation, for the provision of Medibank offices? Does not this practice contribute to inflation in this section of the economy? Is the practice of offering an inflated high price rather than negotiating extensively for the lowest priced suitable accommodation a standard practice of this Government? If so, how is it justified as a proper use of taxpayers’ money?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I am not aware of the matters that Senator Missen has raised. The Health Insurance Commission is an autonomous statutory commission. In any event, as I understand it, the actual leasing of office space is handled by the Department of Urban and Regional Development, at the request of the Health Insurance Commission. If Senator Missen puts his question on the notice paper I will obtain for him the detailed information, which does not fall within my direct ministerial responsibility.

page 1598

QUESTION

PAPER IMPORTS

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. In view of the apparent worsening situation in the paper industry, I ask: What amount of paper is currently being imported? If the amount is very high, does the Government have any plans to suspend such imports, at least temporarily, in an effort to relieve the very large stockpile?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I am sorry that I cannot help Senator Bessell with those figures immediately, but I will ask the Minister for Overseas Trade to provide them for him as soon as possible.

page 1598

QUESTION

BALMORAL NAVAL HOSPITAL

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. I refer him to a report that the Balmoral naval hospital will not treat civilian divers because of Federal Budget cuts. Is this statement, which is attributed to Dr Carl Edmunds, correct? Did Dr Edmunds resign from the naval school of underwater medicine in protest at this decision?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I have seen the Press reports. I can assure the honourable senator that there has been no change in the policy of providing emergency medical treatment for civilians at naval hospitals. In fact, only last weekend 2 civilian divers who were suffering from the bends were admitted to Balmoral naval hospital. They received specialist treatment in a recompression chamber at the Navy’s school of underwater medicine. Civilians have always been provided with necessary emergency treatment and will continue to be so provided.

page 1598

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the very serious implications of his statement at question time yesterday that there was an impression amongst the Portuguese as well as the anti-Fretilin forces that Australia is supporting the Fretilin cause. Have any members of the Government Party over recent months expressed by words and actions their support for the Fretilin cause?

Senator Georges:

– Yes.

Senator CARRICK:

– I think I heard someone say ‘Yes’. What steps is the Government taking to ensure that such overt or covert support ceases totally? Has the Government taken steps to indicate to the Portuguese and Indonesian governments and to the Apodeti and the UDT that the sustained support for Fretilin by communist and other extreme left wing organisations in Australia in no way reflects the viewpoint of the Australian people?

Senator Georges:

– Rubbish!

Senator CARRICK:

– The Minister may like to refer to the interjection ‘Rubbish’.

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I think it is inevitable in these sorts of situations, as was the case in Vietnam, that there will be divisiveness in countries which are interested and that that divisiveness will finally go from campuses to parliaments all over the world. As I understand it, there are members of my Party who do lean towards the Fretilin side. As I understand it, Mr Michael Darby, who is not a member of my Party, also leans that way. Senator Carrick shakes his head to indicate that I am wrong. If I am wrong, I withdraw it. I understood that Mr Darby had made public statements in that regard. Senator Carrick asks whether we will take action to stop this sort of thing. No, I do not think any government can or should stop people from expressing what they think in various situations. I was asked on television one night whether we should stop people in our Party from saying these things. I do not think we should. I do not think that is the sort of thing one can do.

Senator Durack:

– You can ‘t.

Senator WILLESEE:

– As Senator Durack quite rightly says, you cannot anyway.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Neither should we be able to.

Senator WILLESEE:

-Neither we should be able to. I hope that the day never comes when Senator Durack ‘s Party can or would want to stop expressions of that sort.

Senator Carrick:

– Have you told the governments that that is not our view?

Senator WILLESEE:

– The governments understand perfectly well that we do not recognise the right of any of the. contending parties there at this time to have control of Portuguese Timor.

page 1599

QUESTION

TEXTILE IMPORT QUOTAS

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– As the Minister for Police and Customs is aware, there are numerous items of apparel which are subject to some form of import control, whether by licence or by tariff quota. Many goods of a fashion or seasonal nature require substantial lead times between the date of ordering and the date of distribution on the Australian market. Can the Minister please advise whether any steps are being taken to advise importers of their quota allocations as early as possible before the commencement of second and subsequent quota periods?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– The importers are advised as early as possible, but I do not think ‘as early as possible’ is as early as is desired by the importers or even by my Department. We do make an effort to advise importers of quota allocations as soon as we can. It must be remembered that on many of the articles the quotas are subject to review after 12 months and it is therefore difficult or even impossible to advise importers of their precise allocation of quotas for the ensuing 12 months until after we have had a review. An announcement was made on 19 September by my colleagues, the Minister for Manufacturing Industry and the Special Minister of State, regarding specific textile products. The following is an extract from that announcement:

However, for the purposes of forward planning, importers could be assured that their individual quotas in the second year would be no less than the quotas they were allocated in the first year which were derived from their import performances in the appropriate base period. This applies to both the yarns and fabrics and the apparel items concerned.

page 1599

QUESTION

DOUBLE DISSOLUTION DOCUMENTS

Senator DURACK:

– My question which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate refers to the documents which were tabled by the Prime Minister yesterday concerning the events leading to the double dissolution in April 1974. I refer to the foreword by the Prime Minister to those documents, which presumably was written recently by him- it is not dated- and in which the Prime Minister says in relation to the events of April 1974 and the action taken in the Senate:

Such a refusal to supply the Government with the money it needed to carry on its normal services would have made the Parliament unworkable.

He then goes on to describe the advice which he tendered to the Governor-General. The advice which Mr Whitlam gave to the GovernorGeneral in April 1 974 was this: 1 must, therefore, advise Your Excellency that the Senate has by its attitude brought about a position where the normal operations of government cannot continue.

I now ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Why has the Prime Minister so dramatically changed his attitude, so clearly and rightly expressed in April 1974? Why does he now repudiate the advice which he gave to the Governor-General so solemnly in April 1974?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– A similar question was asked last week, and I indicated then as I indicate again now that it is a matter of judgment for the Prime Minister as to what action he takes in circumstances such as occurred last year and such as we see now. We are seeing, and we will continue to see, the effect of the Opposition’s tactics on various sections of the Australian community. Of course the Government will continue to govern, notwithstanding all the nonsense that has been going on in the Opposition now for some weeks. There will be difficulties, as has been pointed out, and sections of the Australian community will feel the effects of what the Opposition has done. As regards that part of the question concerning the judgment as to what advice is given by the Prime Minister to the GovernorGeneral, that is a matter entirely for the Prime Minister, and it will remain so.

page 1599

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator GIETZELT:

-Yesterday I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether reports by reputable observers from the Australian Council for Overseas Aid confirmed previous reports from others that the Fretilin movement represents the overwhelming view of the Timorese people and that Indonesia is actively involved in the fighting. In view of the numerous reports which point very strongly to Indonesian involvement in the prolongation of the war in Portuguese Timor, will the Minister now comment on this matter? Has the Australian

Government abandoned its support of selfdetermination for the people of Timor? In conclusion, may I say that I am proud to be associated with the independence movement as enunciated by Fretilin in the struggle for the selfdetermination of the people of East Timor.

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

- Senator Gietzelt is correct. Yesterday he asked me a question which had 3 parts to it. I answered two of them but I inadvertently did not answer the first part. I have been looking at this question for some time and I have a rather long answer which embodies more than that particular point. I will keep the reply until the end of question time. If I were to interpolate it now I think there would be valid objections.

page 1600

QUESTION

SCHOOL CADETS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that the Government’s decision to abolish the school cadet system was totally contrary to the recommendations of its own inquiry? What were the arguments advanced by the inquiry for retention of the system, and why was it abandoned in the light of the report? Will the Government review its decision?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– It is well known why the Government decided to abolish the cadet corps. This was done on the advice of its advisers that the amount of $llm which was spent on the cadet corps should be spent in the defence area. As everybody knows, the schools did not maintain the cadet corps; in fact, the defence Service did. The advisers recommended to the Government that in the light of the present situation, that money could be better spent. A lot of publicity is being given to the fact that the Opposition somehow is committed to change that policy. There has never been any statement at all to that effect. All that Mr Killen has gone on record as saying in the newspapers and in his defence policy is that the Opposition will encourage schools maintaining cadet corps. I suggest to any people who think that the Government’s policy will be changed by another government that the matter has been misrepresented. As regards the other matters which have been raised, for example, the recommendations made in respect of the Citizen Military Forces, I indicate that twenty-two of those recommendations have already been adopted. So I suggest that the complaints which have been made are ill-founded.

page 1600

QUESTION

AUSTRALIANS KILLED IN TIMOR

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen a report in today’s Australian newspaper of the reply which he gave to a question asked by Senator Gietzelt yesterday concerning the return of the bodies of Australian newsmen killed in Timor? The report claims that the Minister said that the relatives of the deceased persons would have to pay for the return of these bodies from Timor. As neither my recollection nor the Hansard record suggests or gives any indication of his having made such a statement, will the Minister clarify this situation for the Senate and for the Australian newspaper?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Yes, I did read with utter amazement that headline about what I said yesterday. There is no possible way that anybody could read that into the remarks that I made yesterday on this very delicate situation. To take that angle, even if I had said it, I think is journalism at its worst. I regret very much that the paper said it; I just leave it there. There was also a report on the air this morning that Mr Adam Malik, the Foreign Minister, had intimated that he might make a plane available for our benefit to try to do better than we have been doing in our attempts to see the bodies, if it is at all possible. We sincerely hope that that is true. We have not stopped our efforts since yesterday to get more assistance for Mr Johnson or for anybody else from our embassy to get closer and obtain some more information in this very sensitive and delicate situation.

A memorial service for the newsmen is being held today in Melbourne and I have sent a message in which I think the Senate may be interested. I am sure all honourable senators would agree with it. The message states:

In both my official capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and more personally as the father of journalists who have reported from war zones in the past, I wish to salute the passing of the five Australians who ventured to seek out news from the dangerous area of present conflict in East Timor.

I pay tribute to their courage in pursuit of their profession and offer the sincerest sympathy of myself and my family to their families.

page 1600

QUESTION

SUPPLY FUNDS

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the Senate has already passed Supply for the Government in the amount requested by the Government to allow it to operate normally and without reduced spending until the end of November?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Under normal circumstances, that is correct. I do not see the relevance of the question. What the country is concerned about and what the Australian people are concerned about is what is going to happen in the period ahead if the Opposition continues its present mad course. That is what the country is concerned about, and it is quite evident from the surveys which are now being published that the overwhelming majority of Australians reject the attitude being taken by the Opposition, as I think a lot of people predicted would be the case if the Opposition set itself on this insane course. Whether the Opposition will come to its senses in the next few weeks remains to be seen, but obviously the Australian people are wide awake to what the Opposition is up to and the damage it is doing to the Australian community.

page 1601

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF INTERPRETERS

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the latest issue of the Bulletin headed ‘NEAT scheme far from tidy’ which alleges:

Of an entire cl.ass of 34 interpreter-translators trained this year under the government’s NEAT scheme at the Canberra College of Advanced Education, not one can find a job.

In view of the recent report of the Committee on Community Relations regarding the need for suitably qualified interpreters to assist our migrant groups, can the Minister advise the Senate regarding the truth of the article?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As an avid reader of the Bulletin, I have of course seen the article mentioned. I am pleased to be able to refute this article, which appears to be part of a generalised attack by this magazine on my Department, the Commonwealth Employment Service and, of course, the Government generally. Most readers of the article would gain the impression that the 34 students being trained as interpreters and translators under the NEAT scheme are unemployed, having completed their training. I quote the words of the article:

Of an entire class of 34 interpreter-translators trained this year under the government’s NEAT scheme at the Canberra College of Advanced Education, not one can find a job.

In fact these translators are still undergoing their course, which does not conclude until 28 November this year. So the Bulletin article is 4 weeks prema ture. The students are being trained as interpreter-translators in Spanish and Italian. They come from all over Australia. There is no suggestion that all will be seeking employment in Canberra. They will be employed throughout Australia where their training will be of great assistance to Spanish and Italian speaking migrants. So far only 2 of the students have sought

CES assistance prior to the completion of their course. My Department is pursuing with State governments, private organisations, the Department of Education and the Public Service Board the question of employing these students, and prospects are quite good. The NEAT scheme introduced by this Government is the first move towards a comprehensive labour market training scheme that Australia has made. It is significant that even the biased author of the article in question had to admit:

The interpreter translator course was one of several begun this year in response to repeatedly voiced and largely ignored calls to pre- 1972 governments to help non-English speaking migrants in factories, unions, hospitals, courts and the community generally to understand what was going on around them and to what documents they might be signing their names.

The NEAT scheme does not warrant most of the criticisms that are made of it. For example, Mr Fraser has alleged that some people have been abusing the NEAT scheme. He said in a statement reported in the Age newspaper on 3 December 1974:

These people must be made to realise what they are doing. They are not taking money off some strange body called the Government. They are taking money off their neighbours and friends who pay taxes.

Yet, this man of principle, Mr Fraser, who protested so piously about people seeking assistance under the NEAT scheme, is reported in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 79 October 1974, when addressing a fund-raising dinner for the Liberal Party, as advising his Party supporters as follows:

I do not know if you have your wives in the NEAT scheme yet. But you should have. There is no easier way of making $5,000 a year.

page 1601

QUESTION

MR MAX WECHSLER

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether he recalls stating to the Senate on 21 April 1975 these words concerning a Mr Max Wechsler:

Perhaps the reason why Senator Greenwood has not heard from Mr Wechsler for a long time- and this is a piece of information that he has forced me into giving- is that Mr Wechsler has been, on my information, in a mental institution in Queensland for some time.

As Mr Wechsler has been overseas and has now returned, and as that statement is demonstrably false, why did the Minister mislead the Senate and why did he so grossly defame an individual who has never been in a mental institution?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, I remember the occasion quite well. As I recall it, it was the occasion of one of Senator Greenwood’s more hysterical and turgid performances.

Senator Webster:

– What about your own?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, could I have some silence from the hillbilly on my right? Am I to be allowed to proceed, Senator?

Senator Webster:

– If you ask for my opinion, I say no.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am aware that this matter which has so engaged the attention of Senator Greenwood was regurgitated over the weeked by that notorious Melbourne gutter rag, the Sunday Observer. I know also that during the weekend this same person, Wechsler, was claiming that for the past 6 months he has been working for Senator Greenwood. My statement about Mr Wechsler having been in a lunatic asylum was made on information which I considered and which I still consider reliable. Mr Wechsler’s denial, or Senator Greenwood’s denial on his behalf, does not impress me at all, especially in the light of Mr Wechsler’s notorious behaviour. Among other things, when he was picked up sitting in a motor car in a street of Melbourne and holding a rifle, he gave a long incoherent statement to the police, consistent only with some sort of paranoid condition. I suggest that Senator Greenwood, if he has any real belief in the sanity or mental balance of Mr Wechsler, should also read the transcripts, which I have here if he wants to have them, of various interviews which have been conducted with Mr Wechsler on television programs. I still believe that what I said was true. But I would say this: If Mr Wechsler has not been in a mental asylum, it is about time he received psychiatric treatment.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr President, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I asked him why he misled the Senate and defamed a person outside the Parliament so that that person has no redress in respect of the statements he has made. Does he say that Mr Wechsler is telling an untruth when he says- and I have seen his passport- that he was overseas at the time the Minister says he was in a mental institution?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-This, Mr President, is a quibble. Perhaps there may be some error in time but if the honourable senator reads carefully what I said he will see that I did not say that Mr Wechsler was in asylum at that particular time. Is Senator Greenwood- this man who complains about my defaming somebody but who regularly stands up in this place and defames others- in support of the case he puts up today, prepared to show some evidence that Mr Wechsler has never been in a mental asylum?

page 1602

QUESTION

NATIONAL COMPENSATION SCHEME

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. I refer to an editorial in the Daily Telegraph of 30 October dealing with the financing proposals for the national rehabilitation and compensation scheme. Would the Minister indicate whether the assertion is correct that scant regard has been paid to just where the money to finance the scheme is coming from?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I have read the leading article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph. It is part of a continuing campaign against this Government by the Murdoch Press and its dishonest employees- people whose command of the facts is about equal to their command of the English language. The leading article which appears in this journal today referring to the proposed national compensation scheme makes a number of misstatements. It states that the cost of the scheme will be a mere $405m a year. If the writer were to read the documents which I have tabled in the Senate and the other statements which have been made he would see that that is a gross cost to be reached in some 20 years and that in fact the net cost during the first year of operation, which would not be until 1977, would be in the vicinity of $300m. The article also states:

Like many other grandiose social welfare programs produced by Mr Whitlam’s Government, scant attention seems to have been paid to just where the money is going to come from-

Senator Rae:

– Hear, hear!

Senator WHEELDON:

– I notice ‘hear, hear’, coming from Senator Rae. I suggest Senator Rae should read some of the documents that are tabled here, too. The article continues: -something one might have thought was of prime consideration at a time when the economy is as tight as a winklepicker shoe on a policeman’s foot-

Whatever that means. That was written by one of the literateurs of the Sydney Daily Telegraph. The article further states:

Senator Wheeldon says airily that he proposes to finance the program by slapping a levy on employers and shooting up the excise duty on fuel used on the roads.

A very detailed statement of the financial arrangements for the scheme was tabled in this Parliament and has been commented on by a number of journalists who are very superior to those employed by Murdoch. I refer honourable senators to the Australian Financial Review and some other papers. The article goes on to say:

Already the nation is being burdened with Labor’s enormously expensive health and rehabilitation programs-

Our enormously expensive rehabilitation programs! The article also refers to ‘minimum income security’ programs. It is said that we are being burdened with the minimum income security program when in fact all we have is an interdepartmental committee of inquiry into minimum income security. I think it is useless to go on trying to discuss such a poisonous and nonsensical article as this one which appears in the Sydney Daily Telegraph. All I can say is that there has been an inquiry conducted by officers of a number of departments, including the Treasury, the Taxation Office and the Department of Repatriation and Compensation. The documents have been tabled. They speak for themselves. I believe that anyone who is interested in this matter would be better advised to read the documents rather than the regurgitated half understanding of them which appears in Murdoch’s Sydney journal.

page 1603

QUESTION

TAXATION DEDUCTION FOR HOUSEKEEPERS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that some invalids are debarred from receiving an invalid pension due to the income of their spouse and because the invalid, who might be very badly incapacitated, does not receive the invalid pension the invalid’s spouse cannot claim a housekeeper as a taxation deduction. I ask: Will the Minister examine the taxation legislation and see if it can be amended so that a housekeeper can be claimed as a tax deduction in cases such as I have mentioned?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I will refer the question to the Treasurer. I think it may have been more properly directed to the Minister for Social Security. Nevertheless, it relates to a matter of Government policy and I shall refer the question to Mr Hayden.

page 1603

QUESTION

DOCTORS’ FEES

Senator KEEFFE:

-Has the Minister for Social Security seen a report in the Melbourne Herald of yesterday, 29 October, which states that the Australian Medical Association will increase its fees by only 14 per cent, despite the fact that the Government has recommended a 15.6 per cent increase? To what does the Minister attribute the apparent selflessness and restraint of the medical profession?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-I was very startled to read that the Government was trying to force money into the hands of reluctant doctors who, in fact, wanted to take less than we wished to give them. It was a departure of a most unprecedented kind. But that is not an accurate report of the proceedings. The suggestion appeared in the Melbourne Herald and also in the Australian Financial Review, although the reports quoted only the President of the Australian Medical Association as saying this. The articles did not tell us whether the newspapers agreed. The actual increase in fees determined by Mr Mcintosh, who constituted the inquiry, was 20.5 per cent on the fees determined in December 1974 and applying from 1 January 1975 to 31 December 1975. However, allowing for the 4.2 per cent increase in medical benefit fees determined by Mr Mcintosh in May this year and implemented with the introduction of Medibank from 1 July 1975, the percentage increase on current medical benefit fees will be 15.6 per cent. Allowing for the AMA fees at 1 January 1975, the AMA recommended increase of 12.5 per cent from 1 July 1975 and the proposed further 14 per cent increase from 1 January 1976, in fact the AMA is advocating a 39.9 per cent increase over the year. This compares with the 20.5 per cent increase which was determined by Mr Mcintosh, whose determination will no doubt be accepted by the Government. So, far from the Government advocating more than the Australian Medical Association has sought, in fact, what we are accepting by way of a determination from Mr Mcintosh is approximately half what the Australian Medical Association is asking for.

page 1603

QUESTION

FUNDS FOR SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

Senator RAE:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to my representations to the Minister regarding funds outstanding to the Devonfield Sheltered Workshop at Devonport and other similar organisations. The Minister has indicated to me that the shortage of funds is related to the Budget cuts and not to the deferment of the Appropriation Bills. Will the Minister indicate if and when the funds promised to the Devonfield Sheltered Workshop and other similar organisations may be forthcoming as this is important to the negotiation for bridging finance which the Minister has suggested such organisations should seek to enable them to continue operations?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Senator Rae should be in a much better position than I am to answer that question. The answer is that the money will be available when the Opposition ceases what

Senator Wriedt has so correctly described as the Opposition ‘s lunatic course in opposing the appropriations of this Government. Because the Australian Government has been doubling expenditure every year on sheltered workshops a considerable contribution has been made by us to this essential social service. Because of the rate of increase the estimates which were made during the last Budget have in fact been exceeded. As is normal, we have been relying on the Treasurer’s Advance in order to provide the additional funds which are necessary for such deserving sheltered workshops as the Devonfield centre in Devonport. Because we do not have a Treasurer’s Advance available as a result of the obstruction by Senator Rae and his colleagues of the Appropriation Bills, we cannot draw on the Treasurer’s Advance for the money for the Devonfield centre to carry on for the time being. I suggest that Senator Rae get in touch with the Devonfield centre and advise it when he will allow the Appropriation Bills to be passed by the Senate because then the Devonfield centre will receive its money.

Senator Rae:

– The Minister is a liar.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You will withdraw that word, Senator Rae.

Senator Rae:

– May I explain -

The PRESIDENT:

– No, you will withdraw it forthwith.

Senator Rae:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You will withdraw forthwith without any explanation. It is an impermissible word in this chamber.

Senator Rae:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– Withdraw it, please.

Senator Rae:

– May I be able, without interjection from people -

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask you to withdraw the word. You called one of the honourable senators a liar. I have asked that it be withdrawn forthwith.

Senator Rae:

– I have indicated–

The PRESIDENT:

– I f you do not withdraw I will go through the procedures of naming you. I warn you that you must withdraw forthwith.

Senator Rae:

– May I be able to get a word out to say I withdraw? I have already indicated I will withdraw and I do so.

The PRES! DENT- Be seated. Thank you.

page 1604

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the address to shareholders of John Fairfax Ltd by its Chairman, Sir Warwick Fairfax, in which Sir Warwick, following a statement of his group’s support for the Government’s policy on wage indexation, said that the group thought that the Prices Justification Tribunal in some form must also be part of the system? Does the Minister regard statements of this kind as indicating a lack of agreement in high business circles with the stated objectives of the Opposition to abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal?

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

-My attention has been drawn to the address by the Chairman of John Fairfax Ltd, Sir Warwick Fairfax, to the shareholds of John Fairfax Ltd yesterday as it is published in the Australian Financial Review this morning on page 29. I notice amongst other things that Sir Warwick Fairfax is on record as saying:

Our views on industrial affairs are those which we believe to be in the national interest. We support the Government ‘s policy of the indexation of wages. It is an essential part of the means of holding back inflation which is the greatest single cause of our economic troubles.

We think that the Prices Justification Tribunal in some form must also be part of the system.

I suggest in response to Senator Brown’s question that that is further evidence, if further evidence is needed, of an awareness in the business community of the valuable contribution being made to society by the Prices Justification Tribunal in the restraining of inflationary forces. It is so obvious, when restraint on demand for wages in such a period can only reasonably be expected if there is also a restraint on prices, that the proposals emanating from the Opposition to abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal are quite incomprehensible.

page 1604

QUESTION

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE PROFITABILITY

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Media: Is he aware of the widely reported- in both Press and radio- segment of a speech made by the Prime Minister last night relating to private enterprise? Is he aware that the Prime Minister referred in this lecture to increasing the profitability and viability of the private sector? Will the Minister in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for the Media note the contents of a speech made at the annual meeting of the Federation of Commercial Television Stations by the Chief Manager of the Bank of New South Wales yesterday? Will he give consideration to the suggestion in that speech that television stations should broadcast newspaper-style editorials which would prevent the free enterprise system being undermined?

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

-On the question of the profitability of private enterprise as it relates to the news media, I inform the honourable senator that last week I was invited, as were other honourable senators, to a function held in Canberra by the Australian Association of National Advertisers. At that function advertisers and executive representatives of media interests advised me that at present there was a record booking of advertising time on radio and television. Having said that, I indicate that there must be therefore a fair degree of profitability involved inthat sector of the industry. Frankly, the other portion of the honourable senator’s question is one relating to the standards under the existing Broadcasting and Television Act of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. I refer the honourable senator to section 16 of the Act I would suggest that he should take the matter up with the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

page 1605

QUESTION

COARSE GRAINS MARKETING

Senator GEORGES:

-Does the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture have any knowledge of requests from Queensland for the formation of a national coarse grains marketing board? If so, what action is being taken?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– There has been an individual request in respect of the establishment of a national marketing board for coarse grains but there has been no official approach to the Government by the industry. There are in Australia, of course, a number of State bodies which, individually and in some cases jointly, have jurisdiction over the marketing of certain coarse grains. The question of a national marketing arrangement is one which has been canvassed over the years but because of a lack of common purpose- I daresay that would be the best way to express it- amongst the various industries themselves and the States it has been found to be almost impossible to implement it. It is a matter that has been before the Australian Agricultural Council on a number of occasions. Until such time as a further unified approach is put to the Government for such a national marketing arrangement, I assume that the present arrangements will have to continue.

page 1605

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TELEVISION PROGRAMS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Media.

I refer to the criticism of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations that the local requirements in television presentations, particularly in drama, are resulting in steep increases in costs to the industry and a decline in the diversity of programs presented. In the interests of comprehensive programming and a viable television industry, is consideration being given to a reassessment of the overall effects of the present guidelines governing programming?

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

– The honourable senator will recall that when I was the Minister for the Media I introduced 2 amending Bills to the Broadcasting and Television Act which were refused a second reading in this place. Because those amending Bills were refused a second reading, the matter about which the honourable senator now speaks is the province of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. Program standards and Australian programming arrangements on television are completely a matter for the Australian Broadcasting Control Board as a result of the Opposition’s decision to refuse those Bills a second reading in the Senate. I would therefore suggest that the honourable senator should refer his question to the Chairman of the Broadcasting Control Board.

page 1605

QUESTION

PETROLEUM INQUIRY TRANSCRIPT

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

-My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I ask: Can the Minister say whether any requests have been made by anyone for a free copy of transcripts of the Royal Commission on Petroleum? If so, what is the Government’s position in this matter?

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

– I was informed by my Department this morning that the secretary to Mr Staley, a member of the House of Representatives who I understand is researching the question relating to ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd for the Opposition, asked my Department whether he could have a copy of the transcript of evidence in the Ampol Petroleum Ltd inquiry of March 1975 by the Prices Justification Tribunal. That relates to the Ampol request for approval of a price rise during which considerable evidence on petroleum discounting in Victoria was produced. A senior officer of my Department, on considering the request, decided that as the Department has only one copy of this voluminous document it could not be released. I am also told that it is against copyright law for it to be reproduced. The arrangement agreed to by the senior officer of my Department who considered the matter is that Mr Staley, or someone from his office, will call at my Department to peruse the transcript, which is a public document. My Department had no alternative but to retain our only copy.

I am now informed that, as a result of a decision taken in this chamber on Wednesday, Senator Greenwood has been in touch with the royal commission. The royal commissioner has made a certain decision on a matter this morning. After question time I will be seeking leave to make a short ministerial statement on the matter.

page 1606

QUESTION

SUPPLY FUNDS

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Did not Supply Bill (No. 2), which contained appropriations for government expenditure to 30 November, seek more than double the amount provided for the preceding year? Did not Supply Bill (No. 1 ) seek 1 (h times what had been sought for the previous year? Did not the Government assert that these amounts would be sufficient to make all payments until 30 November? Did not the Bills contain $240 m in the Advance to the Treasurer? On what grounds can the Minister possibly claim that insufficient money is available at this moment to meet all proper commitments such as those adverted to by Senator Rae?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I can answer very easily the latter part of the question. We have been spending money on sheltered workshops at a greater rate than was anticipated. We quite readily admit that. We do not deny it for one moment. We have been engaged in very substantial expenditure on sheltered workshops. It has exceeded the moneys available to us in the last Budget for that purpose. Therefore, it was necessary to resort to the Advance to the Treasurer. It is part of the appropriations which have not been passed. I am afraid that I do not have the other figures in my head. I ask Senator Baume to put his question on the notice paper, and I will obtain a reply for him.

page 1606

QUESTION

TELEPHONE INTERPRETER SERVICE

Senator POYSER:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to my question earlier today about the telephone service available to members of the public by which they can seek information and advice from the Department of Social Security. Can the Minister advise whether it is intended that the service will be extended to major provincial cities?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-So far the service has been provided in 3 State capitals- Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. During the year from 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1975 there was a very great number of calls on all sorts of matters- more than 30 000 in Melbourne, approximately 22 000 in Sydney and approximately 7500 in Perth. The service has been so successful that we certainly propose to extend it as soon as the funds are made available by the Opposition in the Senate. I suppose that initially the service would need to be extended to the other State capitals- Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart- which do not have this service. As it has been such a success, it would seem to me to be very important that provincial centres such as Geelong, Ballarat, Wollongong and Newcastle, where there are large numbers of immigrants, should have the same service provided.

page 1606

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. On page 3566 of House of Representatives Hansard of 9 July there appears an excerpt from a letter from Mr McKay recording that the Trade Commissioner in Milan had reported:

Apparently a loan of $A500m is being sought for Australia. Promissory notes to this effect, giving the terms as a 20-year compound loan resulting in a total repayment of $A2,486m, and with the signature of Mr Connor on them have been lodged with the small German bank . . .

That letter is said to have been handed to the Prime Minister by the Secretary to the Treasury on 28 May. Has any investigation been made of that statement? Do documents exist in the Department showing the result of inquiries as to whether those promissory notes signed by Mr Connor were genuine? If so, will the Minister produce to this Senate the documents in relation to them?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is indeed ironic that Senator Wright or any member of the Opposition should ask whether the Government has documents which can establish one way or the other whether such promissory notes exist or by whom they are signed. I have been given the impression that the Opposition has in its hands at the present time a gentleman by the name of Khemlani who has all the evidence to damn this Government for ever. But every time there is an invitation to ask Mr Khemlani to come before the Senate so that we may ask him some questions, the Opposition backs off. The Opposition has had weeks of opportunity to do all these things. So why does it not come up with the evidence that it claims it has had for months instead of engaging in all this pussy-footing around, asking irrelevant questions about documents and promissory notes? Does the Opposition expect me to know about all of the documents that have been tabled and which might be in the possession of the Government or other individuals. As I have said on numerous occasions, the documents which the Government considers relevant to this matter have been tabled. Other documents and other information may be sought by placing questions on the notice paper, and I suggest that Sen ator Wright do just that.

page 1607

QUESTION

MR MAX WECHSLER

Senator GREENWOOD:

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer again to his acceptance today of his earlier statement that Mr Max Wechsler was in a mental institution. I have indicated that he was overseas and I have seen his passport which verifies that. As the Minister said that he had made the statement in the Senate on the information available to him, I ask whether he will state the origin of that information. Did it come from the police; did it come from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, or did it come from those communist groups whose penetration into the Australian Labor Party Mr Wechsler was at such pains to expose? In short, in view of the fact that the Minister has misled the Senate, will he state the source of the information upon which he misled the Senate?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator’s question merely proves that he is in much the same condition as that which 1 have attributed to Mr Wechsler.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. As I have asked the Minister whether he will state the origin of the information upon which he misled the Senate, why will he not answer the question?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The answer is no.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I ask that further questions be put on notice.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call for answers to questions on notice. I understand that Senator Willesee has an answer. Order! The Senate will come to order. I have called the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Senator Webster:

- Mr President, a Minister has just threatened me.

Senator Withers:

– I rise on a point of order. I heard Senator James McClelland say to Senator Webster: ‘I will get you for that’. I think he ought to withdraw that remark.

Senator Webster:

– He said: ‘I will fix you for that’.

Senator Withers:

– He was threatening another honourable senator and I think he ought to withdraw that threat.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I would like to speak to the point of order. I happen to be an honourable senator who sits on this right flank of the Government side of the chamber. We get a constant volley of innuendo and abuse from Senator Webster. He says such things as: ‘Who has his finger in the till?’ I asked on a similar occasion previously- it was in relation to Ambassador Gair- that you control this animal on my right, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask the Senate to use a little decorum. After all, you are all mature people representing your States in this chamber in a time of tension and you should be assisting the Chair to run this place as it should be run. I intend to insist that the decorum of the Senate is upheld.

Senator Wright:

– On the point of order, I submit that no assistance can be given in a situation in which Senator James McClelland is allowed to say that Senator Greenwood is in the same state as has been referred to in relation to a certain person and where the terms ‘paranoid’ and lunatic’ have been referred to.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Wright:

– If you will pardon me, Mr President, I am speaking to a point of order and I am entitled to your audience.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes. Well, I take -

Senator Wright:

– Secondly, I want to say to the point of order -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Would you be seated. Senator Wright, please be seated.

Senator Wright:

– I will be seated, but you won’t -

The PRESIDENT:

– I take exception to your reflecting on the Chair. That is the first point. Secondly, if Senator Greenwood or you wished to take exception to the words that were used you had the time to take it immediately.

Senator Wright:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

-So that is gone. You can go on with your point of order.

Senator Wright:

– Thank you. Secondly, I suggest to you that it is completely beneath the dignity of this chamber to allow Senator Mulvihill to refer to an honourable senator as an animal. Although you promptly suppress any imputation from this side, you do not take note of the 2 matters to which I have referred. I consider that you should take deep consideration as to the elements of impartiality that should be brought to the conduct of the chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– The position was that Senator Webster made some interjection which I did not hear. An exception was taken to it. Senator Webster said also that he was threatened. I wanted to hear the case about his claim that he had been threatened. Points of order were taken by various honourable senators, and I was hearing about the situation. I strongly object to the language that was used by Senator Mulvihill in the process of my hearing the points of order. But at the conclusion of the points of order I had intended to ask for the necessary withdrawals and apologies. I call Senator Mulvihill.

Senator Mulvihill:

- Mr President, reference has been made to the decorum of the Senate and to the word that I used. I put it to you very plainly that my role was that of a linesman in a football match going in to give both sides of the story, and I stand by that. On provocation from the other side Senator James McClelland had a right to defend himself in the ruck.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Mulvihill, I will ask you now to withdraw the word that you used.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I do, Mr President, but I do so on the basis that we are not going to have persistent interjections -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! No qualifications.

Senator Mulvihill:

– . . . otherwise I will say it again.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Greenwood:

– Order! I raise a point of order. Earlier today Mr President quite properly asked Senator Rae to withdraw an unparliamentary expression, but he was forthrightly denied any opportunity to make any qualification or explanation. I submit that Senator Mulvihill should be accorded precisely the same treatment and not be allowed to make any qualification. That, Sir, is the point of order.

Senator Mulvihill:

- Mr President, if it will do Senator Greenwood’s heart good, I have withdrawn–

Senator Greenwood:

– A point of order. That is the point which was denied to Senator Rae.

Senator Mulvihill:

– . . . and I am sure that the President will avoid any little acts of sabotage, here.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I am asking you to withdraw.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I have, Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– Thank you.

Senator Mulvihill:

– . . . but I am not going to have somebody here saying these things or it will be given back again.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Be seated. I call on the next business.

Senator Withers:

- Mr President, I had raised a point of order about what Senator James McClelland said to Senator Webster when the other points of order intervened. If we are going to have some decorum, I think that Senator James McClelland himself would most likely withdraw what he said.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I wish to speak to this point of order. I heard what Senator Webster said, and I do not want to repeat it. It referred to personal matters relating to Senator Greenwood -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– To me.

Senator Wheeldon:

– To Senator James McClelland. If I may say so, it was one of the most loathsome, snide statements that I have heard in the Senate in all the time that I have been in the Senate. I think it is unequalled in its lowness- even by Senator Webster. The response of Senator James McClelland that he would fix him I do not believe was a threat; I believe it was a statement of fact. I do not believe that Senator James McClelland ought to be called upon to withdraw to anybody who could descend to making the sort of remark that Senator Webster made- one of the most despicable things that I have ever heard in this Parliament.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Webster:

– What was the remark?

Senator Wheeldon:

– I am not going to repeat the remark.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Wheeldon:

– You know what the remark was, you little cur.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Webster, would you remain quiet?

Senator Wheeldon:

– You little swine.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Wheeldon, please remain silent. Senator James McClelland, there has been a request that you withdraw the reference to Senator Webster and I ask that you do so.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I withdraw, Mr President.

page 1609

QUESTION

PORTUGUESE TIMOR

Ministerial Statement

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

- Mr President, you will recall that during question time Senator Gietzelt asked me a question and I intimated that, on the generality of the question he was asking me, I had prepared some notes. They are fairly long notes, and Senator Gietzelt agreed that I should answer the question at the end of question time.

The Government has viewed with concern widespread reports that Indonesia is involved in military intervention in Portuguese Timor. The position of the Australian Government is clear. We deplore the fighting in the border areas. We continue to believe that a solution to the problems in Portuguese Timor should be sought through peaceful means and free of external intervention. Indonesia has been told of our views in this regard and urged to pursue her interests through diplomatic means. If there is one ray of hope in a gloomy situation, it is the possibility that talks will at last get under way. The Indonesian Foreign Minister has agreed to meet with his Portuguese counterpart in Europe this week. Fretilin and UDT have also signified in recent days their willingness to hold separate talks with the Portuguese. We hope that Apodeti will also agree to talks with the Portuguese, and that all three parties will reconsider their present refusal to talk to each other.

The Australian Government strongly supports resolution of the conflict in Portuguese Timor by peaceful means through which the will of the people will be expressed. We have made numerous representations to this effect to the Portuguese, to the Indonesians, and to the representatives of Fretilin who have visited Australia. I have very recently instructed the Australian Ambassadors in Lisbon and Jakarta to reiterate to the Portuguese and Indonesian Governments our firm hope that the talks between these two governments later this week result in a positive and constructive outcome. Were all the parties to wish it, the Government would be prepared to offer an Australian venue for round-table talks. That the situation in Portuguese Timor has come to its present pass is, of course, cause for deep regret. It reflects, above all, the immaturity of Timor’s own aspiring political leaders, who in less than eighteen months have succeeded in wrecking Portugal’s decolonisation program, sharply polarising political opinions through the territory, and finally plunging the territory into violent civil war. The past 18 months have turned out to be a graveyard of all those earlier hopes that the Timorese politicians, representing a small Western-educated elite, would shelve their differences for the sake of the territory at large.

Nor can the Portuguese escape their share of the responsibility. Portugal is the administering power, but it was very much weakness of purpose on the part of the Portuguese administration which allowed the UDT ‘show of force’ in early August to develop into a probably unintended coup and thus provoked the Fretilin counter-coup. It seems that: Timor, like Angola, has become part of the debris of the Portuguese revolution. From the time of the overthrow of the Caetano regime in Lisbon and the subsequent decision of the Portuguese to shed their overseas territories, the Australian Government had hoped that the decolinisation process in Portuguese Timor could proceed in an orderly fashion which allowed the people of the territory to decide their own future. We had hoped that Portugal would remain in control for a period long enough for the political consciousness of the people to develop to the point where there was a substantial measure of agreement regarding the future.

The need for orderly progress had also been of paramount importance in view of the interest of the countries of the region, particularly Indonesia but also Australia and other regional countries, in ensuring that the territory would not emerge in a way which would have an unsettling effect on the region. These hopes which the Government had worked hard to see realized have unhappily not been borne out. Portugal’s inability, or reluctance to retain control opened the way to a struggle for supremacy among a number of essentially immature, rival political factions. From this struggle the Fretilin group, aided by the Timorese army units and by access to Portuguese arms, emerged as being stronger than its rivals.

The Australian Government had still hopedand acted accordingly- that agreement on the future of the territory could have been reached by negotiation between Portugal and the main contending factions. But the meeting scheduled for 20 September did not take place, at least in part because of the intransigence of Fretilin, which has continued to claim to the United Nations and the world in general that it is the only authentic and legitimate voice of Portuguese Timor. Fretilin has since agreed that it will speak to the Portuguese- but not, yet, to the other parties. So has UDT; but UDT, too, is now attempting to lay down preconditions, while at one stage in their approach to talks the overriding concern of the Portuguese seemed to be with the fate of the Portuguese prisoners held by UDT. Fretilin has cetainly now said that it continues to recognise Portuguese sovereignty and the right of Portugal to preside over the decolonisation process.

It is in this situation of drift, of Fretilin’s refusal to accept that UDT or Apodeti has anything further to contribute to the decolonisation process, and of Portugal ‘s regrettable inability to reassert its authority in the territory, that we view the various policy pronouncements, newspaper reports and the like from Jakarta and Timor itself. Were there substance in these reports, the Australian Government would be extremely disappointed, and we have so informed the Indonesian authorities. The Australian Government has urged that Indonesia pursue her interests through diplomatic means. We have told the Indonesians that we remain opposed to the use of armed force. We have also said that we are firm in the view that the people of Portuguese Timor should be allowed to determine their own future. We have urged the Indonesian authorities to reaffirm their own public commitment to the principle of self-determination in Portuguese Timor.

Indonesia can, of course, point to the presence of over 40 000 refugees in her territory- some 7 per cent of Portuguese Timor’s entire population. She can correctly claim that Fretilin has established its present position of supremacy because it controlled the army and not necessarily because it had overwhelming popular support. Indonesia can argue, as indeed we ourselves have been inclined to argue, that before the recent troubles UDT was vying with, and possibly exceeding, Fretilin in terms of popular support. All this is not to excuse Indonesia’s reported actions but perhaps goes some way towards explaining them. We should not lose sight of Indonesia’s concern about order and stability in Portuguese Timor, which is located in the middle of the Indonesian archipelago. It is necessary that we, the Portuguese and the parties in Timor should recognise the importance of the Indonesian interest in the territory, just as other countries in the region do.

No more than Indonesia, can Australia accept any one party’s claim to be the only true representative of Portuguese Timor. Fretilin may have prevailed over its rivals in the initial round of fighting and skirmishing, but it has established no right thereby to speak for all Timorese. These matters should not be settled by force of arms. What if the Timorese army had decided to side with the UDT, or with Apodeti, or had staged a purely military coup? Of course, nor can UDT or

Apodeti claim to speak for the people of Portuguese Timor simply because they are not attempting to demonstrate some military capacity in conflict with Fretilin. These matters, I repeat, should not be settled by force. The Australian Government does not pretend to know what the people of Portuguese Timor want. But we do want them to have the opportunity to say what they want. The need in our view, is to get all the parties round the table for talks. The Australian Government is doing what it can to help such talks on their way.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

-Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the paper.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:

-I move:

This is an interesting statement about a very serious matter. It is the first definitive statement that the Senate has received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) on this subject. It seems to me to emphasise once again the very substantial need for a solid debate on this issue and on the total foreign affairs policy of this Government. Accordingly, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1610

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-On 7

October Senator Davidson asked me the following question, without notice:

I ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration whether there is any truth in the report that Australia has refused to allow refugees from Vietnam who are highly qualified professionally to enter Australia from a Hong Kong holding centre. As the report maintains that the decision is denying family re-union, will the Minister investigate the claims and the report and give the maximum humanitarian consideration to any problems?

The reply which I now have for the honourable senator is that I am informed that 1133 Vietnamese have arrived in Australia since 1 April 1975, of whom 1034 were granted permanent residence. Of these persons, 63 were admitted on the grounds that they satisfied the normal migrant entry requirements, including the current occupation requirements. Senator Davidson asked specifically about Vietnamese admitted from Hong Kong. Australia admitted 203 Vietnamese from Hong Kong at the request of the Government of that colony. Those selected were those judged most in need of humanitarian assistance which resettlement in Australia would provide and who were not likely to receive such assistance from another country. The group included a number of persons of professional or sub-professional qualifications obtained in Vietnam. Their qualifications, however, are not recognised in Australia.

page 1611

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION ACT 1973

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

– Pursuant to section 3 (6) of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1 973 I present the annual report on the operation of that Act for the year ended 3 1 August 1 974.

page 1611

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 14 (2) of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-73, I present the third and final report of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board on the administration of Part III of the Act for the period 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1975.

page 1611

JACKSON COMMITTEE REPORT

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present Volume I of the report of the Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing- the Jackson Committee. Volumes II, III and IV of the report, containing supportive and statistical material, will be released as they become available.

Senator COTTON:

-Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the report referred to by the Minister- the Jackson report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

I move:

I shall be extremely brief, Mr President. I just wish to say that as this is an historic and most important document, I believe the Parliament is entitled to have time to scrutinise it effectively and adequately. I wish to have some time later to discuss this report at length. Accordingly, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1611

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 45 sub-section 4 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 1 present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission for the year 1974-75 together with a statement outlining the action taken during the year 1974-75 on reports made to the Special Minister of State. Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

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

– During the first quarter of the period covered by the Commission’s second annual report it became apparent that the economy was operating at less than full capacity. The Government subsequently moved to ensure that structural change resulting from lower assistance did not add to total unemployment. A number of measures were introduced to limit imports. These apply to a range of products including clothing, textiles, footwear, motor vehicles, domestic appliances and sheet steel. The range of short-term measures currently operating, following recommendations of the Temporary Assistance Authority and the Textiles Authority, will be reviewed once the Commission has reported on the longterm assistance requirements of the industries concerned.

The Commission has shown that it is well aware that short-term problems can intrude into the consideration of longer term issues, particularly when the general level of activity in the economy is below normal, and that appropriate action must be introduced to cope with them. In its annual report, however, it has, as I believe it should, focused attention mainly on the longer term issues associated with the development of industries.

The Government’s intention in establishing the IAC was to extend the Tariff Board system of public inquiries and reports to all sectors of the economy, in order to ensure greater consistency and coherence in the provision of assistance to industries, and thereby promote the interests of the community generally. To this end, it is necessary to development criteria for the development of industries generally rather than any one sector at the expense of the others. The Commission’s basic approach is to encourage the use of resources, particularly new resources, in those activities which use them most efficiently. Such an approach involves the gradual reduction in assistance to high cost industries. It also involves the provision of positive measures to improve the mobility, quality and productivity of resources generally in the economy. This approach has received general support from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in the Industry Committee’s report on Australia. In addition, the Commission, while rejecting a general strategy of raising assistance to low cost industries, has indicated that in particular cases it may recommend the provision of additional assistance to low cost industries. It may also recommend short-term assistance to enable low cost activities to hold resources necessary for their long-term development.

The Commission has devoted considerable attention in its report to structural change in the economy. It has discussed in some detail the nature and causes of structural change and capacity of the economy to cope with such change. It emphasises the lesser importance for industry of changes in Government assistance compared to exchange rate changes, demands for higher wages and internal economic developments. There is now general agreement that structural change resulting from changes in Government assistance must proceed at a pace the economy can manage. This requires that tariff changes are handled flexibly. As the Commission makes clear, the capacity of the economy to cope with change is dependent upon the general level of activity in the economy, the mobility of the community’s resources and the availability of adequate adjustment assistance mechanisms. The Government recognises that the costs of changes, in assistance which are designed to benefit the whole community should not be borne only by individuals directly affected by those changes and has introduced a variety of measures to assist individuals, firms and regions to adjust to structural changes.

I remind honourable senators of the letter of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to the Chairman of the IAC in November 1974. The Prime Minister, in agreeing with Mr Rattigan on the need to relate changes in assistance to the economy’s capacity to adapt to such change, said that the Government required the fullest information on the social and locational effects of the Commission’s recommendations. I therefore welcome the steps being taken by the Commission to analyse systematically and comprehensively the likely social and locational as well as the economic effects of implementing its recommendations. In particular, I welcome the recent initiative of the Commission to invite major community groups to involve themselves on a consultative basis in its general research work concerned with the development of Australian industries, such as its research into the effects of demographic changes on the structure of industries, and its investigations into the structure and mobility of the labour force. Research into the effects of demographic change which was initiated as a joint project between the Commission and the Department of Labor and Immigration now involves the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Manufacturing Industry. I understand that a wide range of industry, consumer and trade union organisations have accepted the Commission’s invitation.

The Commission’s decision that more of its work should be concerned with identifying, researching and providing well-documented advice on likely changes in the environment for industry development should help to ensure that the social and economic effects of changes in assistance to industries are fully researched before Government decisions are taken. The Commission’s research program should also provide useful information to producers and investors. It will help them to anticipate future changes and to plan for the future with more confidence. These various initiatives, together with the progressive movement toward the publication of draft reports on individual inquiries, in which I have taken a particular interest, will extend and give greater meaning to the concept of public scrutiny which is an integral feature of the advisory process for assistance to industries in Australia. The Commission is to be commended on the way it has coped with the demands placed upon it by tariff revision inquiries and the heavy program of inquiries associated with the new fields of rural, mining and tertiary industries. I commend for reading its very informative annual report to honourable senators. I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statement by me on action taken during 1974-75 in respect of reports made to me by the Industries Assistance Commission or by the Temporary Assistance Authority under Part IV of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973.

The PRESIDENT:

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

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION ACT 1973

SECTION 45

Statement by the Minister on action taken during 1 974-75 in respect of reports made to the Minister by the Commission, or by the Temporary Assistance Authority Under Part IV {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Industries Assistance Commission Reports {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- I seek leave to propose a motion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. {: #debate-39-s2 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South Wales -- I move: I wish to say a few words. This is an interesting statement on the Industries Assistance Commission because it points out certain things which are really quite fascinating. It states that it became apparent to the IAC that the economy was operating at less than full capacity. It took the IAC some little time to find that out, if it were a body of experts. The report states that the IAC was concerned about the structural change on total unemployment. But unemployment has gone on steadily increasing. One therefore has some reservations about the skill and perception of the IAC because Australia's unemployment and lack of capacity utilisation, to a very great extent, came out of the recommendations of the IAC in the first place that tariffs should be reduced 25 per cent across the board. I think the IAC has been one of the principal architects of disaster and difficulty for a great spectrum of Australian manufacturing industry. The IAC has been a contributor towards growing unemployment in Australia and it should not seek to excuse itself of its responsibility in its annual report. It has certainly taken some temporary measures to help in various areas of industry. When it has done so it has had my support and the support of the Opposition. The report states that the IAC is well aware that short term problems can intrude into the consideration - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! As honourable senators have not had the opportunity to examine the document I think we should adjourn the debate. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON: -- I would be quite content, **Mr President,** to take note of your comment. Perhaps you might allow me to conclude by saying that the statement was circulated. It ought to have been available. But as a natural courtesy to you I seek leave to continue my remarks because we want to say more about this report and about the Commission at a later date. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: #debate-39-s3 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -I move: In moving that motion I say that I provided **Senator Cotton,** as the Opposition spokesman on the matter, with a copy of the report. I assumed that other copies would be in the Senate chamber. Apparently they were not. I apologise. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1615 {:#debate-40} ### LEISURE A NEW PERSPECTIVE {: #debate-40-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Tourism and Recreation **(Mr Stewart),** for the information of honourable senators I present a report entitled *Leisure A New Perspective,* together with a statement by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation relating to that report. {: .page-start } page 1615 {:#debate-41} ### DOUBLE DISSOLUTION OF THE PARLIAMENT {: #debate-41-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
ALP -(Tasmania-Leader of the Government)- For the information of honourable senators I present documents relating to the simultaneous dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives by His Excellency the Governor-General on 1 1 April 1974. In accordance with the answer given by the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** in the House on 30 July 1974, the tabling of these documents has been deferred until the High Court handed down all its judgments on the Bills passed at the joint sitting which followed the dissolution. {: .page-start } page 1615 {:#debate-42} ### HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION {: #debate-42-s0 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP -- Pursuant to section 39 (3) of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965-73 I present the annual report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1975 together with financial statements. {: .page-start } page 1615 {:#debate-43} ### HEALTH SERVICES IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY {: #debate-43-s0 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP -- For the information of honourable senators I present a discussion paper entitled *Provision of Health Services in the Northern Territory.* {: .page-start } page 1615 {:#debate-44} ### LAW AND POVERTY IN AUSTRALIA {: #debate-44-s0 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP -- For the information of honourable senators I present the second main report of the Australian Government Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, titled *Law and Poverty in Australia.* I seek leave to make a short statement. {: #debate-44-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -ls leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator WHEELDON: -Honourable senators will recall that in August when I tabled the first main report of the Poverty Commission- the Henderson Report- I mentioned that it would be followed in due course by 4 other main reports covering areas of particular concern to the other Poverty Commissioners. The main report I am now tabling is by Professor Ronald Sackville from the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, who is the Commissioner responsible for investigating the effect of the law and the legal system upon poor people and other disadvantaged groups and individuals in the Australian community. This report has just been received by the Government and is still in manuscript form. Arrangements have been made for it to be printed as quickly as possible but printed copies are not likely to be available until early next year. Because of this, and the interest in the reports of the Poverty Commission, I am tabling the report in manuscript form. So that people will have immediate access to it, I have arranged for manuscript copies to be placed in the Parliamentary Library, in each State Library, and in the Australian National University Library in Canberra. In addition, the report can be seen at the offices of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane respectively. Professor Sackville makes sweeping recommendations for change in many areas of Federal and State law. The Government is greatly appreciative of the efforts of Professor Sackville and the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, and it will give early and close attention to the important findings and recommendations contained in the second main report. {: .page-start } page 1616 {:#debate-45} ### DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BOARD **Senator BISHOP** (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) Pursuant to section 14(1) of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1973, 1 present a further supplement to the 25th report of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board on the operation of the Act for the period 1 July 1972 to 30 September 1972 dealing with progress of the final actuarial examination of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. {: .page-start } page 1616 {:#debate-46} ### DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AUTHORITY **Senator BISHOP** (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) Pursuant to section 62 of the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973-1974 I present the third report of the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Authority dealing with the general administration and working of the Act for the year ended 30 June 1975. {: .page-start } page 1616 {:#debate-47} ### BELMONT SHIRE COUNCIL {: #debate-47-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP -- For the information of honourable senators I present a report entitled: *All The People- How Belmont Shire Council, Western Australia Got Funds To Plan Community Facilities For All The People.* {: .page-start } page 1616 {:#debate-48} ### NORTH-WEST TASMANIA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY SCHEME {: #debate-48-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP -- For the information of honourable senators I present a report entitled: *North West Tasmania Regional Water Supply Scheme.* Due to the limited number available reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. {: .page-start } page 1616 {:#debate-49} ### DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND {: #debate-49-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP -- For the information of honourable senators I present the report on the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for August 1975. Due to the limited number available reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. {: .page-start } page 1616 {:#debate-50} ### ROYAL COMMISSION ON PETROLEUM {:#subdebate-50-0} #### Ministerial Statement {: #subdebate-50-0-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- by leave- I spoke at length on Tuesday in the Senate concerning the Government's position on the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd matter. At that time I indicated that, after the affidavit of **Mr Woodhouse** had been presented to the Royal Commission on Petroleum, His Honour **Mr Justice** Collins had stated that he would consider the matter of **Mr Woodhouse** 's application to have the hearing reopened and advise his decision this week, probably today. I am informed that yesterday afternoon **Senator Greenwood** sent an urgent telegram to the Secretary of the Royal Commission in the following terms: >The following is forwarded to you for submission to His Honour **Mr Justice** Collins. The Australian Senate yesterday carried a resolution as a matter of urgency that there was need for further inquiry, whether: > >there was any agreement between the former Minister for Minerals and Energy and /or the Government and ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd to grant benefits or advantages contrary to the Government's indigenous crude oil policy to ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd; > >there was undue benefit, information or advantage given to ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd or to any of the Directors thereof. > >During the debate the Special Minister of State emphasised the course of presenting evidence to His Honour. I seek appointment to submit to the Commission that there be the further inquiry urged by the Senate. My submission is that the inquiry be re-opened and conducted by the Commission and that if necessary to ensure evidence is available at such inquiry summonses be issued for witnesses to attend and give evidence. I would appreciate if appointment is to be granted that an early opportunity be provided when my attendance at a sitting of the Senate is not required and that such opportunity be afforded before decision is given by His Honour on reported application by **Mr Woodhouse** for further inquiry. > >IVOR GREENWOOD Senate, Canberra **Senator Greenwood** sought appointment with the Commission before a decision is given by His Honour on the application by **Mr Woodhouse** to reopen the inquiry. This morning at the hearing of the Royal Commission on Petroleum in Sydney, **Mr Fisher,** counsel assisting the Commission, read out **Senator Greenwood** 's telegram and this is now an exhibit. **Mr Justice** Collins then said that he had caused inquiries to be made and **Senator Greenwood** would be available at 2 p.m. on Monday. The Commission is sitting in Adelaide next week and it is anticipated that **Senator Greenwood** will appear at the public hearing of the Commission at 2 p.m. on Monday, 3 November. **Mr Justice** Collins said that in the meantime he would make no findings on the application by **Mr Woodhouse** to reopen the inquiry. {: .page-start } page 1617 {:#debate-51} ### AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY SUPERVISION) BILL 1975 {: #debate-51-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -ls notice of motion No. 18 by **Senator Jessop** for leave to introduce a Bill formal or not formal? {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator Jessop: -- Formal. Motion (by **Senator Jessop)** agreed to: >That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for supervision by the Parliament of appointments by the Government to certain public offices, and for other purposes. {: .page-start } page 1617 {:#debate-52} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-52-0} #### PLACING OF BUSINESS {: #subdebate-52-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -ls it desirable to postpone or rearrange business? {: #subdebate-52-0-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I move: {: #subdebate-52-0-s2 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition -- I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that we are not opposed to this motion. It has been the custom over the last few weeks since this impasse arose for Government business to take precedence over general business. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator Steele Hall: -- You mean this gaffe. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -I think some fish up at the back was gaffed. **Mr President,** I am oldfashioned enough to address the Chair. It is more interesting than the Press gallery. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: -- You are not interested in addressing the Chair now. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -- I prefer to address the Chair. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: -- Your have turned your back on it. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -- There are some people one worries about turning one's back on and, therefore, I do not mind addressing you, **Mr President.** It is a strange habit in this chamber, no doubt. The Opposition has no objection to Government business taking precedence over general business this day. It may have been anticipated that the Opposition would wish to proceed with my notice of motion No. 17 which has just been declared not formal. However, I understand, and I do not think the Government would mind me saying this, that if I had moved my motion it would have sought an adjournment, that being the normal procedure so that it could consult with colleagues in Cabinet and Caucus. Consequently the motion would not have been disposed of today. I therefore consider it an exercise in futility to commence a motion today which would not be concluded today. One anticipates that on Tuesday next, after the Government has received its riding instructions from its Cabinet and Caucus-- {: .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle: -- And Bob Hawke. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -. . . and Bob Hawke as to what it should do about this matter, it is more than possible that we will pull it on on Tuesday and there will be no excuse for the matter not being concluded on that day. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: -- Are you calling Khemlani? Tell us about Khemlani. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: **-Mr President,** I thought I was addressing you on the motion that is before the Chair. **Senator Wheeldon-** Tell us about Khemlani. The PRESIDENT - Order! **Senator Wheeldon** will cease interjecting. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: **-Mr President,** as a Government motion is before the Chair, one should imagine that the Government would be pleased to get some support for it rather than do its best not to get support for it. {: #subdebate-52-0-s3 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- In reply- Briefly, in reply to the remarks by **Senator Withers,** I point out to **Senator Withers** and to the Senate that because the Government has not yet received the passage of the Appropriation Bills and the Loan Bill this is the fifth week in succession that the Senate is sitting. The arrangement had been made that we would sit for 4 weeks and then rise for two. lt is because we are anxious to secure debate and decisions on whether the Government is going to receive the passage of the Appropriation Bills and the Loan Bill that we have again moved the motion that Government business take precedence over general business after 3 p.m. this day. On the other matter to which **Senator Withers** has alluded, we all know that **Senator Withers,** having the numbers in this place, could have brought on that motion had he so desired. Certainly we would have sought the adjournment of the debate because, in conformity with normal procedure, any matter that requires a vote in this Parliament must be considered by the Executive Government, on the part of the Government, and by a general meeting of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. It would have been for those reasons and those reasons alone that we would, in the normal course of events and in accordance with convention, have sought the adjournment of the debate. Of course, as we all know, with numbers being as they are in the Senate, if **Senator Withers** had wished to force a vote on the matter today, one of his number, as happened last Wednesday in relation to the urgency motion, could have moved the gag to bring on the debate and get a decision on it. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1618 {:#debate-53} ### STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1975 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by **Senator Wriedt)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-53-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-53-0-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · Tasmania · ALP -- I move: I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in *Hansard.* {: #subdebate-53-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment of capital grants to the States in 1 975-76 totalling $430,333,000. This amount represents the grant component of the State governments ' Loan Council programs for 1975-76 and is equal to one-third of the total programs- a slightly higher percentage share than in 1974-75. The Bill also provides for the payment of capital grants in the first 6 months of 1976-77 up to an amount equal to one-half of the 1975-76 amount pending passage of similar legislation in that year. Payments authorised under this Bill may be made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from the Loan Fund, and appropriate borrowing authority is included. These grants represent a continuation of arrangements initiated in June 1970 under which the Australian Government provides a portion of the State governments' Loan Council programs in the form of interestfree grants in lieu of what would otherwise be borrowings by the States. The savings to the States in debt charges resulting from these capital grants are substantial. At its meeting in June 1975, the Loan Council approved programs for the State governments totalling $1,291,000,000, consisting of a basic program of $1,281,000,000, and a special permanent addition of $10,000,000 for New South Wales in recognition of that State 's relatively low per head share of Loan Council programs when compared with other States. The programs agreed to for both South Australia and Tasmania are, however, $6m lower than they would otherwise have been, as they take into account the savings that will be made in the States' capital works programs as a result of the proposed transfer of South Australia's non-metropolitan railway system and of Tasmania's railway system to the Australian Government as from 1 July 1975. The basic program for 1975-76 of $1,281,000,000 represents an effective increase, that is after adjustment for the effects of the railway 'offsets', of 20 per cent over the 1974-75 basic program. When account is taken of the special permanent addition of $10,000,000 for New South Wales, the increase in the total 1975-76 program over the 1974-75 basic program, becomes 20.9 per cent. The figure of 20 per cent represented the Australian Government's best, albeit very approximate, estimate of possible cost increases in the capital works field in 1975-76. In other words, the intention was to maintain the programs at roughly the same 'real' level as in the previous year. The 1975-76 State Government Loan Council program is made up of borrowings totalling $860,667,000 and capital grants, to be provided by the Australian Government, of $430,333,000. At its June 1975 meeting the Loan Council also approved an increase of$132.Im, or 20 percent, in the basic borrowing programs for State authorities classified as 'larger' authorities for this purpose. In 1974-75 these were semigovernment and local authorities whose individual borrowings for the year exceeded $500,000. For 1975-76 the Loan Council agreed to increase this amount to $700,000. There is no overall limit on borrowings of authorities whose individual borrowings amount to $700,000 or less in that year. The 'larger' authorities total program of $809.7m also includes special permanent additions of $10,000,000 for New South Wales on the same basis as the permanent addition to its State Government program to which I have already referred, and $7,075,000 for Queensland under arrangements agreed at the June 1968 Loan Council meeting in respect of the termination, at 30 June 1975, of the issue of variable interest stock by that State's Southern Electricity Authority. Further details concerning the Loan Council programs of the States and their authorities for 1975-76 may be found in chapter III of the Budget paper 'Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1975-76'. Turning to the details of the Bill, clause 3 authorises the payment of grants to the States totalling $430,333,000 in 1975-76 and clause 4 authorises the Treasurer to make advance payments in the first 6 months of 1976-77 at the same annual rate as in the current financial year. The amounts for each State are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Under clause 5 of the Bill payments may be made either from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Loan Fund and clause 9 provides for the necessary appropriation of these funds. The extent to which the payments will be met from the Loan Fund will depend on borrowings during the year, which cannot be estimated in advance. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill authorise the Treasurer to borrow funds in the period from t he commencement of the Act to the end of December 1976, up to the total of the amounts of the grants payable in 1975-76 and in the first 6 months of 1976-77. This borrowing authority will be reduced by the amount of any borrowings made before the commencement of this Act, under the authority of the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Act 1974, which may have been used to finance grants made in the first 6 months of 1975-76. The payments which it is proposed be authorised by this legislation are, of course, but one element in the total scheme of Australian Government Assistance to the States and they need to be considered in that context. The total picture in relation to assistance to the States in 1975-76 will be discussed in the second reading speech introducing the States Grants Bill 1975. It should suffice to say here that the Government is convinced that an objective examination of the matter would show that the State governments and their authorities have been treated most handsomely indeed in the Budget. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Carrick)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1619 {:#debate-54} ### CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL 1975 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by **Senator James** McClelland) read a first time. {:#subdebate-54-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-54-0-s0 .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I move: I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in *Hansard.* {: #subdebate-54-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -ls leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- As honourable senators will know, the provision of effective protection for the consumer is one of the stated aims of the Australian Labor Party. It is a theme which underlies many of the Government's other aims; its plans in the social, economic, industrial and environmental fields; its plans in research and development and in law reform are all conceived with a clear recognition of the interests of.the Australian consumer. Useful moves have already been made to provide measures of consumer protection in Australia, but these have mostly been fragmentary in nature. The Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs **(Mr Clyde Cameron)** does not want to decry in any way the valuable achievements that have been made by consumer bodies and by the State governments. On the contrary, the Minister commends them for their splendid efforts. That they have achieved as much, without legislative support from the Australian Government, is a tribute to them. That they will achieve so much more in the future is the assurance that the Minister can give them with the introduction of this legislation. Let me state clearly at the outset that it is not the Minister's intention that the new Authority should take over the functions of the State Bureaus. Its role will be to work in close liaison with them. It will complement their work, not compete with it. The Authority, by looking over the whole field on a' national basis, will be able to identify and act quickly against malpractice which crosses State boundaries. The Minister invites the States, where they are able to make a continuing contribution to the work of the Authority. He intends to have regular meetings with the State Ministers for Consumer Affairs, and is confident that between them they will provide a formal link with the Authority at an appropriate level. The object of the Bill is to establish a statutory authority to give effect on a co-ordinated nationwide basis to the comprehensive policies which we have for the protection of the consumer. This authority will be the administrative centre for consumer protection. It will be the hub of Australian Government involvement in consumer protection and the point of contact for State consumer affairs bodies. It will be the agency to which the general public and the many splendid voluntary consumer groups can look for the assistance which they so fully deserve in their work to protect the public. It will also be the source for completely new initiatives in the setting of national standards and the testing of consumer products. Before dealing with the most important features of the Bill, I must refer briefly to the work of the Interim Commission on Consumer Standards which was established by the Minister's predecessor in October 1973. It was directed to canvass the opinions of consumers on the need for consumer standards and to suggest how the desired standards might best reflect public need and how their development might be facilitated. The Interim Commission was also asked to examine general issues pertinent to consumer protection, to encourage the formation of a federation of consumer organisations, to investigate consumer education, to arrange liaison between Federal and State consumer officials and, most importantly, to make recommendations about a permanent body that should ultimately take its place. One of the achievements of the Interim Commission was to bring together consumer organisations to form the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. This now enables a consumer viewpoint to be expressed with the backing of the Federation. The criticism that the consumer movement only represents small sectional interests can no longer be sustained. The Interim Commission's report, which was tabled in this House in July 1 974, strongly urged the establishment of a permanent statutory authority with wide powers to undertake all those activities necessary to develop soundly based consumer standards. An essential part of the processes leading to the adoption of mandatory standards was seen by the Interim Commission to be the conduct of public hearings. With that view the Minister is in complete agreement. The Minister would like honourable senators to note that many of the recommendations of the Interim Commission have been incorporated in the Bill. Since the work of the Interim Commission was completed, the Minister has given the most searching thought to the needs of setting and enforcing national standards for consumer protection. The Minister is firmly of the view that this very necessary need can only be achieved effectively if all its *aspects* are brought together under one authority which has the constitutional power to set and enforce these standards. He is equally sure that this is what the public wants of the Australian Government. Honourable senators will know that the Trade Practices Act includes provisions directed towards consumer protection. For the reasons which the Minister has given, he did not want to have a dichotomy of Government responsibilityvested partly in the Trade Practices Commission and partly in a consumer standards commission. The proposal, therefore, which is incorporated in the Bill is for a single Australian Consumer Protection Authority which will bring together the functions and powers presently exercised by the Trade Practices Commission in relation to the legal aspects of consumer protection, as well as the technical functions and activities needed to establish a sound base for consumers to be given accurate and adequate information about consumer goods. We will not be trying to force everyone to have Rolls Royce models of everything, but we should put them in the position where, especially in the major purchases they make, they can select on the basis of accurate information. At present many of the major purchases such as carpets, refrigerators, stoves and so on, are made without adequate information. Honourable senators will know that the Minister's portfolio encompasses science, technology, and consumer affairs. The connection linking consumer interests with applied science and technology is readily apparent. Many products of our technological society have found their way to consumers through slick sales publicity designed to condition the psychological processes that now *fashion* the kind of society in which we live. In respect of the goods which we seem to value highly nowadays- cars, television sets, refrigerators and so on- the consumer has little early say in decisions which culminate in the range of services and products on the market. Worse still, he has no knowledge of some of the most undesirable side effects of modern science and technology. Thus the consumer is, at one and the same time, both a beneficiary and a victim of modern technology. It is therefore the Minister's aim to achieve better public understanding and more public invovlement in the complex interactions between technology and industry on the one hand, and consumer protection on the other. The Authority will be of positive value to Australian industry. The potential benefits are obvious. With national standards set in co-operation with the States, manufacturers will no longer have to worry about having to meet different requirements in different States. It will protect local manufacturers as well as consumers against imported goods which do not meet Australian standards. These standards will be set in close consultation with local industry. Such consultation will be designed to ensure that no standards are set without a full understanding of what the cost effects will be. For these reasons, reputable Australian manufacturers will have nothing to fear. They will, in fact, benefit from the knowledge that the authority will restrict the activities of unscrupulous firms which give industry a bad name. The Minister has studied developments in the field of consumer protection in many overseas countries. It is evident to him that, whilst much good work has been done in this country in the field of consumer protection, we lag far behind what is being done overseas. I emphasise, however, that this Bill is not a carbon copy of anything from overseas. It incorporates the best features of overseas practice, selected to suit Australian conditions, and includes some innovations of its own. I now turn to the Bill itself and I will confine my remarks to broad concepts rather than going into details. The first part of the Bill comprises definitions only and needs no further comment. Part II of the Bill describes the powers and functions of the Authority. It will be seen that they derive from the recommendations of the Interim Standards Commission and from the functions transferred from the Trade Practices Commission. In summary, the functions of the Authority will cover the whole gamut of consumer affairs. It will liaise with, and support, consumer groups and prepare and distribute educational information. The Authority will also work together with persons engaged in advertising, trade or commerce, and keep such persons informed of its activities. It will enforce consumers' rights by examining unsatisfactory trade practices and taking legal action when necessary. Its other main function will be to study the quality of goods and services, by the testing of consumer goods and by developing and enforcing, where necessary, consumer standards. The Authority will, however, seek to persuade rather than penalise. In the performance of its function, the Authority will be obliged to avail itself of resources and facilities of other bodies or authorities engaged in the formulation of such standards and will play a co-ordinating role to this effect. The Minister has already spoken of his desire for the Authority to work in harmony with State agencies. Honourable senators will notice that Part III of the Bill is identical with Part V of the Trade Practices Act. The only changes are to Clauses 21 and 22, and these changes are of a machinery nature. The intention then is clear: To give the proposed Authority the consumer protection functions now exercised by the Trade Practices Commission. After this legislation comes into force, the corresponding sections will be deleted from the Trade Practices Act. Officers of the Trade Practices Commission who are currently devoted to the administration of Part V of the Trade Practices Act are to be transferred to the Ministry of Science and Consumer Affairs The Minister can therefore give an assurance that there is no intention to duplicate activities or to build up a large bureaucracy. In fact, the Authority will comprise a small core of permanent staff supported, where necessary, by specialists drawn from States, industry and universities, on a seconded or contract basis. Specialist task forces will also be established for specific short-term duties. Part IV of the Bill deals with the Authority's role in respect of consumer product standards and in particular with the public actions which it must take before recommending to the Minister that a standard be adopted or revoked. The duties of the Minister in relation to this process and to Parliament are clearly laid down in the Bill. Part V provides for the notification, to the Authority by manufacturers, distributors and retailers of substantial product hazards. The related powers of the Industrial Court and the Authority are clearly defined. Part VI of the Bill makes provision for wide public debate on consumer protection matters and particularly the development of mandatory standards. The Authority will be concerned with standards for consumer goods, and many of those standards will enjoy the force of law. It is therefore important that, before such standards are introduced, all the consequences of their introduction are assessed and appreciatedespecially by the general public whose interests are at stake. It would be easy to write standards which appear to be desirable from the consumer viewpoint, but which would later be found to entail serious disadvantages to manufacturers. It is therefore important to set standards which are feasible, economically viable, and technologically and socially desirable- standards giving the consumer the best practical result, without making unrealistic demands on industry. The powers of the Authority in regard to public hearings have therefore been spelt out in some detail. These clauses follow closely those applicable to the Industries Assistance Commission in regard to its public hearings. Honourable senators will notice that witnesses may be compelled to give evidence but at the same time they are protected from intimidatory practices. Where matters of evidence are genuinely confidential, they will be protected. Part VII of the Bill deals with enforcement and remedies. This Part contains, unaltered, the enforcement provisions of Part VI of the Trade Practices Act. Part VIII describes the structure of the proposed Authority. It will be headed by a Commissioner and up to 5 Assistant Commissioners. The Commissioner will be a statutory officer having the powers of a Permanent Head. Part IX of the Bill deals with 'finance', and I shall not go into details on this matter. Part X makes provision to establish an advisory council consisting of not more than 20 persons, chosen primarily because of their active interest in the field of consumer affairs. Whilst they will not be representative of particular organisations, nevertheless they will be chosen so as to cover the interests of all cross sections of the community. The Bill also contains a number of necessary machinery clauses, as for example the need to present annual reports to Parliament. The Minister foresees such reports as being most useful documents and powerful forces for good through the exposure of malpractice and the lauding of good practice. Honourable senators will also note that any reports to the Minister by the Authority must be listed in the report. Provision is made to protect manufacturers and to provide them with access to the Authority before the disclosure of information, as well as in the investigation of substantial product hazards. There is also provision for the adoption of international conventions and internationally adopted standards. Before concluding, I want to indicate an important aspect of the way in which the Authority will operate. Consumer products cover a very wide range, and there are already many agencies working in the field. For example, the Therapeutic Goods Act already makes provision for the Minister for Health to determine standards for therapeutic goods and for their packaging and labelling, and to prevent their distribution if they do not comply with those requirements. The Therapeutic Goods Standards Committee, the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee, and the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, have been established to advise the Minister for Health in his administration of that Act. Samples of therapeutic goods subject to the Therapeutic Goods Act are examined, tested and analysed by the National Biological Standards Laboratory, a division of the Department of Health. In addition, the National Biological Standards Laboratory researches and prepares draft standards for consideration by the Therapeutic Goods Standards Committee and the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee. It is intended that the Authority in exercising its functions will not disturb either the existing procedure for the determination and application of standards for therapeutic goods by the Minister for Health or the functions of the bodies established under the Therapeutic Goods Regulations. The Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which includes representatives of State governments, consumer interests and the food industry, has for many years carried out the function of formulating food standards. It has been aided by its specialist advisory committees on food additives, food microbiology, food and analysis and food science and technology. Transport is another area in which the Consumer Protection Authority will be able to make a strong consumer input in co-operation with existing agencies for the formulation and determination of standards. In the case of aircraft, the Air Navigation Act and Regulations provides a basis for the establishment and enforcement of standards. In the important case of motor vehicles, ACPA will become a major new force in the formulation and implementation of standards in consultation with the Australian Transport Advisory Council. The Authority will be able to place the onus and sanctions where they belong- with the manufacturers, importers and distribution networks. Moreover, the Authority will be able to look critically at the way in which vehicles and associated services are being merchandised and to protect the individual motorist when difficulties arise. Clause 7 (2) of the Bill will enable the Consumer Protection Authority to take advantage of the expertise and experience, in the health field, of the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council; and in transport, the Road Safety and Standards Authority and the specialist advisory committees of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. Complementary arrangements will also be made to enable the latter bodies to take advantage of the expertise and experience of the Consumer Protection Authority. There is no intention that the Authority should take over that activity. Its role will rather be to work through existing organisations- and to co-ordinate their work, to comment on-their work, and to indicate to them areas requiring attention. In conclusion, let me say that every member of Parliament is in some way or other a consumer. All of us have been dissatisfied from time to time with the quality of goods we have bought; with the lack of information about products; with the service we have received; or with the fine print in the contract we have signed. This Bill provides the greatest step forward so far taken in protecting the rights to which we as consumers and members of the Australian public are entitled. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Greenwood)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1623 {:#debate-55} ### STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) 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. {:#subdebate-55-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-55-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP -- I move: I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-55-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -ls leave granted? {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- No. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Leave is not granted. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -The purpose of the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill is to authorise the Treasurer to pay to the States this year the sum of $364.6m for welfare housing in accordance with the provisions of the 1973-1974 Housing Agreement. It will be distributed among the States as follows: Welfare housing is an area to which the Government attaches high priority. Bearing in mind the $ 10.4m advanced in June 1975 on the basis that it would be taken into account in this year's allocation, the advances in 1975-76 will be maintained at the greatly increased 1974-75 level, and well above the $2 18.6m allocated in 1973-74. They will also be some 2V4 times greater than the allocations for welfare housing from State loan funds in the last 2 years of the previous Government which were $161. 5 m in 1971-72 and $163.2m in 1972-73. This is the real measure of the importance attached to welfare housing by the present Government in comparison with our predecessors. The decision to limit the welfare housing advances for 1975-76 to the 1974-75 level has been a difficult one for the Government to take. It will, however, be recalled that the large increase in the advances in 1974-75 was in part due to the sharp downturn that had developed in private housing construction. It was appropriate for public housing activity to be stepped up above the original allocations in order to increase the output of welfare housing and also to use resources that otherwise may well have remained idle. Although the allocations for 1975-76 are limited by the budgetary constraints aimed at achieving greater economic stability and the control of inflation, they by no means reflect an intention to divert from a course that will ensure further improvements in welfare housing standards. However, there is significant evidence of recovery in the private home building sector. Private commencements had started to recover in the March quarter and the improvement has been maintained in the June quarter when 28 200 dwellings were commenced, about 10 per cent more than in the preceding December quarter. Approvals of private dwellings in the June quarter exceeded 30 000 compared with about 24 000 in the December quarter. The number of housing loans approved by savings banks and permanent building societies was maintained at a very high level throughout the first half of 1975 and this should ensure further growth in commencements in the coming months. In these circumstances, it would have been economically irresponsible to continue to increase the government housing sector at the pace established in the special circumstances of the last financial year. It is contrary to the interests of the housing industry and the aspirations of prospective home buyers to seek to return to the over-stretched demand situation which existed in 1 973-74. A return to that situation is contrary to the best interests of the economy as a whole and all persons concerned with home ownership. Nevertheless, although it may not be possible to maintain commencement of government dwellings at the same level as in 1974-75, the still substantial advances to be provided in 1975-76 will allow the completion by the State housing authorities of a much higher number of welfare dwellings than has been the case for many years and this will be occurring along with the recovery in private housing now in train. The Bill also authorises the Treasurer to pay to the States in the first 6 months of 1976-77 the sum of $ 182.3m, which is half the allocation for 1975-76. This amount will be distributed on the same basis as the advances for the current year. In other words, the Treasurer will be authorised to continue payments to the States for welfare housing in the period from 1 July 1976 until an appropriation measure for 1976-77 is passed by the Parliament. The advances to be authorised by the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill are repayable over a period of 53 years. The rate of interest payable on advances during the full 5-year term of the Agreement is fixed at 4 per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the State housing authorities and 41/2 per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the Home Builders' Accounts of the States. The apportionment of each State's allocation between its housing authority and its Home Builders' Account was formally determined by the Minister for Housing and Construction on 12 September 1975 after further consultation between the Minister and the Housing Minister of each State. The amounts determined are as follows: The repayable interest-bearing advances will, as circumstances dictate, be made either from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Loan Fund and on the terms and conditions set out in the 1973-1974 Housing Agreement. Provision is made for any payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this purpose to be reimbursed in due course from the Loan Fund, when the Treasurer considers this appropriate. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Carrick)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1624 {:#debate-56} ### APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76 {: .page-start } page 1624 {:#debate-57} ### APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1975-76 Restoration to the Notice Paper Debate resumed from 29 October on motion by **Senator Wriedt:** >That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 be now restored to the Notice Paper and that they be Orders of the Day for a later hour this day- Upon which **Senator Cotton** had moved by way of amendment: >Leave out all words after'That', insert- > >1 ) the Senate having considered Message No. 392 of the House of Representatives- rejects the assertion made in paragraph (a), rejects the allegation made in paragraph (b), and asserts that, as to the matters contained in paragraphs (c) and (d), the true position is given in the Senate resolution as communicated to the House of Representatives in Message No. 279. > >That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. ' {: #debate-57-s0 .speaker-KSW} ##### Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland -- I support the Opposition's action in relation to these Bills. Like other members of the Opposition, I certainly consider the course which we have taken in this affair to be the right one. I believe that we have made the right decision. I intend to stick by it. I would like that message to get through to my colleagues on the other side of the Senate, particularly those from Queensland. There is no doubt in the world, despite all the propaganda and all that **Senator Keeffe** might say, that the Senate has the power to act in the way it has acted. Despite all the propaganda and all the insisting by members of the Government Party and others that the Senate did not have that right, there is no doubt that most of them, including the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam),** have had to admit that the Senate has the right to reject a money Bill. We must consider the position of the Senate as a House of this Parliament. It may be all right for **Senator James** McClelland to say, as I remember him saying yesterday, that the Senate is not a democratically elected House; but it is a democratically elected House. It is here to protect the rights of the smaller States. It may be all right for **Senator James** McClelland who comes from New South Wales, which in conjunction with Victoria has more representatives in the other House than all the other States combined, to speak in the way that he did yesterday. New South Wales and Victoria can dominate the House of Representatives, against the interests of the other, smaller States. That is why we have the Senate- to protect the interests of the smaller States. I, for one, coming from Queensland, will ensure that the wishes of the people of Queensland are put in this place. It is ridiculous to talk about conventions. Why did the founding fathers- after all, the rights of the States and how the Senate would be constructed were the biggest issues before Federationgive this power to the Senate? What is the use of giving power to the Senate and then saying that it cannot be used, that by tradition we have got to do something else? The Senate was given the right to protect the interests of the smaller States, in the event of the larger States, which dominate the other House, doing something which is not in the interests of the people of the nation as a whole. If that safeguard was not vested in this House we may not have had a federation as we see it today; we may not have had one country. We may have had our 6 States, as they have in Europe or South America. In those places the people of the same ethnic background live in separate countries. As far as I a:m concerned, the Opposition in the Senate has considered this matter. Maybe it is an unusual step to take. Maybe it has not happened before, but I submit that never before in the history of this nation has there been a situation of the Opposition having the numbers in this chamber and of the nation's affairs being in control of a government which has lost the confidence of the people. It is for us to judge in the interests of the people whether we should force this Government to go to its masters, the people. {: .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Have you read this morning's newspapers? {: .speaker-KSW} ##### Senator MAUNSELL: -The honourable senator can make his speech later, or, if he has already done so, he may like to reconsider the matter. There is no doubt that we have that right. The decision was made in the light of the public outcry against this Government's mismanagement of the affairs of the nation and the public demand that it should be given a say as to whether we continue along the road to socialism, whether private industry is to be driven to the wall, or whether we are going to get back to the prosperity that we had for 20-odd years under previous governments. I believe that we on this side of the chamber have the responsibility to see that the wishes of the people, as transmitted to us, are carried out. I believe that we have to take action when we see the widespread unemployment and inflation which the Government has allowed to continue without making any apparent attempt to curb it. Also we have seen the dealings in relation to the loans affair. Acting Prime Ministers of this country have been sacked. All of these things show that the Government is incapable of running this country. What is the brawl about at the moment? Is it true that we are doing the wrong thing in the Senate, as most people on the Government side are trying to put over, or is the propaganda which is coming from the Government side merely an attempt by it to try to stay in power at any cost? I submit that what **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack said here yesterday is probably the essence of the whole thing: This is a fight between the Parliament and the divine right of a Prime Minister who wants to govern at all costs. There was no problem in 1974 when we suggested that the Government of the day should go to the people. In fact, we have heard all the comments that **Mr Whitlam** made on that occasion. His advice to the Governor-General at that time suggested that he agreed that if he was refused Supply he was duty bound to go to the people. Of course, now it is a different story. The Prime Minister has been doggedly followed by all members on the Government side. He seems to have whipped them into a state of submission in which they will do anything that he wants them to do. Acting Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers have been sacked at his whim. Two of them were sacked because of their association with the loans affair. From an examination of the Loans Council minute one can discover that of the 4 Ministers who contrived that great loan raising operation only one survives. One wonders just exactly what this great loan for $2,000m- we have heard it raised to $4,000m and I have heard mention of $8,000m and $9,000m-was all about. That minute was initiated a few days after the anniversary of Pearl Harbour when the Labor Party was slaughtered in Queensland at a State election. Naturally being terrified not only of the polls but also the judgment on this Government by the people of Queensland, I believe that the Government decided that its time looked like being up or, as **Senator Chaney** said yesterday, its chips were up. The Government wanted to get any money at any cost to obviate the situation which exists today. I wonder what would be the situation today had it raised this sum of $8,000m for temporary purposes on 20-year terms. I wonder what would be the situation if the Government had that money available or invested somewhere. It may have been able to obviate the money problems that it has at the moment or the one that it will have from 30 November until next April and so obviate the constitutional situation and stay in government at all costs. We have heard a lot of discussion also about the monetary situation. People have been threatened that they will not get paid. Servicemen, public servants and all sorts of organisations which are due money and which should have received the money appropriated by us last April have been threatened. They should have received that money, but they are not getting it, and we are getting the blame. What has happened to this Government? What is it hiding? It was given an appropriation earlier in the year which was meant to see it through until 30 November. It appropriated something like 49.3 per cent more than it received last year under Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and 110 per cent more under Appropriation Bill (No. 2). Surely that should have given the Government sufficient money to last it not only until 30 November but probably a bit longer. I do not know whether it has run out of money early or whether it has spent it all. I know the manner in which it has been squandering money all over the place. We know also that the check which was carried out the other day revealed that 30 per cent of those receiving the unemployment benefit were not entitled to it. So we do not know where the money is being wasted, but we do know that that is one area in which it has been wasted. {: .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator Primmer: -- There are a lot of farmers' sons in that racket. {: .speaker-KSW} ##### Senator MAUNSELL: -- I am not saying who is in the racket; they should not be in the racket. That is the area in which the money is being wasted. So why all the threats? Is it a fact that the Government has overspent or the departments have overspent and mismanaged the affairs of the nation? Is the Government trying to hide that fact, or does it have the money to keep it going until 30 November? That is what we would like to know. Why is there all this shilly-shallying about the Government not being able to provide in a certain area money which was due before 30 November, even though it agreed to do so? These are the questions we would like answered. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- What would happen in December? {: .speaker-KSW} ##### Senator MAUNSELL: -- The honourable senator knows what happened on 7 December last year; he is well aware of that. If the system of one vote one value was operating at that election the Labor Party would not have one member in the Queensland Parliament. Anyway, let me return to the reasons why we believe that we should continue with our present attitude in relation to this matter. As far as I am concerned, we have a Prime Minister who is determined to stay in office. He could not give a damn what happens to the nation. He has done nothing about inflation and unemployment. What has he done about the private sector which employs 75 per cent of the people of this nation? The Government only has to boost the private sector, give it confidence and allow it to operate in order to solve many of its unemployment problems. But, of course, it does not do that. What has the Government done to the rural sector? Costs have accelerated to such an extent in the country towns, particularly in my own State of Queensland- I have no doubt that the same situation applies in other country towns- that the people are finding it darned difficult to live. The industries in those towns depend on world markets and receive their incomes from a world market situation, but they are faced with a local cost situation that they cannot surmount. Of course, some industries are in the position where they are not making great profits. In fact, most industries are in this position; except perhaps the wheat industry, but even the wheat industry is getting itself into the situation where it could cost itself out of the world markets. The people who are suffering most as a result of the attitude of this Government towards the rural sector are the people who live in country towns because their cost of living is increasing enormously and the industries which support them are not viable enough to provide sufficient work. One has to look only at what the removal of the petroleum subsidy has done in my State of Queensland, anyway, and at the price of petrol in the western areas of the State. Increased telephone and postal charges have placed a terrific burden on the people in that area. Oil prices have increased. Everything is added to the cost of transport, which increases considerably the cost of goods. I should like **Senator Georges** to go to that area in the central west of Queensland and see the difference in the cost of living there now compared with what it was 12 months ago. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I was there 3 weeks ago. Have you forgotten what happened during the drought and what you did for them? {: .speaker-KSW} ##### Senator MAUNSELL: **- Senator Georges** should go and look and see what has happened in that area in 12 months. The people in that area have tried to survive. They are getting to the position where their standard of living is being considerably reduced. The working people in that area have most of their assets tied up in their homes. They cannot sell those homes even for the price that they may have paid for them 10 or 15 years ago. With today's inflation, these people canno t get back what it cost them to build their homes. There is just no market for their homes. Nobody wants to stay in that area. Many people are leaving. I believe that this is one of the tragedies. People who have lived in this area and have put all their money into their homes have had to go elsewhere to get jobs and they cannot sell their homes. They have to go and put a deposit on new homes or rent homes in areas where job opportunities exist. I believe that I would be doing the wrong thing in this place if I did not vote to defer Supply until such time as this Government is prepared to go to the people. Therefore, I support the stand that has been taken by the Opposition. {: #debate-57-s1 .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria **-Mr Deputy President,** it was rather ironical that **Senator Maunsell** early in his speech should mention his Queensland colleagues and make some of the assertions that he did because I am given to understand that the Premier in his State closed down the State Parliament this morning because he says that he wants to go out and do battle against the socialists in Canberra. It would appear to me to be just another move by that Premier to close down the House of the people in that State and to spend his time agitating and working against this Government in Canberra which is attempting to do something for the people of that State. Because the Premier has been spending so much time vilifying and fighting Canberra, maybe he has not had time to draw up any Bills to present to his Parliament; so he has been forced to close the Parliament down. We are dealing with a message from the other place in regard to Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2). Quite frankly, the whole exercise has become one of very tedious repetition. Of course, that has been brought about, as we and the taxpayers and residents of this country know, because of the obstructionism of the Opposition in this chamber. It has come about despite the earlier assertion by the Leader of the Liberal Party when he came to the throne of that Party that obstructionism would not be carried on for its own sake. I believe that the whole exercise has been very aptly described in one of the best analogies that I have seen. My colleague **Senator McLaren** would appreciate this because I know that he has been through the same school of life as I went through. This exercise was summed up by a journalist who referred to the Opposition members as being very much akin to a pack of farm dogs around a. heap of wood looking for reprehensible circumstances- as **Mr Fraser** has been looking for them. **Senator McLaren** and other honourable senators of our generation would appreciate that all too often that heap of wood turns out to be covering either a field mouse or a fighting tom cat. Of course, if the tom cat comes out the pack of farm dogs is scatttered to the 4 winds. I predict that in this case the heap of wood in which the Leader of the Opposition is looking for reprehensible circumstances has already spewed forth a fighting tom cat. That fighting tom cat is to be found in the 70 per cent of the Australian people who were polled who have said to the Leader of the Opposition: 'Pass Supply'. Of course, if he does not pass Supply he will be like that pack of farm dogs; he will be scattered to the 4-winds. The result of the poll which was published in this morning's newspaper showing that 70 per cent of the people polled were in favour of passing Supply is a fair indication, I think, of what the electors are starting to feel and to express about the Opposition's obstructionthe opposition by the Liberal and Country Parties. Quite frankly, if **Mr Fraser** does not make a decision very shortly I predict that he will be slaughtered, that as the heir apparent to the R. G. Menzies empire, he will go to the wall. Even the Press has turned on him. The editions of the Age, the *Sydney Morning Herald* and the *Australian Financial Review* that I have read today have all said: 'Pass Supply'. It may also be fitting to mention that I understand, early next month, the National Trust in the western district of Victoria is declaring an open day at the home of **Mr Fraser,** Nareen. Anybody who has been to Nareen or has passed it would appreciate that it is a home of some historical consequence, as are many of the artefacts inside it. So I say to members of the Opposition that **Mr Fraser** will be very well catered for early in November- he will have an historic home to go to. I suggest that some other members of the Opposition might have a look over their shoulders to see where they are going to go, unless they use a little bit more prudence than they have used to date in regard to their continued objections to the Appropriation Bills. Since 1972 the Labor Government has moved into areas of need that were long neglected by our predecessors as the government. To name three or four of those areas, I refer to Medibank, family law, legal aid and the Children's Commission. They are areas of need, as I have said, that were neglected for 23 years. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- And better conditions for pensioners. {: .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator PRIMMER: -- As my colleague **Senator McLaren** says, we have provided far better conditions for pensioners. They are now in the position where they are salting a few shillings away each week- not like they were previously when they were hanging on every election and were given a pittance of 50c just prior to an election in an attempt to bribe them. I think it is quite apparent that because Labor has done what it has done the electorate is starting to appreciate it. In a statement on 5 June of this year the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** said: >We have seen this year a number of significant Government programs brought to fruition. Others have been brought to the point of implementation. Their benefits will soon be flowing to the Australian people and the particular groups who need them- the low-income earners, the children, the sick, the handicapped. Radical and enduring social reform is not achieved over night. I am sure that we will all appreciate that point. He continued: lt is not achieved by spending more money, though money is certainly needed. I think that the more pertinent part of the Prime Minister's statement is this reference: >It requires new institutions, new scales and priorities . . . *Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.* {: .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator PRIMMER: -Before the luncheon adjournment I was quoting from a statement of the Prime Minister made on 5 June this year in another place. I pointed out that, in relation to the reforms which the Labor Government had promoted since 1972, the Prime Minister had said, amongst other things: lt is not achieved by spending more money, though money is certainly needed. It requires new institutions, new scales and priorities, new social attitudes, new political guidelines, new efforts at co-operation, new men and women in positions of authority. This process can be difficult and painfully protracted, but eventually the results will show. Later in the same statement he said: >We have developed and extended our legal aid service. Six regional offices of the Australian Legal Aid Office have been opened this year and more than 60 000 people have been assisted. I am quite sure that every honourable senator has had some insight into the benefits those 60 000 people have gained through this Government's proposal and development of the legal aid service. The Prime Minister went on further: >Two other achievements of the present session reflect something of the Government's fundamental social and human priorities. The Family Law Bill- a monument to the former Attorney-General, now **Mr Justice** Murphy- has completely refurbished the marriage and divorce laws of Australia and done away with the medieval concepts of guilt and fault. Despite the attempts of this Government to carry out these reforms in much needed areas, the conservatives and reactionaries both in this place and outside, some of them even at the top echelon of State governments, have resisted by every means they can think of the implementation of these reforms. They have resisted them to the bitter end, in many instances even taking the matters as far as High Court decisions. One consequently asks oneself: Why? Why the bitter and sometimes twisted reaction to legislation designed to assist the great mass of people out in the electorate? Why do these people opposite and their stooges in other places believe that they and they alone are born to rule, that they know best? Why do they wish to deny the common people the benefit of Labor's legislation? It is patently obvious to me that these people believe in a class system. They believe that only the better off classes have the right to proper legal representation before the courts, proper medical and hospital treatment and benefits, that only their children should have the right of access to pre-school care and kindergartens, that only the wealthy classes should have those benefits and that only the wealthy classes should have the benefit of the best education that this country can afford. Of course, they still cannot stomach the fact that they are in Opposition. That is becoming more and more obvious every day. We on this side of the House hoped that the Opposition would get over that hangup and after perhaps twelve or eighteen months in Opposition would suddenly realise that it was in Opposition and no longer the Government. But that does not seem to have become a fact. The Opposition still hangs onto the myth that it is the Government. There have been the convention breaking exercises of the State governments, particularly the one in Queensland, which had the audacity in its convention breaking exercise to appoint a nonLabor member to this Parliament over the body of **Senator Milliner.** I believe that that was not so much a mischievous act as a coolly calculated manoeuvre to get control of the numbers in this place. **Senator Greenwood's** ill-tempered attack on a High Court judge, I believe, was no accident. It was a deliberate plan to attempt to downgrade the status of the High Court because a few days previously the High Court had handed down several decisions in favour of legislation that this Government had put before the Parliament over the last couple of years. There is the question of **Mr Khemlani** 's presence in the country at this time. As I said before, **Mr Khemlani** is the rabbit in the wood pile that the pack of dogs was hoping to find, but it is patently obvious that the rabbit has either gone up a hollow log or underground and the tom-cat, in the form of an irate public, has come out and scattered the pack. I claim that it is no accident that **Mr Khemlani,** is here now. Power, and power at any price, is **Mr Fraser's** motto. He seems to see himself as a latter day Messiah moulded in the Menzies pattern. Convention and constitution can be disregarded so far as he is concerned. In Chile and other countries around the world his ilk have used the CIA and guns to overthrow democratically elected governments. The Opposition is not quite yet at the point where it can do that in Australia. It would like to see this Government overthrown, a government which has been popularly elected twice within 3 years and given a mandate. Unfortunately for the Opposition, the mass of Australian people outside are stirred. They are the tom-cat in the woodheap and they will not stand by and see this Government overthrown by jackboot tactics. I believe that the Australian people, in keeping with a long history that seems to be part of our culture, will not bow down to jackboot-type leadership from **Mr Fraser** or **Mr Anthony.** I predict that **Mr Fraser** will go the way of many previous Liberal leaders. He is destined for the political scrapheap, and as I said earlier, he will be a fitting statue in his homestead early next month when the Historical Society opens it for public gaze. I do not wish to say any more, except to repeat what I said earlier. The whole debate on the Appropriation Bills has become tedious repetition. Unfortunately for each and every one of us in this place, the whole institute of Parliament is being downgraded while this wrangle goes on. The sooner some of the more liberal members in **Mr Fraser's** Party stand up to him and say: 'This far, no further', the sooner democracy will be allowed to go on and the Government to get down to the job, the economy to be brought back into its proper perspective and the Australian people to see the further results of Labor legislation flow. {: #debate-57-s2 .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP:
South Australia -- This debate has been rather tedious because this is the third time that the Senate has dealt with the matter. I think it is pretty important that we get back to basic issues with respect to the question of the Appropriation Bills and the course of action which has been taken by the Opposition. It seems quite clear that many red herrings have been drawn across the path of the electorate in this general matter. The Opposition has established quite clearly that there is no constitutional argument at all about this. The Senate has every right to defer the Budget, as it is doing at the present time. The Senate has the right to reject any Bills. There have been precedents in the past to which honourable senators on this side have referred, and in this course of action the Opposition has interesting company. **Mr Whitlam** and the then **Senator Murphy,** now **Mr Justice** Murphy, advocated the throwing out of a Liberal-Country Party Budget, and in fact pursued that course by voting against the Budget in the House of Representatives and by voting against the same measure in this chamber. Had it not been for the fact that a few Australian Democratic Labour Party senators did not agree with their course of action, undoubtedly the Leader of the Liberal-Country Party Government at that time would have had to go to the GovernorGeneral's residence and resign. Of course, this is precisely what the present Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** ought to do. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator Steele Hall: -- Do you think he will? {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- I hope he does. Let me also make this point: Not only did the Australian Labor Party vote against the Budget in 1 970, but **Mr John** Gorton suggested on the television program *Federal File* in September 1973 that this was a proper course for a Senate to take if the government was running the country as badly as this Government undoubtedly is. Of course, **Senator Hall** is another interesting companion whom we have in this strategy. In July he suggested very clearly to the Senate that if he were the Opposition he would adjourn the Senate until 1 January 1976 and let the people decide the matter. That provides clear evidence of **Senator Hall's** political acrobatics, because he is now adopting an entirely different attitude. I want to take honourable senators back to the reason why this whole episode started. I have been consistent in what I believe to be correct. We have to go back to the enforced resignation of **Mr Connor.** This completely destroyed the credibility of the Government in my eyes. It destroyed the credibility of the Prime Minister because I suspect very strongly that he knew about this whole business. As the managing director of Australia, surely he knows or ought to know what his other directors are doing. If he did not, he should resign because he is incompetent. That really destroyed his credibility in my eyes, and that is why I have given my support to deferral of these measures in order to present to the Prime Minister the opportunity to go to Government House, hand in his resignation and ask for a double dissolution. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator Steele Hall: -- But do you think he will do that? {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- I cannot tell what is in the mind of the Prime Minister. Anyone who could read his mind would be a complete genius, in my opinion, because he changes his mind so often. He has become known throughout Australia as a man who breaks promises, as a man who has encouraged his Party to plunge the nation into a situation in which we have unusually highalmost record high- unemployment. Certainly, the Government has created inflation that has caused distress to many sections of our community. References were made earlier to the pensioners. 1 am certain that the pensioners are not too happy about the grocery bills which they have to pay now and which increase month by month under the influence of this Government's mismanagement. 1 believe that the Government is employing scare and intimidation tactics throughout Australia. 1 wish to point to just one or two areas in which this has been brought to my attention. **Senator Maunsell** referred to the employees of some government departments being told that their wages will not be paid after the next pay. In fact, in Adelaide the Department of Administrative Services has informed members of its staff there that that is the case; that is, that the Department will have only $23 left after the next pay. This clearly indicates to me the inefficiency and mismanagement of the Minister for Administrative Services **(Mr Daly).** I have assured my secretary that if that is the case she will receive my cheque to ensure that her pay is guaranteed. Let me cite another example: A young woman telephoned me the other day. She was greatly disturbed because she had been informed that her husband would not receive any more money after the next pay and that 10 000 people were in danger of losing their jobs in the department concerned. She tried to contact **Mr Dunstan,** the Premier of South Australia. She told me that she had tried again and again to get in touch with him but he was not available. She ultimately contacted the home of the new Attorney-General in South Australia, **Mr Duncan.** I am afraid that he was not home, but his wife said that it was quite true. She said that the department would not have any more money and that this woman's husband was likely to lose his job. This was the inference that came through. She suggested that this lady ought to gather together all the other wives who were being intimidated in this way and demonstrate against Opposition senators. That is the sort of scaremongering tactics that are being employed by the Australian Labor Party. Another thing that disturbs me particularly is that there are some members of the Government Party who have been running around Australia suggesting- they have been suggesting it even in the Parliament- that violence could occur. Only the other day I read a report of an address delivered by the honourable member for Grey **(Mr Wallis)** to a gathering of railway workers during a lunchtime meeting. He suggested that violence would follow what is happening in Canberra. He suggested that it could reach the stage, as in overseas countries, at which senators could be killed in order to alter the balance of power. That is very amusing! I see that it tickles **Senator McLaren's** fancy. This is an example of the irresponsible actions that are being taken by honourable senators opposite. This certainly could encourage a violent minority into a violent demonstration at some time in the future. That, in my opinion, is irresponsible in the extreme. Let me return to dealing with the inefficiency of this Government. I could talk for an hour in listing what this Government has done to the people of Australia. It has created high interest rates. It has created in Australia a situation in which young people are unable to afford to build a home. *(Honourable senators interjecting)* {: #debate-57-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Jessop** is addressing the Chair. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: **- Mr President,** you can see just how excited this crowd opposite gets. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator Steele Hall: -- You cut the money off. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: **-Senator Steele** Hall says: You cut the money off'. He is being quite juvenile and is illustrating the immaturity of his political mind. Supply is guaranteed until 30 November. There is no reason why the departments cannot proceed until that time. I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Wriedt)** only a day or two ago whether it was a fact that earlier in the year the Senate passed Supply Bills to guarantee Supply for a 5-month period ending on 30 November. I also asked him whether it was a fact that the amount to be expended under one Supply Bill- I am speaking from memory- was 49 per cent more, perhaps even more than that, than last year and that the other Bill provided for 1 10 per cent more expenditure than was guaranteed to the Government last year. I do not think there is any excuse for any department to be without money at the present time or until the end of the month' of November. I suggest that the honourable senators opposite discontinue these scaremongering tactics that they have been employing over the last 3 weeks. {: #debate-57-s4 .speaker-KUJ} ##### Senator MELZER:
Victoria -I do not think 1 could do better in this debate than to open with this quotation: >If the Parliament becomes unworkable by destruction of convention, democracy itself becomes unworkable because democracy rests much more on adherence to convention than to the rigid application of rules and laws. That statement, honourable senators might be surprised to know, was made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)-** this gentleman who is now so concerned that the people of Australia should be allowed to come out and have their say; this gentleman who is so obsessed with the will to rule and the greed for power that he does not care what happens to the ordinary people in Australia. I think the remarks attributable to the Honourable D. J. Killen, MP, have been mentioned before in this debate- but then there is very little that has not been mentioned before and I think this should be mentioned again. I refer to the remarks he was reported, in the *National Times* in February 1972, as having made. This was at a time when 'convention' was still a word that was allowable in this place. He said: >One of the worst infringements of the conventions of Cabinet government which has ever occurred took place in Australia. > >In March 1971, Malcolm Fraser resigned from the Gorton Government. The ostensible reason he gave to Parliament for his resignation was that **Mr Gorton** did not repudiate a report involving **Mr Fraser.** > >Views on tha-, issue remain unsettled. But the really remarkable part of **Mr Fraser's** speech lay in his criticism of an incident that took place eight months before his resignation. Evidently **Mr Fraser** was not as indignant about conventions in. those days as he is now. **Mr Killen** continues: >In his speech to Parliament, **Mr Fraser** claimed that a plan was prepared in July 1970, for a call-out of the Pacific Islands regiment to deal with possible confrontation with the Mataungan Association in the Gazelle Peninsula. > > **Mr Fraser** further claimed that he knew nothing of the plan until July 14, and that the plan had not been approved of by the Cabinet. > > **Mr Fraser** himself admitted that the Cabinet did meet on July 19, - That was 5 days later- and he, **Mr Fraser,** signed the call-out order . . . If **Mr Fraser** had felt aggrieved by any action of **Mr Gorton** regarding the call-out order, then he should have promptly resigned. He chose not to. He let eight months go by before voicing his complaint ... **Mr Fraser** chose to ignore a fundamental convention of government. The cosmetic of time may or may not hide the blemish. That was not said by members of this Government but by one of **Mr Fraser's** colleagues. So much for this Opposition of integrity; so much for this Opposition that talks about an incompetent government. The Opposition talks about credibility. The greed for power seems to have slightly changed its members' way of thinking. We hear all the waffling in the world against a man like the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)-** a man of high purpose and vision- from **Mr Fraser** whose integrity was displayed in 1972. It makes one wonder why these people in the Opposition are so anxious to get back into the saddle and why they are so anxious to get back the power that they misused for 23 years. I have a feeling it is not because they want to help the lower income earners or the large mass of Australian people. We only have to go back to the opposition they put up against schemes like Medibank to have our question answered and to know why they want to be back in the saddle. We only have to go back and look at their record in education and at the valiant fight they put up to return to that system of education whereby the privileged were educated and the un-privileged were used as factory fodder. We remember their fight against the Trade Practices Act. Then we remember the people who pay the bills when it comes to election time and we know why they want to remove such legislation as the Trade Practices Act. At the moment the Legal Aid Bill is on its way. We know from surveys that have been taken how many people in Australia want a Bill such as the Legal Aid Bill. We know that something like 89 per cent of Liberal voters and 92 per cent of Labor voters were in favour of the legislation. We remember also that something like 84 per cent of the people who had never heard of our proposal for legal aid said, when the proposal was put to them, that if there was one thing that was needed to bring justice to the ordinary people of Australia it was the Legal Aid Bill. We remember the things that this Government has done for women and children. For 23 years women and children were forgotten people in Australia. They were used as cheap labour. Children were parked in all sorts of places. Nobody really gave a damn whether children had rights or were treated as human beings. This Government has come in and given women, as people, rights and dignity. We have given women and workers some hope that they may be able to go about their daily tasks with some peace of mind as to how the children- our dearest possessionswill be looked after while the women work for a living, in the main, and for so me while they work to give their expertise to this country. We look at the migrants to whom we finally brought dignity, decency and recognition. Then we wonder where are all these people who the Opposition tells us are demanding that we have an election? They certainly are not the 1 8 year olds who were denied a vote by this Opposition for 23 years but who the Opposition was very happy to send out to fight its wars. It was not until this Government came into power that these people were given a vote and a responsibility in the country. The ethnic communities certainly are not demanding that we have an election. They have come out in their thousands and demanded that this Government be allowed to govern and that Supply be allowed to go through. The Aborigines are not demanding an election. They have demonstrated in most of the capital cities in Australia that they want this Government to be given a chance to put its policies into practice. The old age pensioner organisations have declared that they want this Government to continue; that they recognise that in the short period this Government has been in office the wants of old age pensioners have been recognised; and that rather than being given a kiss on the cheek and a 50c rise every 12 months they have been treated as people. The Opposition would have us believe that the unions are at loggerheads with this Government. But be they blue collar or white collar unions, their members have come out in their thousands during the last 2 weeks and have maintained that the Government that they voted for in 1972 and 1 974 was the Government that represented them and the Government that they wanted to continue. Thousands of people have been in the streets over this issue during the last couple of weeks. If there has been one surprise in this whole affair it has been that ordinary people have understood this constitutional crisis- no matter how much the Opposition tells us it is not a constitutional crisis, it is- and have taken the matter to heart. They have had the guts to come out in the street and to say: 'We do not want this Government to be put out on this issue. We want it to continue its normal term'. Leading constitutional lawyers in Australia have come out and said that the conventions that go with the Constitution should be observed. There have been letters to the editor which were overwhelmingly in support of this Government. One has to admit that newspapers have not always been on the side of this Government so one can hardly say that the editors of all the big daily newspapers would have managed that in some way. The business community is now coming out and saying that the Appropriation Bills should be passed. The business community here in Canberra is saying that because the Senate has rejected the Budget- those are their words, not mine- their businesses are being affected and that the whole tenor of the business community is being upset. Hundreds of letters and telegrams have been received from ordinary people who have taken the trouble to sit down and write to one of us on this side of the House or on the other side of the House to say that they do not like what is going on. They do not like the possibilities that they can see. They want the Senate to act as an adult body. Today we have Liberal voters saying much the same thing. In the Melbourne *Age* of this morning there is an article on a survey which states: >While an overwhelming majority of Labor voters think the Senate should allow Supply to pass, a significant minority of those who said they voted Liberal at the 1974 elections (41 per cent) also share this view. > >Nearly 17 per cent of previous Liberal voters also think the Labor Government should be allowed to continue governing. Where is the support left among the poor divided Opposition? The Opposition is divided as to what its future course should be. How did this all start? Who started the Opposition on this course of action? It seems to be an action heading for the edge of the big drop. Who feeds the Opposition these sorts of ideas? Who convinces the Opposition that it represents the people of Australia when 2 elections should show that it is not in command but in opposition? I have a transcript of part of an *AM* broadcast, reported by Peter Barnett. It is headed: >Washington admits it has been monitoring cables and telexes to certain foreign countries, including Australia, for the last 30 years. The report states: >Some years ago it began to dawn on some countries that telexes and cables sent to them from their official representatives in Washington were secretly being monitored by the United States Government. It then became an open secret and now Washington's come clean and admitted that they have, in fact, been monitoring cables and telexes for the last 30 years to SO foreign countries including Australia and to broadcasting organisations such as our own. Peter Barnett who is a credible reporter stated: >Until last May, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the super secret, super powerful National Security Agency would pay a daily call on the Washington offices of International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation and the Radio Corporation of America. Peter Barnett goes on with some details about the House Intelligence Sub-committee but he finishes up stating: >It's virtually certain that regular messages from the Australian Embassy to Canberra were read by these agents and so too was all traffic to the ABC. I wonder whether that sort of information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation was transmitted to our friends in Opposition who somehow then had the feelings of being born to rule - {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- Grandeur? {: .speaker-KUJ} ##### Senator MELZER: -- Feelings of grandeur, elaborated and expanded. Did they feel that because of the sort of information they were being handed by the FBI and because of the sort of information they were being handed about all sorts of other transactions of government which were going on, they really were the rulers and that they could use any means they liked- such as the FBI obviously used- to get back on to the government benches of this country? This is the Opposition which has taken the Senate into a strike situation. It is a strange thing that men, whose only thing they have to sell is their labour, and who go on strike for decent wages or conditions are vilified by honourable senators opposite for holding up the country and the whole manufacturing industry to ransom. Yet when people like members of the Opposition in the Senate or members of the Australian Medical Association go on strike, somehow they are thought to be heroes. Honourable senators opposite will not take the step. They are like kids playing cricket; they will not go out. They will not change the rules and they will not abandon the match. They just take their bat and go home, leaving the rest of the teams standing on the field. The Opposition will not amend the Budget. It will not refuse to pass the Budget. It admits that it is a good Budget because it says: 'When you have submitted to our blackmail, then we will pass the Budget'. Obviously the Opposition has no objection to the Budget. It just goes on strike. Until the Opposition gets its own way, it will not play. But it has no alternative. This country expects members of the Senate to act like adult senators, like people who have been put into the Senate to represent the people and to govern the country. Honourable senators are not expected to act like spoilt children who want their lollipops returned to them. Perhaps some honourable senators do not have the courage to take the step. But why do they not act like men and at least reject the Budget? I suggest they do something positive. Why do they not amend? It is because they have no policy. They do not know what to amend or what to do. That is why we cannot have honourable senators opposite as the government of this country. We cannot take the risk of what they would do to this country. In closing I shall read yet another quotation from a member of the Opposition, it states: >There are many challenges to the preservation of Parliament. There are forces within our community, some of great power, that do not believe in Parliamentary government. There are economic and social problems which the Parliament has not yet been able to solve. These problems alone would be daunting for present legislators and Ministers. If we add to that list the problems created by the behaviour of Parliament itself, the destruction of convention, the defiance of reason, the pursuit of power without concern for the rights or privileges of minorities, then Australians will have little faith in the future of Australian democracy. That statement was made by **Mr Malcolm** Fraser on 2 March 1975. That comes from the man who has put this poor divided Senate Opposition to the jump in order to find an argument to justify the Opposition's rejection of the Appropriation Bills and in order to try to blackmail its way back into power. {: #debate-57-s5 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales -- Some 2 weeks ago the Senate voted to defer the 2 Appropriation Bills pending the dissolution of the lower House by the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam).** This is the traditional constitutional practice in order to bring about an election. In effect, the Opposition is saying that the people through ' the ballot box should make a judgment on the Whitlam Government. **Senator Melzer** said that she could find no one in Australia who either supports the Senate Opposition in its present action or who opposes the Whitlam Government because of its policies. If that is so, that is an admirable atmosphere for the Whitlam Government to take its courage in its hands and test itself at the ballot box. If the Government believes, as the honourable senator has said, that nobody is against the Whitlam Government- she went on and on about this - let the Government take its courage in its hands, as is the constitutional practice, and go to the people. I quote a statement which the honourable senator made: 'We remember the things that this Government has done for women and children'. That remark ought to be on a political tombstone for this Government. We will remember those things. That is what this deferral is all about. We remember that when we left office we had the most sustained full employment for 20 years of any country in the industrial world. One million, two hundred and fifty thousand married women were in sustained full employment on real wages with real purchasing power. What has this Government done for the women and children? I will tell honourable senators what it has done. It has put hundreds of thousands of them out of employment. Is this a proud record? Do honourable senators opposite want me to mention what has happened in the textile, footwear, clothing and electronics industries? Do they want me to state it in terms of women and unemployment? Honourable senators opposite know that this is on record. This is what the so-called Whitlam Government has done for women. Now what does it intend to do for the children? On the admission of the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland)** it will create in the coming 2 months some 200 000 more unemployed by its sheer failure to employ school and college leavers. Yet the Government tells us what it has done for the women and children of Australia. In *2lh* years the Government has wrecked this country. Three years ago this country could stand up and say, quoting the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund, that Australia has had the highest sustained employment of any industrialised country for more than 20 years. It could stand up and say, again quoting both those authorities, that this country has had the lowest sustained inflation rate of any industrialised country, averaging 2.5 per cent over 20 years. It has had the lowest inflation rate and the highest sustained employment. It could also say, again quoting those international authorities, that it had the highest home ownership of any country and therefore the greatest distribution of wealth. It could quote Professor Henderson as to the enormous distribution of wealth between rich and poor. It could quote the statistics on the creation of real wealth and its sharing. In the space of *Vh* years this Government has destroyed all this. Yet it has the gall and humbug to come to us now and say: Remember what we have done for the women and children '. On its own admission there will be half a million people unemployed between December and January. I remind the Whitlam Government that twice I have asked it and twice it has responded to the question: What will you do about the unemployment that now exists and the additional unemployment which will be created in November, December, January and February? *Hansard* contains the Government's answers given by both **Senator James** McClelland and the Treasurer **(Mr Hayden)** who said: 'We will do not one thing more than we have already foreshadowed we will do in this Budget'. That is a calamitous and disgraceful attitude. These are the people who stand up here and say there is nothing wrong with the record of this Government. Let me remind the Government why its appropriation Bills deserve deferral and why the Government needs reference to the people. When the Treasurer introduced the Appropriation Bills he made 3 main assumptions- they are in the Budget papers- and each of those assumptions has proved to be absolutely wrong in the ensuing 2 months. Therefore, the assumptions in the Budget Speech are today admitted by the Government to be in tatters. In the Budget Speech the Government predicted unemployment at something like 250 000. The ink had hardly dried on the Budget Speech before the Minister for Labor and Immigration in this place announced that there would be 400 000 or more people unemployed in December, January and February. Maybe, he said, it would get back to 300 000 by June. There was a complete deception of the people. The whole framework of the Budget rested on one assumption and it is found in the opening phases of the Budget where the Treasurer said: If we had continued to spend at the same record rate as last year we would have ended up with a Budget deficit somewhat double the record deficit of last year'. In other words, what he was saying was that the Budget deficit of $2, 500m- oddly enough estimated at $570m- would have doubled to some $5,000m. The Treasurer then went on to say in most graphic words that, should the deficit get beyond the $2, 790m predicated in the Budget, economic chaos would occur in this country. He talked of massive unemployment and hyper-inflation in his Budget Speech. Since then the Treasurer day by day has had to admit that the Budget is in ruins, that the costing of it was wrong because item after item was costed on a pre-30 June 1975 basis with no allowance whatever for the cost increases in the year ahead; for example, cost increases of the order of 23 per cent in respect of wages for which there is no allowance at all except in the Treasurer's Advance. We will see how Treasurer's Advances will take up the slack because if they do take up the slack this Government will have money with which to operate until Christmas under its Supply Bills. The Treasurer's Advances made under 2 Supply Bills passed in this Senate in May collectively contain $240m of extra money which would fund the Government in the weeks ahead. However, what has the Government said now? It has said that the deficit may reach $3, 500m because 'perhaps we over-estimated the intake by way of taxation'. Have a look at today's *Australian Financial Review,* at today's newspapers and at the so-called Neimeyer statement for the quarter ended 30 September and honourable senators will find a Budget deficit at this moment running at the order of $ 1 ,800m. It is true that we cannot accurately extrapolate a projection based on this period but, taking into account the shortfall in taxation, the deliberate under-costing of wages, overtime, telephone charges, postage charges, rent and building costs, the Budget deficit must be running at least at $4,000m or more. Therefore, by its own bench-mark this Government stands convicted. It said that the Budget would, be in ruins if this happened. The Government therefore has presented to us a Budget in ruins and it plaintively asks why we have acted to defer it. Day by day more and more information comes out, not only about the most massive economic chaos and mismanagement that anybody has seen in Australia since Federation but also about dishonesty, deception and even corruption in government. This Government admits to no principles at all. It admits to no precedents in the way that it governs. I want to dwell on one major matter which has not been given sufficient public spotlight. I allude to the very belated admission by the Treasurer that he had allowed the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to have recourse to all the Budget documents some 7 hours before the Budget was presented in this place. After being pressed the Treasurer confessed that he was not locked up like members of the Press or put under security until 8 o'clock, and the Treasurer gave a number of tests. I want to look at these tests by using the Labor Party's own bench-mark once again because surely the best thing to do is to ask the Government about it. I looked at comments that **Mr Hawke** made when as President of the ACTU he accepted the presidency of the Australian Labor Party. People said to him: 'Surely in doing these 2 things- with, on the one hand, your industrial commitment to the trade union movement as President of the ACTU and, on the other, your presidency of the Australian Labor Party- there will be a conflict of interest'. He said: 'Oh, no, there will be no conflict of interest; none at all'. So we start off with one clear thing, that is, that what **Mr Hawke** is doing as President of the ACTU and what he is doing as President of the Australian Labor Party are identical in their interests. That is what he said, not I. That is interesting because I understand that the Labor Party has strict rules that unless a person obeys the decisions of the Labor Party he can be expelled from the Party, which is a practice that occurs quite frequently. So at 1 p.m. on that day, ahead of any other person- ahead, I imagine, of many Ministers of the Whitlam Cabinet- **Mr** Hawke was given access to the Budget Papers. That access was accorded to him as President of the Australian Labor Party as well as President of the ACTU because there is an identity of interest, as **Mr Hawke** has said and said repeatedly in this regard. **Mr Hayden** and **Mr Whitlam** have said that the primary test is that he is a man of integrity. Let us apply that. Does it mean that any person of integrity can have open access to the Budget Papers 7 hours before the Budget is released? Adopting that test, why should **Mr Hawke** be judged in terms of his honour, his morality and his integrity any more or less than any other Australian? What absolute arrogance and impertinence it is for the Whitlam Government to put the President of the Labor Party above any other Australian, whoever he may be, in terms of morality and integrity. Why should he be placed above even the most simple person in the street? It is, of course, the very arrogance of the Labor Party that has done this, but he has been placed there. **Mr Hayden** has also said: 'Of course, you know, he is in a special situation. He is a member of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia and that, of course, allows him access to secrets. That is a reason.' The only trouble with that, the defect with that, is that here again we have some problems because nobody else who is a member of the Board of the Reserve Bank is given any access to the Budget Papers. I remind honourable senators that it is on record from the Governor of the Reserve Bank, **Mr Knight,** who is a highly respected man, that members of the Reserve Bank would not receive Budget documents and would not necessarily be in receipt of Budget documents by virtue of their office. Of course they would not. Anyone who knows the practice that has been followed knows that this has never happened before. I thought that perhaps **Mr Whitlam** might be of help to me. So I looked to what he has said: >For years **Mr Hawke** has regularly participated in television programs on the Budget on Budget night and he takes part in these discussions with journalists who have seen copies of the Budget in advance. Quite obviously it is better for him to be equally well briefed, and he has been, and quite properly. So the test that the Prime Minister puts is that if one takes part in television programs on the Budget on Budget night one is entitled to be well briefed beforehand. 'So come along chaps and we will give you the documents 7 hours beforehand'. Were any of the dozens and dozens of people in the community who do in fact take part in these programs invited to see these documents beforehand? Not at all. Did the Budget not have a major impact on manufacturing? Was there a more important section of the community from which to seek support for this Budget than the manufacturing industry? Where was the main thrust wanted? Surely from the people we would inspire to create more jobs, to increase production, to take up more employment, to create greater output and to create greater wealth. Was any member of the manufacturing industry given this particular insight? Of course not. Was the retail trade, which is always a major commentator on Budget night, invited? Is it not interested in what happens to the excise on beer, cigarettes, tobacco and spirits? Are the service station proprietors, the petroleum industry, the National Roads and Motorists Association and the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria not interested in an increase in petrol prices? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Or the Chairman of the Employers Federation? {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- Yes. **Senator Wright** quite properly says: 'What about the Chairman of the Employers Federation?' I have dealt firstly with an ordinary cross section of the people of Australia. The small shopkeepers of Australiawhy, of all people, were they not invited? **Mr Hayden** has said: 'Oh, but you must understand that there is a very proper reason. We are depending basically for our whole Budget thesis on wage restraint and we wanted to make absolutely sure that **Mr Hawke** would back our policies thoroughly and convincingly immediately after the Budget'. Let us test that. Of course all of us here are four-square in wanting to back wage restraint. But I remind honourable senators of **Mr Hawke** 's test. **Mr Hawke** has said: 'As President of the Federal Labor Party I have no conflict of interest with the ACTU'. I say to honourable senators that, as President of the Federal Labor Party, **Mr Hawke** was committed to his back teeth to support whatever was in the Budget because it is Labor Party policy to do so. What nonsense it is to say that he had to be reassured first. What nonsense it is to say that he had to be taken aside first in relation to this matter. Let us rest on this business that **Mr Hawke** is an honourable man. So are they all honourable men. Let us look at this. Of whom are we talking? We are talking of the President of the Federal Labor Party, who is a man of immense partisan interest and therefore of immense motivation in a partisan fashion, and good luck to him, in a cause which I oppose. We are talking of the proprietor, on behalf of the ACTU, of Bourke 's store in Melbourne- a major retail store which traffics in much of the matters that were involved in this Budget. Was the President of the Retail Traders Association invited to come along? Were Myers, Farmers or David Jones given an insight into this Budget, a look into this Budget? Why is it that in past Liberal-National Country Party governments only one or two of the main Ministers and not the whole Cabinet were ever told before 8 p.m. on the night of the Budget what was the nature of the customs and excise and sales tax charges? The answer is quite clear. It is because, whether inadvertently or otherwise, the possession of that information in the hands of people some hours beforehand could make or break fortunes. The capacity to buy up stocks of tobacco, cigarettes and spirits is, of course, immense in the time program. Why should the proprietor of Bourke 's store have that information at all? Why should the proprietor of a petroleum marketing organisation in ACTUSolo Enterprises Pty Ltd- the same **Mr Hawkehave** inside information? Why should he have it 7 hours beforehand? Why was he, unlike all the others, not locked up until 8 o'clock at night? Why is he a special person? The whole history of the Whitlam Government is that it puts itself and its leaders above the law. It is trying now in the present constitutional confrontation to put itself above the law. I say that what happened in the admission of **Mr Hawke** to the Budget secrets is one of the most shameful episodes in the Labor Party's very shameful history in the last two or three years. A fraction of that would have forced the Treasurer of Britain or any other country- Canada, for example- to resign. Similar things have happened, and the Treasurers have resigned. The only reason why **Mr Hayden** has not resigned is that he has not served his statutory 6 months as Treasurer. There is no doubt that he will follow the Creans and the Cairnses because of his inevitable accident-proneness and bedevilment of principles. This fact has emerged very belatedly and no doubt because the Treasurer found out that someone knew it and was about to blow it. So the Treasurer made it public himself. There is no doubt at all that the disclosure was made, belatedly, for that reason. If it were a principle on which he wanted to stand, why did he not tell us that he proposed to do it or why did he not tell us the following day that he had done it? I put a simple proposition. The only test, which is really the one on which **Mr Hayden** rests, is that he wanted **Mr Hawke** 's full support on wage restraint and ordinary wage indexation. The Federal President of the ALP is compelled, by his membership of that Party, to full and active supportnothing less. So he did not need to read any documents; he did not need to do anything at all. This situation followed hard upon another situation. What is the other situation? It involves the same **Mr Hawke.** Let me try to think out loud. A certain former Minister for Minerals and Energy said that he approved an arrangement for the purchase of crude oil by ACTU-Solo and was not told what the second half of the arrangement was. I state in simple terms what **Mr Connor** asks us to believe: He knew the price of Australian crude. He knew its resale price on the Australian market. He knew that anyone fortunate enough to have a supply bought at the fixed governmental price could make millions of dollars by selling it on the Australian market, and would do so. He knew that commercial practice would demand that the sale be at a profit. The Government said that he solemnly approved an agreement which, on the face of it, was aimed at an American company selling crude oil to ACTUSolo at cost price; that is, without any profit margin to the company selling the crude oil. For some magic reason this company would be totally altruistic and its actions would be beyond any actions of any other entrepreneur. There are a couple of interesting memoranda in the evidence given before the Commission. One officer of **Mr Connor's** Department said in a memorandum, if I recall it clearly, that the agreement, on the face of it, looked all right unless there was a secret deal involved. That is on the file. An officer of his Department did the ordinary test and wondered why anyone, in a fit of altruism quite opposed to the interests of the company concerned, its shareholders or owners, would sell something without making a profit. It is of the essence of absolute nonsense. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- The company did not even recover the cost of its paper work or its court costs. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- I am indebted to **Senator Wright** for that interjection. Because of the costs of the transaction, the company would have suffered a net loss on the deal. Yet this Labor Government sitting opposite has the gall to say that nothing has happened for which it should be invited to stand trial before the Australian people. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- We accept the Royal Commission 's report. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -I take up the Minister's interjection. The Royal Commission found guilt - {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Not on the part of the Government. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -On the part of ACTUSolo and its directors. The main director is **Mr Hawke.** {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- It made no finding one way or the other as to **Mr Hawke.** {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- Let him go. He will incriminate himself, as he always does. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- That was an interesting exchange. The Commission made a finding, as I understand it and as I read it, that the ACTUSolo agreement was in fact a deception. Therefore, quite clearly, those who were responsible for the agreement had deceived. There was in fact not one agreement but two; one was concealed. **Mr Hawke** was and is the leading director of that company. I go one step further. I point out the other improbable. We have been told recently that **Mr Connor** was sacked for misleading the Parliament and the people of Australia. Was it misleading or lying? According to the words used by the Prime Minister, **Mr Connor's** lying to the Parliament and the people arose out of his allegedly not revealing that arrangements with a **Mr Khemlani** were continuing. I put to the Senate, in simple practice, the same test as I put about the ACTU-Solo business. Does anybody in Australia believe that a senior Minister, who had been Acting Prime Minister, persisted with an agreement with **Mr Khemlani** up to the brink of a decision having to be made, without having in his mind the certain knowledge that at the point when he had brought it to fruition the Prime Minister and the Treasurer would approve the loan? Let me state it another way. Did **Mr Connor** have in his mind that the Prime Minister had revoked the loans authority and was unlikely to agree to the loans? Was that the situation? Are we now saying that under those circumstances **Mr Connor** pursued intensely a situation in order to get a loan which he knew could never be ratified? Come off it! The condition precedent to a senior Minister negotiating a loan is that when he has it to the point of fruition his Prime Minister and his Treasurer will approve it. What else could anybody believe? What else is the test of credibility? Those are the basic things. I come back to the essence of the message from the other place. We are debating a second message sent to us from another place in relation to the Appropriation Bills. In the course of these events the Government has made some very rash statements about the alleged abuse of powers by the Senate. It is extraordinary that Government senators who are elected under the Commonwealth Constitution should set about denying the very powers under which they are elected and from which their responsibilities operate. To rebut the Prime Minister's statements of the last 2 days, I quote from the Constitution. Section 1 states: >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 hereinafter called 'The Parliament' or 'The Parliament of the Commonwealth'. So the Parliament consists of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Constitution recognises that fundamentally the Senate is an integral part of the legislative power. The opening words of the relevant section are that the legislative power of the Commonwealth is vested in these three: The Queen, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. What the Whitlam Government is trying to distort now is the very nature of this Senate. I want to lay it clearly on the line that the Senate is not based on the Westminster system at all; it is based on the American Congress. The Senate has virtually the same money powers as has the American Congress, and the American Congress is one of the greatest and most respected legislatures in the world. The American people have no regrets about that. I think they would agree that in America the Senate is in fact more powerful and more influential than the lower House. Nobody in America sees that as a defiance of the people. Nobody in Australia should see it as a defiance of the people, because in Australia as in America the Senate is elected on the full general adult franchise of all the Australian people. Indeed, the franchise is more accurate because it is based on proportional representation. So it more truly reflects the precise will of the people at a point in time. Those people who understand that will know that built into the Commonwealth structure at Federation was a Senate of a particular structure, with particular powers. Well might every honourable senator recall this: The States would not have a bar of Federation unless there was a Senate which had 2 main characteristics. The first was that it should be equally represented by all the States. By that I mean the smallest State in population should have the same representation as the largest. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- That is so in the American Senate. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- That is right. In the American Senate 2 senators come from each of the 50 States. The second characteristic is that the Senate should have a concurrent money power with the House of Representatives. Without the concurrent power, of course, all else would fail. If it did not have the money power then the 2 great States in the House of RepresentativesNew South Wales and Victoria- could do 2 quite ugly things. The House of Representatives is forced by the Constitution to exact uniform rates of taxation, on the one hand, but it could, on the other hand, spend all or the great part of its revenue in the 2 great States. Since they had the voting power there, and if they had the power of the purse there, that would clearly happen. If honourable senators support what the Prime Minister said today they must go back to their State- to South Australia, to Tasmania, to Western Australia, to Queensland- and say: 'We are going to destroy your money power'because that is what the Prime Minister saysand in destroying your money power we are going to destroy your legislative power', because the legislative power of a chamber is the money power of a chamber. It is the one way of controlling the direction of policies. Let me ram this home: The Prime Minister in a Curtin memorial lecture, part of which I heard on the radio and which was reported in a feature article in the *Sydney Morning Herald,* has made the claim and has asserted in the last 2 days that his aim is to weaken the power of the Senate, to draw its teeth. Through you, **Mr Deputy President,** I ask this rhetorical question of Labor senators opposite: Do you agree that the money power of the Senate should be weakened? {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- Yes, of course we do. You have too much power and you are abusing the power. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -I want it noted by all the less populous States in Australia that the proposal of Labor senators in this place is to destroy the effective power of their States in the Senate. It ought to be noted that Labor Party senators unanimously support the destruction of the finance power, the money power, in the Senate. Am I right in that assumption? {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- You are never right, not since I have been here. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -I ask again: Is it the Labor Party's policy to weaken and to destroy the money power in the Senate? To that question honourable senators opposite have answered yes. The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)-** Order! I think the honourable senator should address me instead of Government senators. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -I shall be delighted to do so, **Mr Deputy President.** It is a much more pleasant prospect, if I may say so. Having made that point, let me say that the Constitution which we are sworn to uphold here-- {: .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator Gietzelt: -- Which you are breaking. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- . . . gives to this Senate not j ust a power but a responsibility. **Senator Gietzelt** interjected and said: 'Which you are breaking'. The only people who are breaking the Constitution at this moment are those who are breaking the clear constitutional practice that when Supply cannot be established a government resigns. I ask through you, **Mr Deputy** President: Is that the constitutional practice? I call as witness the Prime Minister of Australia and the documents relating to the double dissolution which were tabled in the Senate yesterday Honourable senators will find by persuasive reading that it is said repeatedly that because the Senate has declined to grant Supply the constitutional practice is that the Prime Minister must go to the Governor-General and seek a double dissolution. In other words, precisely the same situation as we have today the Prime Minister had in May last year. The Prime Minister is on written record, by letters to the GovernorGeneral, saying that it is the constitutional duty of a government denied Supply to go to the Governor-General and get an election. What an extraordinary silence now. If honourable senators opposite want the documents read into the Hansard record we would be delighted to do so in the days and weeks ahead. The fundamental situation is that section 53 of the Constitution gives to the Senate the one responsibility and the one power which enables a government, which is a wrecking government, which is a destructive government, which is a government doing permanent damage to the people, to be brought to the people. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Did you read the result of the gallup poll? {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- I am always grateful to **Senator Cavanagh.** He asks whether I read the result of the gallup poll. I did, and I was delighted to learn that if we had had an election on the day on which the Morgan gallup poll was taken the Labor Party would have been wiped out in a landslide, that it would have polled 43 per cent of the vote and that we would have polled 50 per cent plus of the vote. I did read the gallup poll and it said that if people were to vote today they would vote the Labor Party out of office in a landslide. That is what the gallup poll said. In the knowledge that the Opposition had deferred appropriation, the people were asked on 18 October how they would vote, and they said overwhelmingly: 'We would wipe out the Labor Party'. So do not let us talk about the gallup poll. I come back to section 53 of the Constitution. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I think we still have a secret ballot and adult suffrage in the country, do we not? {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -Indeed we do. The Labor Party has got up to all sorts of histrionics in relation to this matter. It talks of us trying to seize power. What a lovely phrase. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- That is quite right because **Mr Fraser** engineered it on 30 October last year. I told the Senate a month ago what he had done. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- My goodness, the hens are broody and clucky this afternoon. They are really moulting this afternoon. Let us see how a wicked Opposition seizes power. I will tell the Senate how it seizes power. It goes to the Australian people and says to the 5 million electors: We are prepared to take your judgment in the ballot box. We are prepared to take your acceptance or rejection of us'. We come now to the second point and to the only other point that **Mr Whitlam** made in today's newspaper- that a government must be allowed to run its full term. Why did not **Senator McLaren** tell **Mr Dunstan** that recently when he ran early because he was scared stiff that the unpopularity of Whitlam would destroy him if he ran his full term? What kind of nonsense, what kind of humbug is it that says 'It is all right for governments to run short term if it is voluntary, it is all right for governments to pick their time at the height of their popularity, but they must nor. be dragged squealing from the tart shop '? As I said the other day, is it not a fact that if 2 people of the Government ranks in the other House died the Government would fall? Where is the provision in this Constitution that says that it does not matter who dies, the Government is to see out its full course? Where is the provision in this document that says that if 2 people cross the floor the Government shall run its full course? It is all right to run voluntarily, as **Mr Dunstan** does. Honourable senators opposite admit by their silence that governments can be brought down by defection or death. They must admit that because their own Prime Minister went cap in hand to the Governor-General and said: 'Section 57 of the Constitution is the only relief when Supply is denied; that a government, when Supply is denied, must go to the people'. I commend a little light reading to honourable senators opposite. I commend the papers that were tabled yesterday, because every argument that the Prime Minister and his Government are putting up now is refuted by the letters written, the statements made and the actions taken by the Prime Minister, as demonstrated in those documents. He said to the Governor-General: 'If you are denied Supply you must go to the people'. Why is he not saying it today? Can I tell honourable senators? He says in an article in the *Sydney Morning Herald* today: 'But it is different today'. Do honourable senators know what the difference is? He says: 'You have not rejected the Appropriation Bills twice. That is why it is different'. Let us have a little bit of rich reward for this. What happened last year? We did not reject the Supply Bills, and we did not reject them twice. We deferred the Supply Bills last year. An identical situation occurred. **Mr Whitlam** has some 20-odd Bills which have been twice submitted to the Senate and twice rejected by the Senate. He has the absolute authority to go to the Governor-General under section 57. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- If he wants to. It is his prerogative. You are not going to force him there. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: **- Senator McLaren** is a delight and a joy in these times of crisis. He is always helpful when he wants to be. He is saying, by implication, that **Mr Whitlam** was lying when he posed to the Governor-General a submission which was a submission of compulsion last year. Was **Mr Whitlam** lying when he said that it is the duty of a government denied Supply to go to the electors. Did I hear it stated then 'If he wants to'? What a joy! The simple position is that today there is an identical situation. I sum up this way: It is beyond doubt that this Constitution contains not only the power but also the responsibility for the Senate to act as we have done. It has now emerged as a thing of major importance that Labor senators in this chamber have indicated that it is the proposal of their government, supported by them, that they shall set out to weaken and destroy the money power of the Senate. It has now emerged that no small or less populated State can in the future under what has been revealed today feel that it has any safety at all in Canberra. My goodness, here is an admission that with a Senate that has no money teeth, all the money can be spent in the 2 big States. So the Labor senators who come from Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland must go back home and say to the people in those States: ' We are coming back to tell you that we propose to emasculate the Senate. We propose to take away your voice- the voice of Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania- in the Senate'. I wish them joy in this. Let them bring on this test on the hustings. If they want to do this, let them do so. Here it comes out. The Prime Minister must clearly be looked at in the light of his intentions. He has an absolute obsession against the Senate. How does he see the Senate? He sees it as the one obstacle that gets in his way. He is a man obsessed with power. He is a man who has said in his writings and speeches that he sees all power concentrated in one House, the House of Representatives. He sees the abolition of the Senate, the abolition of the 6 State parliaments, the abolition of municipalities and shires, and all international and national power, to use his words, concentrated in the House of Representatives without the restraint of the Commonwealth Constitution. What we are looking at now goes beyond the deception of the Budget, the 500 000 people prospectively to be unemployed, inflation, the lack of housing, the corruption of the Budget itself and its false representation, the ACTUSolo deception, the Hawkes and their special interest briefing in the Budget, the Gairs and the kicking upstairs, the conniving and contriving and the whole sorry affair of the Connors and Cairns. It now becomes an attack on the fundamental Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. It now is revealed as being a bid by the Prime Minister to destroy the powers of the States and to concentrate power in one handhis. Then, by the gerrymandering of boundaries, by the rigging of electoral laws, by firstpastthepost type voting, which is what he stands for, by the destruction of minorities and by the destruction of all that get away from him, to entrench himself. We were asked: What is the justification for deferring these Appropriation Bills? Surely that is a pretty good justification. What is the justification? May we come back to the women and children whom **Senator Melzer** asked us to remember, to the 500 000 unemployed, to the prospective 150 000 to 200 000 students and school leavers who will not get jobs, to the lack of housing - {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney: -- The workers' paradise. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- To this wonderful country in which the Poverty Commission indicates that poverty is greater 3 years after the entry of Labor to office than before. That is a pretty good record for a government, is it not? I now invite the Whitlam Government and specifically **Senator Melzer,** if they believe that everybody is for them, if they believe that their policies are as good as they pretend them to be, to say why they are scared stiff of the ballot box? There is only one thing to do, and their leader said it: When Supply is denied they go to the electors. Shall we believe **Mr Whitlam** of May 1974 or of October 1975 or, rhetorically, should we believe him at all? A man who put the test upon Connor and Cairns and guillotined them will not put the same test upon himself. If he put the test of deception upon himself he would have no recourse but to resign himself, to resign his Government and go to the people. {: #debate-57-s6 .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania -I wish to begin by conveying to members of the Opposition my extreme sympathy for the dilemma in which they now find themselves. I can understand how distressing that must be to 2 parties which believe they have a perpetual right to power, and which approximately 3 weeks ago launched publicly, after extreme orchestration, the vehicle which they are still attempting to drive to block Supply. I can understand how chagrined they must be that their little plan has misfired. We have seen evidence of that chagrin increasing over the last few days in the extremely disconsolate attitude of members of the Opposition and their known fighting among themselves about the stand that they are taking. They remind me very much of many of the criminals of Britain in the early days of last century and of the highwayman's case in which the issue simply was this: The gun was produced and the victim was told: 'There will be no trouble and no one will get hurt if you just hand over your money'. On Monday of last week in Franklin Square, Hobart, at a rally marked by spontaneity and indignant criticism of the Opposition to a degree that I have not experienced before, except possibly in relation to the Vietnam war, I used these simple words: 'We will not yield to thugs'. I repeat those words, and, so far as I am concerned in relation to this debate, I should like them to be recorded - {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney: -- I rise on a point of order, **Mr Acting Deputy President.** I assume that that is a reference to this Senate and the members of this Senate. I would submit that the word 'thug' is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)-** I would not accept it in those terms, **Senator Chaney.** I think it was a general sort of comment. Perhaps I could be persuaded by argument. {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney: -- With the greatest respect, the comment was prefaced by remarks about the behaviour of the Opposition. The honourable senator went on to describe what he had said in Franklin Square and made a reference to not yielding to thugs. Over the last few days there have been a number of occasions when, in the heat of the moment, unparliamentary language was used. In my submission, that word is clearly a description which, if meant to apply to the Opposition, is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. Alternatively, the honourable senator might like to indicate that he did not intend to apply the word to the members of the Opposition, in which case of course my point of order falls to the ground. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- Speaking to the point of order, there may be something in it because I think that the decent thugs in Australia would be offended by the analogy. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- If I may add something to what I might call an exchange between Whips, nothing is going to be gained in this chamber by the sort of reference that was made by **Senator Everett,** if indeed he intended it to mean the Opposition in the Senate. I hope he did not mean that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Perhaps we might get some clarification on the point. As I said at the outset, I would not have thought that the comment was meant in that way, but that is simply my own subjective view of it. **Senator Everett,** you might be able to assist the Chair by clarifying the point you are making. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -It would be idle of me to deny that I was referring to the Opposition, so that clears that point. But if there is difficulty about the matter I will withdraw the word thugs' and substitute the word 'brigands'. I believe that in law and in practice there is no distinction, but one word seems to be a little more gentlemanly that the other. {: .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator Laucke: **- Mr Acting Deputy President,** it is said that in law and in practice the words mean the same thing. That is no retraction. I believe that the word 'thugs' and any other replacement word for it should be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Some further clarification has been made on the point by the comments that **Senator Everett** made. In the light of the objections that have been taken by the members of the Opposition, it might be prudent in the interests of the good performance of the Senate if **Senator Everett** withdrew the words which are offensive to the Opposition. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -Both the original expression and the substitute? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Both, I think. Exception has been taken to both words. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- I would, of course, wish to assist you by withdrawing each of the 2 words, **Mr Acting Deputy President.** In order to complete the sentence I must say that what I said in Franklin Square on Monday of last week, with the amendment that you require, was simply this: 'We will not yield to bandits', and the Opposition is a pack of bandits. That is what it is. If **Senator Laucke** is minded to seek the withdrawal of the word 'bandits' I will argue that that is a proper parliamentary expression because it is true, and he knows it. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: **- Mr Acting Deputy President,** I rise on a point of order. I suggest again that **Senator Everett** is serving no useful purpose by giving us a further repetition of the harangue he gave in Hobart. We are all under some provocation and difficulty here. If **Senator Everett** wishes to continue in this vein, nothing but the greatest possible harm will result. I think that he would serve himself well, and he would serve us all well, if he stopped referring to people in this chamber in the terms which he has used. That is a matter entirely for him. If he wants to go on like this, we can all go on like this. {: .speaker-K3A} ##### Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP -- Speaking to the point of order, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** I appreciate the assistance you are looking for from the chamber. I want to make one or two observations that I think are germane to the matters that **Senator Cotton** has raised. It is true that the type of language that has been used in recent weeks is a consequence of the Opposition's own action in the first place in hurling insults across the chamber day after day, accusing my Party and the Government as a whole in words such as corruption', 'conspiratorial conduct' and 'criminal conduct'. If that is the sort of language that emanates from that side of the chamber, then I think it is fair and reasonable that, in defence of the Government, **Senator Everett** is entitled in the course of his remarks to describe the conduct of the Opposition as outright political blackmail and banditry. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Would you allow me to cool this matter? It is 3.40 p.m. on Thursday afternoon and we have had a fairly long week. There has been a lot of debate on both sides of the chamber and things have been said from both sides. Perhaps we could get the proceedings back on to an even keel now if you were to proceed, **Senator Everett,** and use a form of expression which is not offensive. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- I would point out in virtual self defence that these expressions are not used in their literal sense. No one suggests that members of the Opposition are thugs as that expression is understood in the criminal law. They do not go out, so far as I know, and actually bash people. They are not brigands in the sense that they go out and knock people about and steal their money. They are not bandits in the ordinary sense. What I said was surely a permissible use of language by borrowing an expression that is understood and relating it to political conduct. That is all I was doing. But I will assist you by leaving that point because I think it has been clearly established that the Opposition's behaviour is reprehensible in the extreme. I just put it this way. Three weeks or so ago, after this careful orchestration, the Opposition said: 'We will stand this Government up in the Senate. ' That is what it decided to do; that is what it has continued to do; and that is the situation in which it must be regretting it finds itself today. It has seen the reaction of the people. Where is the evidence that the people of Australia or any reasonable majority of them require an election? Where is the evidence that a reasonable majority of the people of Australia consider it proper for the Senate to defer consideration of the Budget? I ask the Opposition to produce the evidence. {: .speaker-BJ4} ##### Senator Sheil: -- Have you been to Queensland lately? {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- I was in Queensland a month ago. Although the aircraft shuddered a little as it flew across the border, I found in many people a reaction to the attitude of the Opposition in building up towards what it did 3 weeks ago, that would surprise **Senator Sheil** if he moved outside the hierarchical circles. The clear evidence is exactly the opposite of what has been put by the Opposition. There is no groundswell to support what the Opposition is doing; rather, the position is the opposite. {: .speaker-BJ4} ##### Senator Sheil: -- Go and ask the people, then. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -That is the typical remark of the highwayman. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator Steele Hall: -- The bandit. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -Yes, the bandit. It is the typical remark of the political brigand who simply says: 'I say that there ought to be an election'. As **Senator Hall** said yesterday, honourable senators should look at their speeches. They are punctuated by the words 'We want', as **Senator Hall** says. Opposition senators say: 'We want'. Who are the 'we', outside the Liberal hierarchy? Who are the 'we '? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- The representatives of the people. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- If **Senator Wright** claims to be acting in a capacity representative of the people, let him consult the people. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- That is what we want you to do. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -Again we hear the words we want'. 'We want your money; we want your watch; stand and deliver', says **Senator Wright.** Who on earth gave **Senator Wright** - {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney: -- The electors of Tasmania. {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- I will come to that in a moment. I want to deal with the situation- I will be a little discursive- that is represented by the fact that **Senator Wright** on this issue, not on a question of State rights or review such as was the purpose of senatorial representation for the States three-quarters of a century ago, has a vote that is worth approximately 13 times that of **Senator Carrick.** That is the situation. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Do you denigrate it? {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- I deplore it in these circumstances. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- What a worthy representative of Tasmania! {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- I believe that I am an Australian. 1 do not strut around sticking out my chest. I prefer to be called an Australian first and a Tasmanian second. So far as I am concerned, in the situation that confronts the Senate there is no democratic basis for **Senator Wright** having a vote worth 1 3 times that of **Senator Carrick** or for my having a vote worth, say, 10 times that of **Senator Missen.** Where is the democracy in that when the issue is whether the Opposition will act in the manner in which it has acted by denying Supply? That is what it is doing. Let me move on to the constitutional question. I have not spoken directly in relation to this issue since the contretemps began. A number of lawyers, academics and ordinary members of the public have expressed their views on the constitutional legality and/or propriety of what the Opposition is doing. Most of those persons- 1 do not doubt all of them well meaning- have taken extreme positions one way or the other. The view that I want to put to the Senate- it is a view that I expressed publicly in Queensland recently- is that the constitutional fabric which clothes Australian society does not consist solely of the written Constitution. It consists also of the body of rules, precedents and practices which have been built up over a period of three-quarters of a century and which, in line with the development of the constitutions of other countries where those constitutions are not written, comprise just as important a part of our constitutional fabric as does the written Constitution. Therefore, I am prepared to concede for the purposes of this debate, because I have conceded it publicly that the Senate does have, according to the written Constitution, the strict legal power to reject- but, I will suggest later, not to continue to defer- a money Bill. That is only half of the constitutional position that has to be met by an Opposition which will be judged in history as to whether it is acting with constitutional propriety. I repeat that side by side with that written Constitution there lies that body of practice, convention and rules without which this country could not have survived over a period of three-quarters of a century including 2 world wars. That is the simple proposition that I assert. If that view is correct, then there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Opposition is behaving unconstitutionally in this situation. I do not say 'illegally' in the sense that court action could be taken against the Opposition or that in some way a judgment of a court could be obtained to the effect that what it is doing is constitutionally illegal. But if 50 per cent of our constitutional fabric is the written Constitution and the other 50 per cent is that body of rules, practice and conventions that I assert it is, then the Opposition, on its own stance, stands convicted of having acted unconstitutionally in this matter and of persisting in acting unconstitutionally in this matter. The second constitutional matter to which I wish to refer is the assertion that was made by **Senator Rae** last week and repeated, although without detailed argument, by **Senator Carrick** this afternoon. It is that the situation which now confronts the Senate could be solved quite simply because the Constitution, so they said, had written into it the means whereby this very problem could be solved, namely, section 57 and a double dissolution. How demonstrably ridiculous that is. It is pure chance that at the moment there are 22 Bills which could be the subject of a request by the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** to the Governor-General for a double dissolution. The suggestion of **Senator Rae** that section 57 of the Constitution was intended to provide the safeguard for the solution of the type of problem that now confronts the Senate indicates, I suggest, a situation that is either impracticable or at times impossible. How could section 57 possibly be used in the normal case in which an Opposition says that it will block the Budget? If there were no double dissolution Bills, that Bill itself would have to be treated as a double dissolution Bill. But after what period of time? Three months would have to elapse before it could be presented again. Then the further procedure of section 57 would have to be followed. I said that in many cases that procedure would be impossible because there cannot be a double dissolution within 6 months of the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time. If, fortuitously, there were to be a House of Representatives election in, shall we say, February or March, the procedure of section 57 would be impossible of application. Yet we have heard **Senator Rae, Senator Carrick** and, I believe, another senator- I shall not name her because I am not certain in her case- saying that the simple solution to this was put into the Constitution deliberately. What a lot of rubbish! I noted that **Senator Carrick** in his speech this afternoon referred to principles and precedents and to how important it was to preserve them. I noted his words- 'principles and precedents'. The Opposition is breaking every principle and every precedent by persisting in this action. I noted his words when he then spoke of the arrogance and the impertinence of the Whitlam Government. It really is a shame that a government can be so arrogant that, after having been returned to power as recently as May 1974, it asserts that it ought to be able to finish its term when it continues to have a majority in the House of Representatives! I wonder whether the arrogance and impertinence would more appropriately lie with the Opposition. I just pose the question. Let us have a look at what the Opposition is relying on. There was no doubt that about a week or 8 days ago the Opposition was relying heavily on **Mr Khemlani** in order to provide the final nail to convince the people that its banditry should be accepted. With a heavy orchestration we find a situation in which **Mr Khemlani** arrived in Sydney last Monday illegally- we have heard the explanation of what happened about that and of how the Government accommodated him- and immediately was embraced, literally, by the Opposition. He was closeted with the Opposition for a considerable period and everyone waited for the revelations that were going to bring down the Whitlam Government. Within 24 hours the attitude had cooled a little. Within another 24 hours it was pretty obvious that nothing was going to happen. Today it became perfectly clear that the Opposition had chickened out. What explanation does it seek to give- or is it an example of its arrogance that it considers it does not have to give explanations? What explanation can it give for having heralded so firmly the arrival of **Mr Khemlani** and for it now having given away any opportunity that it had to call **Mr Khemlani** before the Bar of the Senate? The people of Australia will not be fooled by that. The people of Australia can draw only one inference, and that is that the Opposition thought that it had a winner. It turned out to be a loser and the Opposition has dumped it. That is what the Opposition has done. I ask the Senate to note that the Opposition's motion to set up a select committee is not the clear cut proposition that the public might think. The motion was virtually stillborn yesterday because the Leader of the Opposition, **Senator Withers,** when he gave notice of it, labelled it as a holding motion. What was it holding? Was it holding up the crumbling fabric and the tactics of the Opposition that are reverberating now in its own face? That is usually the fate of brigands, bandits and thugs. The Leader of the Opposition also said yesterday morning that the Opposition would not necessarily proceed with the motion. I suggest that in those words **Senator Withers** damned the logic of the establishment of such a committee. He damned its purpose, he damned its efficacy and he damned the Opposition itself. I ask the Senate to note also that this morning, when **Senator Withers** said that the motion was not going to be proceeded with today or that it was not the desire of the Opposition to proceed with it today, he also said that it was more than possible that the motion would proceed on Tuesday. Is this the language of a resolute Party? This is an issue that has been blown up out of all perspective by the Opposition until it has become the basis of the death of the Whitlam Government, according to the Opposition. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- It was the death of **Mr Connor,** was it not? {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- I cannot hear the interjection. It would help if the honourable senator interjected in a loud voice. Then I could hear. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- The comment I made was that it was the death of **Mr Connor.** {: .speaker-JYN} ##### Senator EVERETT: -- I do not quite understand the relevance of that comment in the context of what I was saying. One could go on but I believe that everyone in this Parliament is bored. Certainly everyone gives that impression- not just because I am speaking. It has been apparent for days. I believe the Opposition has only one honourable thing to do and that is not to act unconstitutionally, which I assert it is doing. Twice in the past week or so **Senator Hall** has tried to impress on the Opposition how foolishly it is acting because it is welding the Government into a force that, when it wants to go to the people as is its right, will be swept back to power. That is my view. I oppose the Opposition tactics and will continue to do so. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: **- Mr Acting Deputy President,** I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)-** Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- I wish to refer briefly to some remarks that were made by **Senator Everett** because I think he did take me out of context. It may be - {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- When did you speak to be taken out of context? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder! {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- He referred - {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- By interjection? {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: **- Mr Acting Deputy President,** may I make my explanation? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order, please. **Senator Rae** has the floor. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- I should like to make my explanation without continual interruption from the Government Whip, soon to be the Opposition Whip if he retains his office. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- He does not intend to. He is retiring gracefully, which you should do. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- May I continue without interruption? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- I just want to say that **Senator Everett** may have misunderstood because the remarks which I made on 22 October were made at the conclusion of my speech when I was running out of time. I then brought together certain of the remarks that I would otherwise have made if I had had time. They were in relation to the situation of a deadlock, the powers of the Senate and the powers of the Governor-General in relation to a double dissolution. I do not wish to be taken as having said what **Senator Everett** quoted me as having said. Nor does what **Senator Everett** claims I said appear directly in my speech. I simply indicate that what I was suggesting was that there was no need for the dreadful things to take place which a number of the speakers from the Government side have indicated could take place. That is because the circumstances do exist for a double dissolution as one of the alternatives. There are other alternatives but I did not have time to elaborate on all of them. I do not wish to be taken as being totally ignorant of the implications of section 57 of the Constitution and I make that explanation. {: #debate-57-s7 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia -- This has been an extremely long and wide ranging debate but the wide range which has been covered is justified by the extremely broad motions that are before the Senate this afternoon. In fact, when one looks at the message which was sent to the House of Representatives by the Senate and which is referred to in the amendment moved by the Opposition yesterday, one finds that the whole area of the powers of the Senate, the constitutional issue and so on are canvassed. I refer to message No. 279. The message asserts: >That the powers of the Senate were expressly conferred on the Senate as part of the Federal Compact which created the Commonwealth of Australia. It goes on to assert: >That the Senate has the right and duty to exercise its legislative power and to concur or not to concur, as the Senate sees fit . . . It is all very well for words of abuse to be hurled at Opposition senators who are carrying out their constitutional responsibility in this place. I for one, having been elected by the people of Western Australia- like **Senator Everett,** I am proud to claim to be an Australian- intend to vote in a way which I believe best serves the interests of the people of Western Australia. I believe that those interests are best served by getting rid of this most unpalatable Government. There has been a great attempt to drag in red herrings. I suppose the most recent of these was the attempt by **Senator Everett** to make **Mr Khemlani,** in some way, a creature of the Opposition. It seems to me that the memories of honourable senators on the Government benches are exceedingly short. They seem to have forgotten completely the debates which took place in this chamber and in the House of Representatives in July when Parliament was recalled by the Government and when the Government tabled various documents and set about defending its role in the loans affair. If honourable senators examine the *Hansard* record of July for the House of Representatives they will find that the Government, in the persons of **Mr Whitlam** and of the then Minister, **Mr Connor,** defending the most important part played by **Mr Khemlani** in a search for unprecedented borrowings overseas. It is quite clear that these borrowings were never properly authorised. I refer honourable senators on the Government side to a couple of specific references. I refer them to the House of Representatives *Hansard* at page 3600 where in reference to **Mr Khemlani** the Prime Minister stated: 'Proper checks were made on the *bona fides* of the gentleman involved. ' A little later in the debate, at page 3613, **Mr Connor** stated that Treasury inquiries revealed the man's integrity. **Mr Connor,** a little later in the same speech, stated: 'I deal with honest people'.' There can be no doubt that over a long period this man worked on behalf of the present Government to seek to raise loans which, in July, the Government still defended as being in the national interest. For the Government to turn around and suggest that in some peculiar way **Mr Khemlani** has become the creature of the Opposition is quite Pharisaical. I simply say that it is quite clear who introduced **Mr Khemlani** into the affairs of Australia and whose agent he was. I draw to the attention of the Government the speech made by **Mr Malcolm** Fraser in the House of Representatives in that same debate where he expressed reservations not about **Mr Khemlani** 's character but about his suitability for the task which had been given him by the Government. Honourable senators will also find a rather scathing reference in **Mr Connor's** speech to the so-called sneers and smears of **Mr Lynch** with respect to **Mr Khemlani.** So in July we are subjected to Government attack because we are apparently denigrating this wonderful agent of the Australian Government. In October we are being told that, in some way, he is our creature. This is because the Government seeks to run away from the fact that this loans affair has cost it two of its most senior Ministers. It has cost them their positions for misleading the House over these loans. I say that these are significant matters which go towards making up my attitude to get rid of this Government. This has been a debate in which I suppose many of us- I do not excuse myself- have at times been intemperate either in our language or in our interjections. We have sat for 5 weeks. We have sat in the middle of what has been described as a constitutional crisis. I reject the concept of a constitutional crisis. I believe we are simply acting out the proper constitutional processes under our Constitution. 1 do say, however, that we are in the middle of a political crisis. After all, when we get to the point where an Opposition believes that the country is in such a state that it is necessary to send the government back to the people, I suppose we can properly say: 'Yes, we are in a state of crisis'. But that crisis is not constitutional. There is no threat of a breakdown of government in this country. It is simply an issue which will ultimately have to be determined, as are all political issues in this democracy, at the ballot box. I am looking forward to the opportunity of defending my actions before the electors who have sent me here. I am confident that they will send me back. I am confident that the electors of Western Australia do not adopt the attitude to the Senate which has been adopted by honourable senators on the government side. They say that this is an undemocratic House which is not properly representative and it ought, therefore, to be frightened of carrying out the constitutional responsibilities vested in it. I refer to the speech yesterday by **Senator James** McClelland. At page 1535 of the Senate *Hansard* honourable senators will find he stated: >So it is certainly stretching all of the known concepts of democracy to suggest that this is a House which is as representative of the will of the people as is the House of Representatives. I shall stop and analyse that statement for a moment. I recall the frequent debates on electoral redistribution in Australia. All honourable senators will agree that they are debates which often give rise to a great amount of heated discussion. A favourite precedent cited by those who believe that electoral boundaries should be on a strict one vote one value basis is the American Constitution. Recent judgments of the American Supreme Court have asserted, in a most vigorous fashion, that one must apply the principle of one vote one value in the apportionment of electorates for the House of Representatives in that country. Yet do honourable senators on the government side stop and think about the fact that those same arguments are not applied to the United States Senate? This afternoon the Senate has already heard argument put forward by my colleague, **Senator Carrick,** on that point. The United States Senate is elected in the same way as the Senate of Australia. There is representation on a State basis. The United States Senate has great constitutional powers, as does this Senate. I know of no argument in the United States that that is undemocratic. I know of no argument before the Supreme Court or of no suggestion by the United States Supreme Court that the position of the Senate in the United States infringes against those Bill of Rights provisions which have given rise to the one vote one value decisions in that court. Honourable senators on the government side must admit that the argument is quite specious. The specific constitutional provision in Australia is that we have 2 chambers. One of them is based on electorates which are single member constituencies. Since 1901 there has been a very high level of equality of representation. This chamber is based on representing the people of the different States in an equality. As one who, for some years, has bitterly fought the rather puny but I believe potentially dangerous secessionist movement in Western Australia I believe that an important factor in keeping Western Australians happy is the fact that they are part of Austra lia and that they have a greater degree of representation in this chamber than they can achieve in. the House of Representatives. One does not have to be here for very long to realise that the great weight of numbers in the House of Representatives rests on 2 cities, namely, Sydney and Melbourne. There is an awful lot of Australia and an awful lot to Australia outside those 2 cities. I believe that if we are to retain the Federation and if Australia is to remain the cohesive and successful country which it has been for 75 years we must continue to preserve the additional representation, which the less populous States obtain through this chamber. I suggest to all honourable senators that it would be valuable for them- even if they represent New South Wales and Victoria- to spend some time in Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. They would realise that distance and a lack of population mean something and that the representation afforded by this chamber means something. I will fight to the death to retain the Senate as we have it now. I believe that as honourable senators we must all look carefully at the Senate and not simply as a matter of party politics set out to denigrate it as so many Labor honourable senators are doing at the moment. I agree with comments which have been made in the debate earlier that there is not a great deal of point in trying to gather together the heads of distinguished lawyers and setting some up on this side and some up on the other side. It is true that there are differences of opinions among quite senior and distinguished lawyers as to the precise constitutional position. I would like to refer to a letter published in the *Sydney Morning Herald* and referred to yesterday by **Senator** James McClelland. He quoted only part of that letter, which I think is a pity, but in fairness to **Senator James** McClelland he made it clear that what he was quoting was not exhaustive. I quote from what **Sir Norman** Cowper said in the *Sydney Morning Herald* yesterday because I think it represents the most dispassionate assessment of the so-called constitutional crisis I have seen over the past fortnight. I think the Senate can pay some heed to the assessment because **Sir Norman** Cowper's conclusion is against the stance of the Opposition. His judgment is slightly different from mine but as an analysis of the constitutional position I think it is the clearest and least argumentative that I have seen. I quote only a small part of it, paragraph 3, which says: >The present Prime Minister's claim that the removal of a government from office before the end of the term for which it has been elected would be a blow to parliamentary government and democratic institutions is manifestly untenable. So just as **Senator James** McClelland chose to quote a particular paragraph, I choose to quote that one, but rather than leave it at that I seek leave to have the whole of this letter incorporated in *Hansard.* The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT **(Senator Mulvihill)-** Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- {: .page-start } page 1647 {:#debate-58} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-58-0} #### ESENTIALS OF THE POLITICAL CRISIS SIR, When all the rhetoric and rodomontade are brushed aside, the essential matters are clear enough. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) the cardinal rule is that the Governor-General acts in accordance with the advice he receives from the man who commands a majority in the House of Representatives- the Prime Minister. 1. If in extraordinary circumstances he rejects that advice, his only course will be to dismiss the Prime Minister, send for the Leader of the Opposition, commission him to form a ministry, and grant him a dissolution, at least of the House of Representatives. 2. The present Prime Minister's claim that the removal of a government from office before the end of the term for which it has been elected would be a blow to parliamentary government and democratic institutions is manifestly untenable. Indeed, the power of removal (the reserve power of the Crown) may be the only safeguard against the destruction of democracy. A government which finds its management of a country disastrous and a rising tide of public opinion against it may in its determination to remain in office resort to illegal actions which are the negation of democracy; and only the exercise of the Governor-General's power to dismiss it will save the country from an unconstitutional dictatorship. 3. If the Prime Minister were dismissed, but his party won the ensuing election, the Governor-General's office would be in jeopardy and, no doubt, the Queen would be asked to recall him and replace him by someone nominated by the (former) Prime Minister. Furthermore, salutary warnings would have been given to future Oppositions and Governors-General as to the unwisdom of forcing an election against the wishes of the elected government. 4. If, however, the result of the election were victory for the former opposition party, the actions of the GovernorGeneral would have been vindicated, and the present spate of talk about alleged conventions would be seen to be of little force or value. 5. In view of (4) and (5), a Governor-General could not be expected to reject the Prime Minister's advice and dismiss him unless he were satisfied: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. that the business of government had broken down and the continuance in office of the Prime Minister would result in administrative chaos, flagrant breaches of the Constitution and other illegalities, and 1. that it was highly probable that the votes of the people at the ensuing election would uphold his action. lt was because these conditions existed in New South Wales in 1932 that **Sir Phillip** Game was able to dismiss **Mr Lang** and restore orderly government to the State. 6. The Executive Council minute purporting to authorise the borrowing of a huge sum for 20 years for grandiose schemes of long-term mineral development as being a borrowing 'for temporary purposes 'was a flagrant breach of the Financial Agreement which is part of the Constitution. In my view, however, this does not by itself satisfy condition (a) above. 7. The rejection or deferral of Supply is undoubtedly within the power of the Senate under section 53 of the Constitution, but it is a power to be exercised only in very exceptional circumstances. 8. The circumstances alleged as exceptional are: incompetence in the management of the economy, the breach of the Financial Agreement, dismissal of Ministers for misleading Parliament and, generally, inept and dishonest government. Whether these circumstances exist to such an extent as to justify the confusion, hardship and breakdown of orderly government which the refusal or deferral of Supply will entail is a question which I would answer no, but which the Opposition has answered yes. 9. 10) If it persists in holding up Supply it may force the dismissal of the Government but will run the grave risk that its actions will antagonise public opinion and lead to the loss of the ensuing election. There is, perhaps, some indication that this swing against the Opposition has begun. 10. 1 1 ) On the other hand the continued refusal of Supply may put the Government in such difficulties that it cannot carry on without committing gross illegalities and flouting the Constitution, in which case, if the Governor-General were reasonably assured that the people would support him, he might well decide to dismiss the Prime Minister and force an election. 11. Other possibilities are: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. That the Prime Minister, believing that the refusal of Supply has caused a revulsion of opinion in favour of the Government, will himself advise a dissolution; 1. that the Opposition, deciding that revulsion of opinion has prejudiced its chances at an election, or that the consequences of refusal of Supply are too damaging to the economy or inflict too great hardship on the whole community, decides to pass the Supply Bills; or 2. that a compromise will be reached For a constitutional lawyer, it is the most interesting confrontation since Federation. NORMAN COWPER, Wahroonga. **(Sir Norman Cowper was formerly Director of the Australian Institute of Political Science and formerly senior partner of Allen, Allen and Hemsley, solicitors.)** {: #subdebate-58-0-s0 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY: -- I commend to all honourable senators the analysis which **Sir Norman** Cowper has made and I suggest that if we can deal with the matter in the Senate in the way in which he has we might generate a little more light and a good deal less heat. The other matter which has disturbed me about the debate in this chamber is the great degree to which we are setting up matters of political expediency as matters of principle. It would be bold of me to assert that this has happened only on the other side of the chamber but I do think it has been unhelpful to democracy in Australia that there has been an attempt to justify positions on the basis of principle when in part those stances are based on politics. We have had an appeal today that we should heed precedent and practice and that appeal was made most recently by **Senator Everett.** My attitude in this whole business has been affected by the past practice of the Government Party. We have already had extensive references to the attitude adopted by the now Prime Minister, **Mr Whitlam,** in 1970 when he clearly indicated in the House of Representatives that the then Labor Opposition proposed to oppose the Budget, to destroy the Budget and by destroying the Budget, to destroy the then Gorton Government, a government which I point out had been elected at that time only 10 months. All honourable senators are familiar with the passages in Hansard to which I am referring because they have been quoted so often. What happened when those Budget Bills reached this Senate then, a Senate in which at the time the majority of senators were Opposition senators? They had to face the very practical question: What was the proper course of action they should follow in those circumstances? I ask the Senate to bear in mind that at that time the Government did not have a majority in the Senate. Had all the nongovernment forces combined the Budget could have been defeated. I refer now to page 2030 of the Senate Hansard of 4 November 1970 and the words of former **Senator Murphy** who then was leading the honourable senators who now sit on the Government benches. The former **Senator Murphy** said: >I simply want to say that, in accordance with what we indicated earlier, we propose to vote against the third reading of this Appropriation Bill as an indication of our complete and utter rejection of the Budget. It is not necessary to say any more than that. It is interesting to cast an eye down the voting list and note the honourable senators who were quite happy then to vote to try to defeat the third reading of the Appropriation Bill in 1970. For example, there was **Senator Reg** Bishop who is in charge of the chamber for the Government this afternoon who cast his 'no' vote on the Appropriation Bill at that time. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- That has been said 10 times now. {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY: -- It bears repeating when it has also been said so many times that we on this side lack principle in simply delaying these Bills. Also I find that **Senator Cavanagh,** another Minister now, voted in the same way. I find that **Senator Georges** voted in the same way, as did **Senator Keeffe** and **Senator Douglas** McClelland, and I regret only that **Senator James** McClelland was not then a senator so that he too could have cast his vote for principle as he would then have seen it. **Senator Mulvihill** even found it in his heart to vote ' no ' on that occasion. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)-** You are on dangerous ground in reflecting on the Chair because I might have to drop my cloak of impartiality. {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY: -- I will try not to reflect on the Chair. I withdraw any such reflection. We find that **Senator Poyser,** my opposite number from the Whip's office, **Senator Wheeldon** who is now a Minister, **Senator Willesee** who is now a Minister, **Senator Wriedt** who is now the Leader of the Government and **Senator O** 'Byrne who normally sits in the Chair, also voted in that way. So the Labor view in 1970 was that it was a proper course to set out to destroy a Budget and the Government. I know that this has been said before but is it not the final proof that this argument is about politics, and to dress it up in whole lot of constitutional finery is simply a clever and so far fairly successful attempt to divert attention from the real political arguments on to a specious constitutional issue? I am pleased that **Senator Murphy** has gone to a place where his present colleagues agree with the view that he took in 1 970. 1 am pleased also to be able to quote the judgment of **Mr Justice** Stephen in the recent action in the High Court relating to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority where, referring to the Senate, **Mr Justice** Stephen said: >It has full power of initiation, rejection and amendment of bills coming from the House and even in the case of money bills has the right freely to request amendments or to reject outright. These powers, unusual in a modern upper House, reflect the federal character of our polity. I say 'hear, hear' to that. **Mr Justice** Gibbs in the same case said: >The power of the Senate to reject a proposed law- a power implicit in its position as one of the chambers of a bicameral legislature- is left untouched by section 53 so that the Senate may reject any proposed law, even one which it cannot amend. It is very pleasing for us all to note that former **Senator Murphy** still has colleagues who agree with his 1970 position. I devote the balance of my time to a matter which is of some importance to all of us as senators and that is the campaign of denigration of the Senate which the Government, particularly the Prime Minister, is conducting. It may well be that it is Labor Party policy to abolish the Senate but that does not mean that many of the Government senators do not carry out in a most proper and conscientious fashion their duties as senators. I believe that in this chamber far more than in the House of Representatives we carry out our duty as legislators. It may ill-behove honourable senators to congratulate the Senate, but in the present situation if we are not prepared to defend our own actions, who else will? I am happy to say that at least one academic is prepared to defend us. I refer to a report in the *West Australian* newspaper of 30 October 1975 of an address given by Professor Gordon Reid, Professor of Politics at the University of Western Australia. The report states in part: >Only the Senate had tried to maintain the standards of parliamentary government. > >It had tried to scrutinise the legislation and the Appropriation Bills and it had tried to maintain standing committees to oversee executive government departments. > >It had been under continuing attack by successive governments since **Sir Robert** Menzies. > >Because it had exercised its power through the elected politicians it had been presented as hostile to government programs and an anomaly to modern government. I for one say that the Senate is in fact a legislative body which carries out its functions. I refer now to the Prime Minister's weekly broadcast on 12 October 1975 because that contains a fairly classic loaded attack on the Senate. Unfortunately I cannot debate the main subject matter of that address, the Legal Aid Bill which I hope we will deal with in this chamber shortly, but I would like to refer to a couple of statements from the Prime Minister. He said: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . it's worth looking more closely at this Opposition tactic of referring Bills to Senate committees. They do it all the time. It's a familiar and characteristic method of Liberal obstruction. They will neither vote for a bill nor vote against it. I say to honourable senators opposite: Look at the 2 examples he chose. The 2 examples are very current and affect the people who are sitting opposite now. He said: >For example, our Bill for a national compensation scheme was held up for 8 months while a Senate Committee made a report. I will come back to that in a minute. The Prime Minister went on to talk about what he calls an even worse example. He said: >An even worse example concerned our legislation to clamp down on lurks and fiddles in the share market and securities business. He went on to say: >When their report - That is, the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, which is known as the Rae Committee- finally appeared we promptly drafted legislation to deal with the problem. The Opposition majority in the Senate referred the Bill to yet another Senate Committee for a report. That was last April. Since then we've seen the crash of one share broking firm, Patrick 'Partners. How much more evidence is needed of instability in the stockbroker business- how many more shareholders must burn their fingers- before our legislation goes through? To the ignorant, both of those criticisms may seem valid. I would suggest that to not one person in the Senate- Government, Independent, or Opposition- would either of those criticisms have any connection with fact. Let us look at this Committee which is so destroying the ability of the Government to deal with share markets and securities- the Senate Select Committee on the Corporations and Securities Industry Bill 1975. The Committee is chaired by **Senator Georges. Senator Georges,** as the Chairman of that Committee, has, as is no doubt proper, a casting vote in that Committee. I have checked the resolution of the Senate which set up the Committee and have found that paragraph 7 of it provides that in the event of an equality of voting the Chairman, or Deputy Chairman when acting as the Chairman, shall have a casting vote. So we have a situation where, quite properly, the Government would have a majority if there were a division on a matter on Party lines. I am pleased to think, although that Committee has not yet reported in full, that any division would not be on Party lines. Indeed, when I referred to the Senate *Hansard* of 28 August 1975 I found that **Senator Georges** reported to the Senate in the following terms: >It has become necessary- and I express this necessity with regret- for the Committee to have further time to consider the Bill which is of some 285 clauses and 8 schedules- a considerable task. There has been wide interest in the Bill and 70 submissions have been received- many of them of considerable substance. However, the Committee has been active, has met on 10 occasions and has had before it representatives of the Attorney-General's Department . . . **Senator Georges** went on to list other organisations which have been before the Committee. He referred to the difficulties of having more frequent meetings and said that he could assure the Senate that the Select Committee would apply itself to the task of reporting to the Senate as quickly as possible. I have said all of that simply because I believe that that Committee, as are other committees, is an excellent example of bipartisan legislative activity, the sort of activity that has made this Senate a respected institution in Australia, and I have tried not to make the comment in a partisan sense. I believe that the Committee is working to try to achieve good securities legislation and that if that takes more than a month it is simply because it is a complex and difficult question which needs careful consideration. The other Committee that received the lash of the Prime Minister's tongue was the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on which I served under 2 consecutive Labor Chairmen- **Senator James** McClelland and subsequently **Senator Everett.** In my view both of those Chairmen conducted the Committee's proceedings in a most admirable and proper manner. In its inquiry into a national compensation scheme that Committee, over a period of some six to eight months, held a total of 66 meetings, most of which were full-day meetings. Honourable senators will be aware of what a large additional burden that imposes upon the people who are engaged in the exercise. When we look at the report of that Committee, which was a very large report, we find that a program which the Government put forward, which was estimated to cost in the ultimate some $2,000m a year, was found unanimously by 3 Labor senators and 3 Liberal senators to be defective on not less than 16 agreed points. In other words this major program which was the product of an inquiry- the Woodhouse report- was found on an all-Party basis to be defective. So we reported to the Senate accordingly. We did what I believe the people of Australia elected us to do. How has the Government reacted to that? It is very simple to see. It is interesting to compare the words of the responsible Minister, **Senator Wheeldon,** with the words of the Prime Minister. In a report that he brought into the Parliament within the last week **Senator Wheeldon** said that the Senate Committee's main recommendations which have been supported by both Government and Opposition senators, will be incorporated in the new legislation. So the result of those endless, or seemingly endless, 66 meetings and the result of the 8 months delay in the Government's program will be, I trust, a Bill that is slightly less full of manifest defects than was the original Bill that we considered as a Committee. My point is this: Over the last 10 yearsperhaps less- the Senate has, as a legislative body, developed the traditions and, I think, the status which in the present political atmosphere the Government sees as being in its interest to destroy. J hope that Government senators will not join in the witch hunt against the Senate that has been indulged in by the Prime Minister and that they will not try to use the exercising of the constitutional powers of this chamber as a smokescreen to divert the debate from the real questions of politics that are affecting Australia. The fact of the matter is that Australia is now in a situation which nobody in his wildest dreams would have predicted in 1972. The fact of the matter is that, except when they have a charge of adrenalin injected into them by a mock issue fomented by that great man of a thousand faces, the Prime Minister, most honourable senators are ashamed of their Government. They know that the people who elected them have been largely neglected. They know that there will be hundreds of thousands of working people out of work after Christmas. If they are not ashamed of that I suppose it is simply a sign of the fact that being in this chamber on $20,000 a year removes them an awfully long way from the people they are supposed to represent. Honourable senators opposite represent a government which has reached the point where **Senator Wheeldon** has had to come into this chamber and say that inflation is such that the Government cannot even plan its social welfare program. I would say that in their heart of hearts many Government senators would be doubly ashamed of the failure of the Government to deal with the question of unemployment and to deal with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty that have been before the Government for so long, and of the absolutely miserable failure of the Government to live up to its promises of 1972. They would be ashamed of the furtive carryings-on of the loans affair. They would be ashamed of the way that information has had to be forced out of the Government by journalists in a repetition, of the Watergate situation in the United States of America where the wrongdoer owned up only after the truth had been revealed by an inquiring journalist. I know that honourable senators opposite are going to retain their excited state for a while under the impetus of the Prime Minister's wonderful acting ability, but I suggest to them that they ought to give greater consideration to the problems of Australia and the matters which have led Opposition senators to take the course of refusing to proceed with the Budget Bills until an election is called. I believe that we are acting in the best interests of the people of Australia. I believe that we are doing no more than our constitutional duty as senators. I for one look forward to the time when an election is called and our stand is vindicated by the people. {: #subdebate-58-0-s1 .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales -- We have been treated to a much more gentle speech- a persuasive speech, perhapsfrom **Senator Chaney** as he endeavoured to traverse a wide area in expressing the views of the Opposition as to why it has taken this very dangerous step of denying the Government its legitimacy, its finances and its right to govern. He has denied that a constitutional crisis exists, and he has endeavoured to draw upon the experiences of previous Oppositions and governments in the post-war years. I think he must accept that there is a constitutional crisis with us; there is a polarisation between the 2 Houses of Parliament. One cannot ignore the fact that the House of Representatives is locked in mortal combat with the Senate. This matter transcends all the previous attitudes and traditions of the 2 Houses of Parliament. **Senator Chaney** ignored the fact that in the 75 years of Australia's development since Federation, despite all the trials and tribulations, no government has been subjected to a denial of Supply, and only occasionally has the threat been made. It was made in April 1974 when the Opposition seriously misjudged the position. A threat to deny Supply was made then, as it has been made on this occasion. All of us are aware of the subsequent events. If the Government were to succumb to the pressures of the Opposition it would be presenting to the Australian people the third election in 3 years. I think it does not do the case of the Opposition any good for its speakers to hark back to the occasion in 1970 when an attempt was made by the Australian Labor Party in opposition to reject the Appropriation Bills. That was the only such occasion. It does not do the case of the Opposition any good for its speakers to use that occasion as some substance or some argument to justify the unprincipled position that the Opposition is endeavouring to take on this occasion. That occasion in 1970 was 21 years after the Menzies Government came to power. **Mr Menzies** had used every device, every trick and every opportunity to change election dates, to go to the people at times which he considered to be politically advantageous to him and to change the normal timetable of the House of Representatives and Senate elections. In the frustration of that period endeavours were made by the Opposition Party at that time to reject the Appropriation Bills. The situation now is entirely different. On this occasion the Opposition is endeavouring to force to the people, to the polls, for the third time in 3 years a government that was legitimately elected after being in the political wilderness for a generation. The Opposition succeeded in forcing the Government to the polls when the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** took up the challenge in 1974. The result shows that the Opposition was guilty of a very serious misjudgment. On this occasion the Opposition anticipated that we would do what we did in 1 974. Since 1 974, when we were returned to office, the Opposition has used every manoeuvre, every device at its disposal, to try to prevent the Government from carrying out its legislative program. That is regarded as legitimate activity. In the Twenty-ninth Parliament the Senate has rejected 32 Bills that had been passed by the House of Representatives. Over the years the Senate has rejected hundreds of Bills that had passed through the Lower House. The plain facts are- the Opposition must face up to this-that never in 75 years has the Senate exercised its power to reject a money Bill. The Constitution specifically states that the Senate does not have the power to amend a money Bill. To amend a Bill is only to change its form to some extent. To reject it is a greater penalty. So we are arguing that the Senate does not have the traditional or constitutional right to take the course of action which it has taken on this occasion. I refer honourable senators to the platform of the Liberal Party of Australia, which states: >The Liberal Party believes that- > >Members of Parliament should possess appropriate qualities, experience, dedication and ability with a proper understanding of the parliamentary system and a respect for its traditions and functions . . . > >The Senate must be maintained as an institution for the effective and equal representation of all States and as a House of review. Those sentiments are quite contrary to the action that the Opposition has taken on this occasion. I am pleased to follow in the wake of one of my colleagues who referred to the action of honourable senators opposite in their grab for power as the action of bandits. In the political sense he is correct when he puts that sort of description on them. I say that they are pirates attempting to steal the ship of state. They are finding themselves now not enjoying the support that they thought was theirs when they took that decision only a fortnight ago. We must bear in mind that those who claim the sovereignty of this place, those who say 'Hear, hear' when I speak about the rights of the Senate, fail to appreciate that it was a person other than a senator who made the decision. **Mr Fraser** made the decision and told his Senate colleagues last Tuesday week that the Government was to be denied Supply. He made the decision, and he made it in the mistaken belief that there was support throughout Australia for it. Honourable senators opposite, in their contributions to the debate even this day, have said that the catalyst in this decision making of **Mr Fraser** was the resignation of **Mr Connor.** We started off the Budget session with the mavericks of the Opposition Parties suggesting that the Government should be denied Supply because of unemployment and inflation. As those issues faded somewhat in their significance, honourable senators opposite decided to latch on to the loans affair. There is no doubt that every encouragement was given by the editorial writer of the *Sydney Morning Herald* in the editorials of 15, 1 6 and 1 7 October. Those editorials said that the loans affair was the issue and was the reprehensible circumstance that ought to be grasped by the Opposition to bring about an election. They persuaded **Mr Fraser,** even in the light of his oft repeated statements. It is quite sufficient to relate one of them in this debate. Subsequent to his election as Leader of the Opposition earlier this year he said: >The basic principle which I adhere to strongly is that a government that continues to have a majority in the House of Representatives has a right to expect that it will be able to govern. What has been the position? The Opposition put all its eggs into the Khemlani basket. It believed that **Mr Khemlani** would produce evidence that would prove that this Government was not fit to remain in office and that **Mr Khemlani** would be able to show that the Prime Minister or other Ministers of the Crown had in some way or other misled the Parliament. Two lawyers associated with the Opposition spent days going through 8 suitcases of documents. I refer to **Mr Howard** and **Mr Ellicott.** I think I could describe **Mr Ellicott** as a senior member of the Opposition Parties. What did **Mr Ellicott** say after he had gone through the documents? The transcript of a recent *PM* program states: >But today, **Mr Bob** Ellicott, the Liberal front bencher who spent last night poring over the Khemlani documents, flew to Sydney to address a Rotary Club luncheon. After the lunch he blew the lid off the issue when he told an ABC news reporter there is no direct evidence in the documents he saw which involved the Prime Minister. It seems that **Mr Ellicott** had dropped the story that the government had been waiting for. He dropped the story and the excuse for which the Opposition has been waiting. Since the beginning of the Budget session the Opposition has set out to create a political climate. It has set out to create the conditions on which this Government would accept the gauntlet that was thrown down to it by denying the passage of the Appropriation Bills. The Opposition expects the Government to go to an election meekly, weakly and sweetly. It is to the credit of the Government that it has stood its ground. Let me set at rest the minds of Opposition senators. **Mr Fraser** has done more to unite the Labor Party than has any single person within the Labor Party. The arrogant grab for power which he set in motion only a fortnight ago has failed and is clearly now not enjoying any support from the Australian people. Very soon after that move was made by the Opposition it was apparent that public opinion was not going to swing behind it. The gallup polls which were published in the *Age* and the *Sydney Morning Herald* newspapers surely indicate clearly how the Opposition has again misjudged the situation and how it has failed in its attempts to force the Government to a poll for the third time in 3 years. Ever since this Government came to office it has been confronted with hostility and frustration in the Senate. I do not wonder that the Prime Minister has, in one way or another, expressed his frustration and concern at this continued arrogance which those political parties which have the numbers in this place have attempted to wield. The Opposition in the Senate has in these circumstances applied its mentality to a siege tactic in which rational debate has been replaced by irrational debate and irrational conduct. The polarisation which has taken place not only in the Parliament but also within the community itself is something with which the Opposition will have to live. There is no doubt that it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that this polarisation should be taking place. The decision that was taken was taken in the interests of those members of the Opposition who want to get back into power. I am sure that the subjective attitudes of the shadow ministers will be leading the pack in the Liberal Party meeting room. They felt that they were on a winner. They felt that they had the opportunity to hit home at the Government, to defeat the Government on the loans affair. What are the factors involved in the loans affair? First of all, no loans were ever raised. Secondly, no commission was ever paid. Thirdly, none of the documents, none of the statements that have been presented, has shown any irregularity on the part of the Government. It has been apparent to honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber that over the last week or so Opposition senators have sat in their places like stunned mullet. They have not been able to understand why the community has reacted as it has. They have not been able to understand that the Australian people are interested in a fair go for a government, that they are interested in the democratic processes with which the Labor Party has been associated ever since it was formed in 1 89 1 . The very behaviour of Opposition senators in this place this week has been an indication of the tension and the pressures being exerted on them. We have seen incidents on 2 occasions. Yesterday **Senator Greenwood** attempted to take away our right to present petitions and today **Senator Carrick** took another extremist position in relation to Portuguese East Timor. We have seen members of the Opposition parties dissociating themselves from the extremist positions taken by some other members of the Opposition. There is evidence that the Liberal edifice is beginning to crumble. We are subjected in these debates to propaganda and exaggeration from Opposition senators. We saw some examples of that this morning. I shall refer to only one of them because time will not permit me to deal with more than one instance. I wrote down the words that **Senator Carrick** used. He said that this Government was concerned with rigging the electoral laws. That sort of exaggerated comment is one of the reasons that the Opposition parties are not able to win majority support in the electorate. Let us face it; that was one of the issues upon which we fought an election in 1974. It was a double dissolution issue. The joint sitting determined the new electoral laws based on the principle upon which the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, the American Constitution and the Australian Constitution are supposed to be based, and that is the principle of one vote one value. Yet, in that exaggerated language which so often emanates from that quarter of the Opposition, that is regarded as rigging the electoral laws. It is that sort of behaviour pattern which is filtering through to the electorate. It is doing so in such a way that the gallup polls published today indicate that almost three out of four Australians dissociate themselves from the tactics being pursued by the Opposition. The gallup polls indicate also the popularity of the Party leaders. It is true that the popularity of the Prime Minister has been down somewhat in relation to what it had been a year or so ago, but the fact is that the latest poll shows that his popularity has risen considerably and that **Mr Fraser's** popularity has dropped very considerably since the start of the Budget session. God only knows how much more that will be reflected in the next popularity poll of the leaders. In the current poll **Mr Whitlam** is shown as having 37 percent support and **Mr Fraser** as having 34 per cent support. I venture to predict that when the next poll is taken, following the Opposition's disastrous decision, **Mr Fraser** will find himself outstripped completely by the Prime Minister. What has emerged from this opportunist grab for power is that **Mr Fraser** has shown himself to be not a credible alternative Prime Minister, and I think it might even show to the Opposition parties that he is not even a credible leader of the Liberal Party. The loans affair has been made an issue of substance for a considerable number of months. **Mr Khemlani,** who was traduced by the Opposition senators earlier this year, suddenly became a person of interest and of great concern and a person on whom the Opposition spent a great deal of time in recent days. But **Mr Khemlani** is not a Trojan horse. **Mr Khemlani** has not been able to do more than present documents which are documents which have been passed legitimately between himself and Ministers of the Crown in respect of the Government's overall objectives of obtaining funds so that we may purchase equity in the natural resources of our country. **Mr Ellicott** denied that the documents implicated the Prime Minister. We have seen the coercion which the shadow cabinet exerted on **Mr Ellicott** when he returned to Canberra on Tuesday evening when he was forced to issue a second statement. That is the sort of behaviour which the journalists, the political commentators and the people are picking up. They know something of what is happening in the Senate of this country. They should compare **Mr Fraser's** current position on the Budget with what he said about the Budget previously, namely that it was a responsible Budget, that there was some merit in it. Yet in its insatiable desire to get back into political power in this country the Opposition has taken the step of trying to delay the passage of the Appropriation Bills and it has taken up an extremist position. It is interesting to note that the extremists of those who seek power in the community and of those who have occupied political power in the community, always seem to have had recourse to the same sort of phraseology- whether it be the phraseology that was used in Germany in the 1930s, in Italy in the 1920s, by General Franco in the late 1930s, or by the military groups in Chile or Greece. At those times the people always used phrases, such as they claimed to be acting in the interests of the people; they were responding to the call of the nation; or they were acting in defence of the best interests of the people and in defence of democracy. It is very interesting to find how those phrases fit into the Fraser phraseology. He used precisely that terminology several weeks ago when he justified his decision to try to undermine public confidence in this Government. It is good to see that the Australian people have rejected this opportunist move that **Mr Fraser** and his colleagues made only a fortnight ago. It is good to know that the Australian people are able to see through the manoeuvre. It is good to see that even the newspapers, which were in the forefront of the campaign to defeat this Government and to force it to an election in December of this year, are now forced to put on their front pages details of the result of public opinion polls which justify the principal position that the Australian Government has taken. It is to be hoped that the Australian people will appreciate that in this chamber it is not just the Australian Labor Party senators who are supporting this position. The independent senator and the senator from the Liberal Movement are also supporting it. There is a welling up in the community- among academics, lawyers, church leaders and those people who are concerned with the democratic processes- an understanding that what is happening here in the Senate in October 1975 is a matter of regret and a matter that must be resisted at all costs. We can assure the Australian people that from our side of the chamber we will fight to retain this Government. We will fight against the endeavours to deny financial means to carry on. We will mobilise the Australian people. We will win the minds and the support of the Australian people in this constitutional-cum-political crisis which has been engineered by the Opposition. {: #subdebate-58-0-s2 .speaker-K69} ##### Senator SIM:
Western Australia **-Mr President,** as I listened to **Senator Gietzelt** I was reminded of the saying that hope springs eternal in the human breast. I am not sure now to whom that is to be attributed. Certainly one thing about **Senator Gietzelt** is that he must be a great optimist. I was rather amazed at his extraordinary assertion- I think I am quoting him correctly, but if I am not he will correct me- that the Opposition produced **Mr Khemlani** earlier this year. I thought that **Mr Khemlani** was produced in some murky manner from somebody in South Australia through **Mr Cameron** to **Mr Connor.** But now we are told that we produced the character. I can imagine the anxiety of the Australian Labor Party to get rid of **Mr Khemlani.** We were also told by **Senator James** McClelland in this chamber and by **Mr Connor** that **Mr Khemlani's** credentials had been checked and that he was a man of great integrity and probity. There seems to be a somewhat different story now as they seek to unload him. They cannot unload him quickly enough. **Senator Gietzelt** said that Opposition senators reminded him of pirates attempting to seize the ship of state. I find that rather remarkable because the ship of state has already foundered after a couple of years of this Government, and I do not think that we wish to seize a foundering ship. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- Not until the rats have deserted it. {: .speaker-K69} ##### Senator SIM: -- Thank you very much, **Senator Missen.** This debate has given us a further opportunity to continue to expose the deceit, the impropriety, the incompetence and the lack of integrity of this Government. Its incompetence is almost unbelievable. This applies particularly to economic affairs. Of course, this is one of the major issues which concern us today. In 1 972 this Government inherited a stable economy- one of the most stable economies in the developed world. In a matter of months, and only months, the Government converted this to one of the most unstable economies in the developed world. This was done by its own reckless policies. We know that the Government continually sought to lead us to believe that the economic problems facing Australia were imported from overseas. We remember time and again that this was given as the excuse. The report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which has been quoted and which I quoted during the Budget debate put paid to this nonsense once and for all. The OECD report clearly sheeted home the responsibility for Australia's economic problems, its devastating inflation rate- about the second highest in the developed world- its ever-increasing unemployment rate, its high interest rates and its internal domestic policies. Of all the countries in the developed world we were most isolated from events outside. We were almost completely isolated from the energy crisis which had such a devastating effect upon the economies not only of the developed countries but also of many of the developing countries, lt is interesting to note that, because of sound economic policies, the rate of inflation in Japan, which was among the countries which were most affected by the energy crisis, is decreasing rapidly. The last figures that I saw showed that the rate was down to about 10 per cent, and it is expected to be a single figure rate before the end of this year. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: -- Is that an annual rate? {: .speaker-K69} ##### Senator SIM: -- The last figures that I saw showed that the annual rate is down to about 10 per cent, and it is expected to be a single figure rate by the end of this year. This has happened because of the sound and tough economic policies which were followed by the Japanese Government. The same thing has happened with the German economy. Here again, the German economy recovered remarkably quickly while we are still wallowing in an economic crisis caused by the lack of policies of this Government. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- And the frustration of the Senate on the Government. {: .speaker-K69} ##### Senator SIM: -- This is one of the lame and weakest excuses that honourable senators opposite can possibly make. They are trying to grasp at any straw as they sink, and the straw upon which they grasp is the frustration of the Senate. Really **Senator McLaren** should try to do better than that. Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 1655 {:#debate-59} ### ADJOURNMENT Statements by Minister for Labor and Immigration- Motion for Proposed Select Committee on Overseas Loan Raisings {: #debate-59-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! It being 5 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #debate-59-s1 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- I rise on the adjournment and not for any length of time, to refer to the completely disgraceful abdication of ministerial responsibility which was displayed this morning in this chamber by the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland).** He was asked 2 questions by me, each of which was followed by a supplementary question, as to why he had given a misleading answer to the Senate in April of this year and why he had made a grossly defamatory statement about an individual who has no opportunity to defend his name because of the privilege which covers the statements of Ministers in this place. Far from the Minister retracting or indicating regret for the statement he had made, he persisted in it and compounded the defamation in which he had engaged. When asked about the source of the information on which he had said he relied and which he believed to be true, he said bluntly that he was not going to give the source of his information. In times when the other issues which are concerning us were not in the forefront of our consideration, an answer of that description from a Minister would have led to a motion of no confidence in that Minister. The essence of our parliamentary system and the accountability of Ministers to the Parliament is that they will provide the information and the answers to the members of Parliament who seek it. It is in that way that the public at large is involved, and when Ministers regard themselves as so above the other members of the chamber and so above the people of this country that they are not prepared to answer questions on fundamental matters affecting an individual's rights, then we have the true authoritarianism which stamps the dictatorship. There are so many instances of this Government regarding itself as immune from criticism, above accountability and completely irresponsible as to make that suggestion of authoritarianism not at all unreal. Earlier this year I raised in the Senate my concern at the allegations of a man who was a former Australian Security Intelligence Organisation agent whose name was Max Wechsler. He had resigned from ASIO because he considered that the Government was wilfully and culpably inactive in regard to matters on which he had given information in the course of his duties. I detailed those allegations, and the allegations were made also to a newspaper, so they have been publicised in 2 places. The Government ignored what this man said instead of attempting to answer the matter or, as might be suggested as an appropriate course, providing to me in confidence information which was related to the security of this country. That is always a course which can be adopted. The Government chose to abandon any such pretence. It ridiculed and treated as mere political point making what was a serious question. No answer was given and no answer was attempted. All that occurred was a rubbishing exercise in defaming the character and standing of this man. At least one completely false statement was made deliberately by a Minister in this chamber. Maybe other false statements also were made. The Senate will recall that I related what **Mr Wechsler** had told me and what was part of the same story he had told to newspapers. The response of the Minister, **Senator James** McClelland, was directed in a manner of complete evasion and belittling of the informant by the ridiculing of his standing and therefore of his story. That is a procedure which works successfully when one does not have an answer to the facts. It is a procedure whereby one rubbishes the man who tells the story. One accuses him of being a paranoid, an unbalanced character, a psychotic- all of which descriptions **Senator James** McClelland used- and it is done under cover of parliamentary privilege. One then seeks by development of humour and laughter to ridicule the man in question and therefore not answer his story but say: 'Who could believe the story of a man like that?' I might say that that is the way in which the menace of communism in this country has been ridiculed in this Parliament by members of the Labor Party over almost 2 decades. It is so typical of what happened in this particular case as to warrant, I believe, some exposure. What **Senator James** McClelland said in the course of his speech on 2 1 April was designed to suggest that this man was unbalanced. He claimed, of course, that the allegations were a farce. He did not say that they were untrue; he said that they were a farce. He said that this man had postured an outlandish story. It was told by a person who was obviously a pathetic psychological misfit. It was a skilful use of words under parliamentary privilege purposefully denigrating, and simply for the sake of ridiculing what was said. Then there was the language that this was an extraordinary young neurotic, unverified character named Wechsler. Why call him neurotic? It was said that he was an obviously neurotic, unbalanced young man. What is the evidence for that? The Minister finished up on a basis which was designed, I suppose, to be the king hit because I had not heard from this young man after he had related his story. **Senator James** McClelland said: >Perhaps the reason why **Senator Greenwood** has not heard from **Mr Wechsler** for a long time- and this is a piece of information that he has forced me into giving- is that **Mr Wechsler** has been, on my information, in a mental institution in Queensland for some time. That is a highly damaging defamatory allegation to make against any person. That particular statement was given wide publicity in newspapers throughout this country. I have ascertained since that it is a completely false statement. **Mr Wechsler** was overseas at the time. I have seen his passport and, as I read it, he was in Malaysia at the time that that story was given. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- Who paid his fare then? {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -Does it matter who paid his fare? Is that in some way to ridicule or denigrate his story? The fact is that he was overseas at the time and the fact is that he was unaware until he returned of what was said in this Parliament. When he found out he sought me out and he was concerned. Is it a matter which Labor senators regard as of no consequence that a person outside this Parliament can be declared, on the say-so of a Minister, to be a mental case when there is absolutely no foundation for it. It is something which Labor senators regard as quite proper that when the matter is brought before the Minister he does not seek to apologise or in any way as a matter of regret explain his answer but simply compounds what was said. Is it proper in the eyes of Labor senators that when I seek the basis of the information upon which he made this allegation the Minister says: You are not going to get it?' He gave a categorical, unrevealing- or maybe it was revealing- no. I raise these matters because they ought to be raised, and I am interested in the silence of the Labor senators. Why is it that the Minister has adopted this attitude? 1 believe that he has an obligation to explain himself to the Parliament. I sent to his office about three-quarters of an hour ago the information that I proposed to speak on the adjournment in regard to this man Wechsler. Perhaps the Minister is unable to be here; I do not know. But his office was given notice of the fact that I proposed to raise this matter. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- I rise on a point of order. A message as to the whereabout of **Senator James** McClelland was conveyed to the Opposition Whip, and I presume that it was conveyed to **Senator Greenwood.** {: #debate-59-s2 .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND -- Where is he? {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- You ask your Opposition Whip because I conveyed the information to him. If you are going to use these tactics you are getting right into the gutter. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- There is no point of order. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- It is not a matter of order to raise that point. If the Minister is elsewhere, let him state where he is or why he chooses to be elsewhere instead of coming here. The points which I have raised are points which require an explanation. I know some of the things which **Mr Wechsler** has been doing since he has been overseas because he saw me within the last week and related them to me. I understand he has related them to other people also. He was denied assistance in West Germany. On application to the Australian Embassy in that country after he had made some approaches to the West German police about some money which was stolen from him, he was told that no assistance was available to him from the Australian Embassy in Bonn. I would be grateful if some explanation could be given to the Senate as to the Government's side of that story. He was in the Czech Embassy in London for a period of time, some of which was against his will. This was related to the Special Branch of Scotland Yard. This is what **Mr Wechsler** has told me. It may be lies; it may not be lies. I am simply seeking information. He also spoke to staff at the Australian High Commissioner's office in London. So the record of whether he did that will be there. I would be interested to know why the Australian High Commissioner's office said that it was not interested in what had happened to him or what had been said. It may be that there is concern on the part of the Government as to **Mr Wechsler's** revelations. He was employed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and the Minister conceded that when he spoke on the matter in the Senate on 2 1 April. In the Czech Embassy **Mr Wechsler** was shown documents which he believes could have come only from ASIO in this country. He was shown a photocopy of his passport. His passport had been issued only in March of this year. He was shown photographs of meetings which he had held in Australia which he believed could have come only from sources which were close to ASIO. It may be that the allegations which he made and which I have detailed in the Senate ought to be investigated and ought to be more widely known. I believe that these are matters upon which some explanation ought to be forthcoming. I again state that if the purpose of the Minister's untrue assertions of April of this year is simply to ridicule the man who made these assertions, it would be apparent that he was ridiculing him because there was no answer to them. I make mention of the fact that **Mr Wechsler** had said that he knew that people such as **Dr Cairns, Dr Cass** and **Mr Enderby** had actively concerned themselves with the restoration into the Australian Labor Party of the Trotskyist group which the Young Labor Association in Victoria had expelled from the Labor Party. It may be that these accounts are matters of concern which cannot be answered and therefore they are ridiculed. I make the assertion and I await the answer. I expect that in due course the Minister will give the answer. {: #debate-59-s3 .speaker-K3A} ##### Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP -- Naturally, I will not be answering for the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland)** because he is capable of doing that himself, and quite eloquently. But I am surprised that **Senator Greenwood,** a man of some standing in the community, should place his credibility in jeopardy by reliance on an individual whose history he has quoted to us in part, but certainly not in full. If my memory serves me correctly, **Senator Greenwood** raised this matter in the early part of March on 3 occasions. The whole purpose of the exercise was to attempt to vilify the Party of which I happen to be a member and, as a consequence, to attack the credibility of the Government. He was able to obtain some headlines of the kind that an armed takeover was imminent in Australia. This was linked with some groups within the Australian Labor Party to the Australian Labor Party itself. On that occasion I questioned the credibility of the source of his information. I think that we are entitled to do this. I naturally went to the source of the information which was displayed in the *Sunday Observer* of Sunday, 23 February 1 975. I think that most of us who have had occasion to see the type of billboards that advertise this newspaper would have to concede that, to say the least, the language that is used to describe events of the day is dramatised and is designed to excite false impressions. I invite- I say this quite sincerelymembers of the Opposition and my own colleagues, if they have not read this article, to read it right through, because it is like something out of a James Bond novel. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- Read it. {: .speaker-K3A} ##### Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP -- It would take too long to read it all; but I will quote some extracts from this man's own story. His wife left him eventually. She left him, I presume, because he disclosed things such as this: >So I deliberately set up a girl activist I was friendly with in the movement and began wining and dining her. Soon she was coming up to my apartment and spending the nights with me. This is the gentleman upon whom **Senator Greenwood** is relying as his source of information. Then, under a heading of 'Sex, Sabotage' the same article states: >For 26 months this true life double agent stopped at nothing, including taking girls to bed with him for sex and information, eavesdropping, stealing documents, committing sabotage, manipulating finances and obtaining sets of duplicate keys to allow the other types of activities. What I am about to relate is not any concoction on my part. This gentleman was arrested, I understand, in the Lonsdale Street area of Melbourne outside the entrance to Myer's store. The incident was reported in the Melbourne *Age* of Saturday, 15 March 1975. The heading to the newspaper article is: > Man from ASIO ' fined over firearm It states: >A man who told police he was an undercover agent for ASIO was fined $200 on firearm charges in Melbourne Magistrate's Court yesterday. > >Max Wechsler, 24, of no fixed address, was charged with carrying a loaded rifle in Lonsdale Street, on Thursday. He might have been described as a vagrant. The article continues: >He was also charged with carrying a firearm without a permit in Lonsdale Street on the same day. > >Wechsler pleaded guilty. > >Senior Constable J. O Toole, of the Russell Street crime car squad, told the court he saw Wechsler sitting in a car with a rifle beside him. > >O Toole said the rifle had an unusual feature in that it was like a machine gun. This next piece of the newspaper article is in inverted commas: >He told me that he was an undercover agent for a secret organisation, ASIO, and that his life was in danger,' OToole said. This part also is in inverted commas: >He said that he had the rifle in the car because he was on the way to get a permit from the police '. The article continues: > **Mr W.** E. Guy, SM, fined Wechsler $100, in default 10 days ' imprisonment, on each charge. > >It is a serious matter, carrying a semi-automatic weapon in the heart of the city', **Mr Guy** said. I repeat that this is the gentleman upon whom **Senator Greenwood** has relied. This man has attempted to grab headlines and to excite the imagination of the people to believe that he was supplying information to ASIO. The Minister did say on 2 1 April that this man was a casual informant. He also said that ASIO itself had stated that he was not taken seriously. Yet **Senator Greenwood,** who 3 years ago was the first law officer of this country, is prepared to rely on that sort of information and to use the Parliament to attack individuals and the Government on the basis of that source of information. **Senator Greenwood** talks about people using parliamentary privilege. Let me digress for a moment. I will come back to the subject matter that he raised originally. I want to quote to **Senator Greenwood** and to other honourable senators a letter that was sent to me on 24 July 1975 when I was overseas. It is a letter from the Federal Executive of the Australian Bank Officials Association. It is addressed to me and states: >Dear Bill, > >You will probably remember the rash statements made by **Senator Greenwood** in the Senate on the 28th May, and I am enclosing copies of letters which have been passed between myself and the same gentleman for your information and hopefully for future use. > >I tried to interest other white-collar unions, e.g., the Insurance Staffs, the Architects, and the Teachers Federation in a project to challenge Greenwood through paid advertising in the Press, but they seemed to think this would give the smearer That refers to **Senator Greenwood-** more publicity than he warranted. The letter continues: >My organisation was seriously concerned about the McCarthy type tactics adopted by **Senator Greenwood** and we hope that you will take a suitable opportunity in the Budget Session to give the matter a little more exposurepreferably when the Senate is on the air. I propose to do that in due course. The letter which was sent to **Senator Greenwood** from the Federal Secretary of the Australian Bank Officials' Association is dated 1 1 July 1975 and reads as follows: >Dear **Senator Greenwood,** > >This Association has had it drawn to its attention a statement made by you on page 1969 of Senate Hansard of 28 May 1975: "Today members of the Communist parties, and there are three in this Country, lead and control unions . . Outside the ACTU they lead a significant number of unions in banking . . . ". > >There are only two unions in Banking in Australia namely, my Associationand the Commonwealth Bank Officers' Association. My Association asks that you immediately name to us any member of the Communist parties occupying leadership positions in this Association of which you have knowledge. > >If you have no such names in respect of Australian Bank Officials' Association, will you please make this fact clear to us in your reply to this letter. > >If the latter situation is the correct one, it will also be appreciated by my Association, if at an appropriate time you would make a statement in the Senate making this fact clear. > >Yours faithfully, J. Sanders, Federal Secretary This is the reply dated 23 July 1975 of the gentleman himself- **Senator Greenwood:** >Dear **Mr Sanders,** > >I acknowledge your letter of the 1 1 th July. Your letter asks me to name individuals and thisI do not propose to do. > >I did not name individuals in the Parliament and in these circumstances, I do not consider I should do so outside Parliament. > >Yours sincerely, Ivor J. Greenwood If ever there were a clear exposition of an individual who is prepared to exploit, misuse and abuse this Parliament and this House to attack people who cannot defend themselves, then **Senator Greenwood** is a perfect example- he is placed highly on that pillar. I refer back for a moment to the question that has been raised by **Senator Greenwood.** I repeat, in my view the question was asked foolishly. At page 1 1 77 of the Senate *Hansard* for 2 1 April **Senator Greenwood** is reported as having claimed that **Senator James** McClelland had dodged **Senator Greenwood's** question. **Senator James** McClelland took up the challenge and on page 1178 of *Hansard* for 2 1 April he is reported as follows in respect of **Mr Wechsler:** >I should have preferred to have left my reply oblique, but now I have to spell the information out specifically. My information is- and this comes from ASIO, if **Senator Greenwood** wants to know- that **Mr Wechsler** was a casual informant, paid casually and not taken seriously. He was a man who, like many hundreds of people who give information to ASIO, was not believed without corroboration. ASIO regard him as an unbalanced character, a man who was always claiming that his life was threatened, that his house had been burgled and who was not taken seriously in respect of the information that he gave to ASIO. Perhaps the reason why **Senator Greenwood** has not heard from **Mr Wechsler** for a long rime- and this is a piece of information that he has forced me into giving- is that **Mr Wechsler** has been, on my information, in a mental institution in Queensland for some time. I cannot vouch for the latter part of the Minister's information, but I am sure that the Minister's claim, in his reply, that the information he had received was from ASIO and that this person was employed casually and paid casually for his information is correct. Of course **Mr Wechsler** was not taken seriously. If one goes through these articles that purport to be the true story of Max Wechsler, the super spy, one finds that he says, first of all, that he was receiving no payment for his services, then that he received some payment, and subsequently that his payments were increased until he was a full time official of ASIO. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- Was he not cheating on social services? {: .speaker-K3A} ##### Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP -- That is another aspect. According to his own story he was in fact drawing social security payments. I asked the Minister at the time whether **Mr Wechsler** would have been entitled to social security payments at the same time as he was receiving an income from another source. That question has never been answered either. It is only one of many. There is no doubt that this is another example of the technique which **Senator Greenwood** employs quite consistently. Over the years he has employed it quite extensively in his attempt to cause people to believe that this country is under dire threat of either internal armed insurrection or, alternatively, that there is an imminent threat which could destroy our democratic institution. I repeat what I said on the last occasion this matter was raised: If there is any threat to the security of this country- I say this quite deliberately- it comes from people such as you, **Senator Greenwood,** who misuse and abuse the privileges that are extended to us in order to represent people who endeavour to create fear, division and panic in the community. Fortunately, the honourable senator's attempts have not been successful in the past. I am sure that they will be treated in the same way on this occasion. {: #debate-59-s4 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I wish to refer to a Press statement which was released by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate **(Senator Withers)** this afternoon. It was brought to my attention at about 4.45 p.m. I told the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that I would be speaking on this matter during the adjournment debate. It is a statement which, amongst other things, states: >The Opposition today agreed- as a courtesy- to a Government request to defer any debate on the setting up of a committee to investigate the loans affair. The Opposition did this to allow Labor Senators to get their instructions from the full Caucus. This was a normal and proper courtesy. It was expected that the Government - {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: **- Mr President,** I raise a point of order. I think it is a legitimate point of order. I think the Manager of Government Business in the Senate is stretching the Standing Orders beyond any right he has. On the motion for the adjournment of the Senate an honourable senator must not raise matters which have already been the subject of debate in the Senate during the day. I suggest that **Senator Douglas** McClelland, on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, is attempting to raise matters that have been debated in the Senate during this day. Therefore he should be ruled out of order. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- I wish to speak to the point of order. This matter was not the subject of debate today. I say quite clearly that it was not. The Leader of the Opposition chose not to have this matter debated today. I think this is an attempt to stop free speech in this place on a matter of great importance. It was not a matter of debate today. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The point of order which has been raised is that **Senator Douglas** McClelland is referring to a debate which occurred earlier in the day. That standing order does not prevent an honourable member from making an explanation about a matter which has arisen since the debate. During the adjournment debate we must give honourable senators that much latitude to raise matters which they feel are of importance. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: **- Mr President,** I bow to your ruling. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP **-Mr President,** I appreciate the ruling you have given. I am referring to a Press statement which has been issued by the Leader of the Opposition following today's proceedings in the Senate. I am commenting on that Press statement. I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that I would be raising the matter on the adjournment debate. Again I point out that this afternoon I received a copy of a Press statement emanating from **Senator Withers'** office. I shall not read all of it now. I was going to read it all. It said: >The Opposition today agreed- as a courtesy- to a Government request to defer any debate on the setting up of a committee to investigate the loans affair. > >The Opposition did this to allow Labor senators to get their instructions from the full Caucus. > >This was a normal and proper courtesy. It was expected that the Government would respect it as such. > >In any event, it was absolutely clear that the Government would have resisted by every device possible bringing my motion on for debate. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- What an incredible lie. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Poyser,** you will have to withdraw that remark. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- I was saying that the statement was a lie, not that **Senator Withers** was a liar, but I withdraw it. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -The statement of the Leader of the Opposition goes on: >The Government, clearly running scared, was obviously hoping that the Opposition would then use its numbers to gag and force the motion through, lt would have cried unfair', probably boycotted the committee, and continued its attempts to avoid the truth. > >It was also hoping that the Opposition would have prevented Government business being called on. Again, the Opposition has no wish to prevent Government business being debated. For the last few weeks the Opposition has been prepared to allow the Government's business to take precedence over the claims of individual Senators. > >The Government indicated previously it would not resist **Mr Khemlani** giving his story. Why is it now so anxious to postpone and defer? What does the Government fear? > >The Opposition has no wish to be stampeded, nor does it wish to stampede the ALP on this matter. We are only concerned with the truth. > >For the Government to attempt to make politics out of a normal courtesy is just another example of the blatant hypocrisy and humbug shown by the ALP. It proves again how the Government is terrified of the truth. I raise this matter because as Manager of Government Business in the Senate I have some responsibilities to my Party. I say frankly and openly that neither I as Manager of Government Business in the Senate nor **Senator Wriedt** as Leader of the Government in the Senate at any time made any request to the Opposition to have deferred any debate on the setting up of a committee to investigate the loans affair. It is to be regretted that for the first time there has been a breakdown in the understanding of arrangements that have been entered into between the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and me as Manager of Government Business in the Senate since I was appointed to that position after the 1 974 elections. The simple fact is that there was no request on my part, and I emphasise that, and it is dishonest to say, to suggest or to imply in any way that there was any request on my part or on the part of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to defer any debate today on the notice of motion to sei: up a committee to investigate the loans affair. I feel I must refer to what transpired this morning shortly after 9 o'clock. In my usual way I spoke with **Senator Withers** about the prospective order of business of the Senate and at that time, shortly after 9 o'clock, he advised me that he would be proceeding with the notice of motion. I told him that at that time I was only speaking personally and that I would have to have discussions with my colleagues, but that, subject to discussions with my colleagues, I should think that the Government would probably move- I emphasise the word 'move'- for the adjournment of the debate until Tuesday, in accordance with the normal procedure, to enable the Executive and also the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party to consider the matter. That, as everyone knows, is the normal procedure that is adopted between the political parties when one moves on matters of importance of this nature. **Senator Withers** then asked me whether, if that were so, I would agree, or the Government would agree, to the extension of **Mr Khemlani** 's visa, which expires next Monday. I said I could not give any guarantee or undertaking because that was a matter for my colleague the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland),** with whom I had not even discussed the matter at that time. He was unaware of the conversations that **Senator Withers** and I were having. That was at about ten past nine this morning. When we came into the Senate at 10.30 this morning **Senator Withers** asked **Senator Wriedt** and me what we intended doing with respect to his notice of motion. It was **Senator Wriedt** who confirmed to **Senator Withers** at the Senate table that, after **Senator Withers** had moved his motion, we would then propose the adjournment of debate on the motion until the next day of si tting. Again **Senator Withers** asked about a proposed extension of **Mr Khemlani** 's visa and **Senator Wreidt** told him that, in his opinion and in the opinion of the Government, the Opposition had had ample time and ample opportunity to move to have **Mr Khemlani** called to the Bar of the Senate or to bring on its notice of motion and that so far as he was concerned the Government would not agree to an extension of the visa after Monday. Then I said that **Mr Khemlani** had been here for about a week and **Senator Withers** said that it was not a week, that he had been here since last Monday. **Senator Wriedt** said that so far as we were concerned the matter could go on today but we would be moving for the adjournment of the debate. It was at about that time that question time was called on. **Senator Withers** went away and subsequently came back and told us that he would not be proceeding with his notice of motion today. That was a matter for decision by the Opposition members themselves. It was a decision that was made not at the request- I emphasise the words 'not at the request'- of the Government. It is quite wrong to suggest that the Government requested the deferral of any debate on the setting up of a committee to investigate the loans affair. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator Steele Hall: -- There was no debate. **Senator DOUGLAS** MCCLELLAND Indeed, there was no debate. {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney: -- You indicated that you would be seeking an adjournment until Tuesday. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -We indicated that we would be moving the adjournment. One does not seek an adjournment in this place. When a matter comes on for debate, one moves motions. I would not plead for an adjournment; I would move for an adjournment. If the Opposition did not like our motion, the Opposition would be entitled to oppose the motion. That is the simple fact of the matter. It is quite wrong to say, as is said in the Press statement, that the Government would have resisted 'by every device possible bringing the motion on for debate'. I will tell the Senate what the situation or the attitude taken by the Government would have been if an attempt had been made by the Opposition to bring on its notice of motion. I invite honourable senators to look at the contingent notices of motion at page 3948 of the Senate notice paper. Contingent notice of motion No. 6 states: >The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate **(Senator Withers):** To move (contingent on the President proceeding to the placing of business on any day )- That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent **Senator Withers** moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. If **Senator Withers** had moved for the suspension of Standing Orders at the time placing of business was called on, the Government had agreed that we would not oppose the motion. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- You could not, unless you had the numbers. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am about to come to that very point. I thank **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack for the interjection. We had determined that we would not oppose the suspension of Standing Orders to enable **Senator Withers** to move his motion. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: -- Did you tell **Senator Withers** that? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -Of course we did not tell him that. We told him that we would be moving for the adjournment of the debate when the debate came on. He would have moved 'That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent **Senator Withers** moving a motion relating to the order of business on the notice paper'. If he had moved that, it would undoubtedly have been carried because we would not have opposed it. He would then have sought to bring on General Business notice of motion No. 17, which is that a select committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon all aspects of the overseas loan raising activities of the Government. He would have moved that that matter take precedence of Government Business. We would have opposed that motion. We are here today to seek passage of the Appropriation Bills and the Loan Bill. We believe that they are matters of top priority for the Australian people and the Australian nation. We would have opposed that General Business matter taking precedence of Government Business. I again thank **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack for his earlier interjection. Because of the Opposition's weight of numbers it would have been successful in having that matter brought on. It would have come on. **Senator Withers** would have given the reasons for moving the motion. We would then have moved for an adjournment of the matter until the next day of sitting. I refer again to **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack 's interjection. Because of the weight of numbers that the Opposition has in the Senate, if it had so chosen it could have forced the debate to continue today. If the Opposition was concerned that it would not get a determination of the matter today, again because of its sheer weight of numbers in the Senate it could have moved at any time, as it moved last Wednesday, That the question be now put'. Undoubtedly that motion would have been carried. So I say quite frankly to the Opposition that, if it had wanted to discuss this matter today and if it had wanted the matter determined today, because of all the arrangements, because of the Standing Orders and because of its weight of numbers in this place, it could have had that matter determined today. I take umbrage at the suggestion that I, as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, or that my esteemed colleague, **Senator Wriedt,** as Leader of the Government in the Senate, in any way made a request to the Opposition to defer any debate on the setting up of a committee to investigate the loans affair. The simple fact is that when **Mr Khemlani** was in Australia 3 weeks ago the Opposition was then told that although the Government opposed on principle the calling of witnesses before the Senate, it would not oppose **Mr Khemlani** 's appearing if the Opposition moved in that way. But no effort was made by the Opposition at that time so to move. Despite **Mr Khemlani** 's return to Australia this week, despite his statement that he came back to Australia to clear his name, despite the fact that the Parliament has sat for 3 days this week, no attempt has been made by the Opposition to move in this place for **Mr Khemlani** to be called to the Bar of the Senate. That, no doubt, is due to the obvious embarrassment which the Opposition suffered when **Mr Karidis** was called before the Bar of the Senate at the special session of the Senate some time in July. On that occasion the Opposition believed that **Mr Karidis** would provide evidence of illegal or improper conduct on the part of the Government. Instead **Mr Karidis** was unable to provide any evidence which supported the Opposition's case. As we all know from Press reports, **Mr Khemlani** has been in Canberra this week and has been in contact with the Opposition. The Opposition could have moved at any time to have him called before the Bar of the Senate. As **Senator Wriedt** indicated, whilst we object in principle to the calling of witnesses before the Bar of the Senate, we would not oppose **Mr Khemlani** 's appearing if the Opposition moved that way. It is quite obvious that the Opposition now has grave reservations about any evidence that **Mr Khemlani** may give. I suggest to the Senate that the Press statement issued by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is a mere smokescreen. Finally, I want to assure my colleagues of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party and, indeed, the members of the Labor movement throughout Australia that I, as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, and **Senator Wriedt,** as Leader of the Government in the Senate, made no request for a deferral of any debate on the setting up of a committee to investigate the loans affair. **Senator Sir MAGNUS** CORMACK (Victoria) (5.48)- I would like to make some observations on this matter. Over the last 18 months the Senate has been locked in a very difficult problem. **Senator Douglas** McClelland, who has just resumed his seat, was acknowledged by the Opposition in a new designation for the Senate of Manager of Government Business in the Senate. The reason that the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)-!** assume he did so with the consent of the Opposition- put down a new appointment in the Senate was that for a substantial period the business of the Senate and its conduct had broken down as a result of a total inability on the part of the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Withers)** to obtain a determination and an undertaking from the then Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Prime Minister then intervened and, through his Party and with the consent of the Opposition, designated a particular honourable senator to be the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. In other words, 2 elements were involved in this. The Prime Minister, with a constitutional understanding, realised that the parliamentary system has to work and, as it was impossible for the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to work with the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, introduced a new intermediary into the procedures of the Senate, namely the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. The first acknowledgment of that was the appointment of **Senator Douglas** McClelland. It is an old-established parliamentary principle that a parliamentary system cannot work unless there is an understanding between the Leader of the Opposition and someone on the other side of the table. I have a good deal of experience in this. I do not know the ins and outs of this, the 2-sided conversations that must have taken place between **Senator Withers** and **Senator Douglas** McClelland, because they have not been disclosed- Only one side of the conversation has been disclosed, and that is the conversation that **Senator Douglas** McClelland recollects. I consider that it is an improper process of the parliamentary procedure. One of the unwritten conventions about which we have been hearing so much recently is that dissensions and discussions between the leaders- the Manager of Government Business in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition- should not be disclosed in the Senate. That is an unwritten parliamentary convention. This convention has been breached by **Senator Douglas** McClelland as the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. I think it would fruitless, profitless and not in any way becoming to the dignity of the Senate to allow this debate to be continued any longer. I think, if I may offer this opinion to you, **Mr President,** with the greatest deference, that at this stage you might conclude the business by ordering the Senate to adjourn. {: #debate-59-s5 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -- I agree almost totally with what **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack has said, but if that convention or principle is to be maintained it ought not to suffer the misrepresentation for which **Senator Withers** has been responsible. I think this has led to what may have been a disclosure of confidential conversation across the table, and it needed to be disclosed to show how the true situation had been misrepresented. In considering this problem- I will deal with it only shortly because **Senator Douglas** McClelland has covered the whole ground- it must be realised from the motion of which **Senator Withers** gave notice- it was fairly obvious from the nature of the motion- that it was intended to proceed with the motion today forthwith, using the power that the Opposition has, the power of numbers. If we look at the motion of which notice has been given we see that paragraph (3) states: >That the Committee meet within 4 hours of the passing of this resolution. That indicates the determination of the Opposition that something should be done forthwith. Further the motion states: >That the Committee proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and notwithstanding any vacancy. That again indicates that the Opposition intended to proceed, irrespective of the fact that the Government would not have been able to appoint its members to the Committee. What was a matter of urgency yesterday surely was a matter of urgency today. It is fairly obvious that the Opposition parties have pulled away from their determination to set up such a committee and from their determination to call **Mr Khemlani** before this chamber. I shall refer to another matter which shows just how the Leader of the Opposition has misrepresented what has occurred in this chamber. I think that the Leader of the Opposition ought to be called to account by the Senate. This situation may be the result of some work done by his public relations man. I am not certain just how this misrepresentation could be the responsibility of **Senator Withers.** One does not expect that sort of behaviour from the Leader of the Oppositionfrom **Senator Withers** in particular. On the previous day the Press officer for **Senator Withers** distributed to the Press gallery the text of a radio and television interview with **Senator R.** G. Withers, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. It is dated 29 October 1975. 1 refer the Senate to the second question: 'Why a committee?' **Senator Withers** is said to have answered: >Anyone who saw what happened when **Mr Karidis** was before the Senate and saw the disgraceful behaviour of the Government senators at that stage would never again want to bring someone before the Senate unless the Senate was rigidly controlled from the Chair. Other things follow from that, but I want to concentrate on that statement and that statement alone. There was a gross misrepresentation by **Senator Withers,** the Leader of the Opposition, of what had occurred in the Senate at the time when **Mr Karidis** was called before the Senate. Secondly, he inferred that the Chair was at fault on that occasion because he used the words 'unless the Senate was rigidly controlled from the Chair'. That reflects upon the Chair and seems to give fairly firmly the inference that on that occasion the Senate was not under the complete control of the President. I knew of this statement. I did not think that it was worthy of mention on its own. But there has since been this second misrepresentation, a very gross misrepresentation, by **Senator Withers** and I believe that, taking both matters into account, he should be asked to make an explanation. I know that **Senator Withers** possibly is not available at the present time, through no fault of his own, but I do insist that if this misrepresentation - {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- Why do you say that? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I am not quite certain but I think we were to adjourn at 5 p.m. We all make certain arrangements on a Thursday in order to get back to our respective States. It is quite possible that at this hour **Senator Withers** might not be available to respond to what I had to say. But I do believe that, on the basis of what **Senator Douglas** McClelland has said and especially on the basis of what I have said, **Senator Withers** should be asked to give an explanation of this misrepresentation. It ought not to continue because, if it does continue, as **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack has said, the procedures in this place can fall apart. I might say that there was also a misrepresentation in the text of a telegram which **Senator Greenwood** sent to the royal commission. One allows these things to pass, but the text of the telegram is not accurate as to what did occur. If that is the way in which the Opposition wishes to play the game in this place, then it can expect to have strong objection from this side. There have been 3 instances of misrepresentation having taken place over the last 2 days which led to a distortion in the Press, to misinformation and to the fraying of tempers even more than they have been frayed today. I suggest that by some means **Senator Withers** ought to make an explanation to the Senate. {: #debate-59-s6 .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement **- Mr President,** I believe it is rather humorous that the Government can push the Opposition around so strongly in this way by making a simple request which would delay the important matter of the appearance of **Mr Khemlani,** and yet for 2 weeks now the Government has been asking the Opposition to pass the Budget and it has found a different response. That response, of course, is a convenient one, and I do not believe **Senator Withers'** statement. I was here and I listened to his substantive remarks as to why he proceeded as he did. I reiterate that I do not believe his Press statement is a true representation of those remarks. I believe it suits the Opposition to string this matter out because it does not intend to have **Mr Khemlani** come before a select committee. The fact is that on the strategy outlined by **Senator Withers** the Opposition has put its program back one sitting day, if it intends to proceed with **Mr Khemlani** in such a way. If it introduces this measure on Tuesday it must on any reasonable request by the Government agree to an adjournment until Wednesday. So it has delayed its program by one sitting day in that fashion. My reason for rising was that I had prepared a series of amendments to the proposal that **Senator Withers** had suggested he would put before the Senate. Those amendments were designed to give the two of us here who are not aligned and who are not members of the major parties a representative on the select committee. Therefore I had a particular interest in the progress of that proposed motion. I spoke to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** to find out what was happening. He informed me exactly as he has informed the Senate tonight. He expected the Opposition to proceed. He was doubtful, as we all were, whether the Opposition would agree to an adjournment of the debate. But the Minister expected the Opposition to proceed and to have the motion placed before the Senate. It was a complete surprise to me, as I am sure it was to the Minister, to find that the Opposition simply did not proceed to put the motion and reach the stage where the debate could be adjourned. Certainly I had prepared my amendments on the basis that the Opposition might very well have used its numbers to suspend Standing Orders and to proceed right through the motion. The very least I expected was the motion to be put before the Senate, to be seen there and to be considered over the weekend. It was certainly within the prerogative of the Opposition to choose net to do so. It could not be within the province of **Senator Withers** to claim that in some way he had been pressured by the Government not to proceed to have the matter made the subject of an adjourned debate. **Senator Withers** has not earned any benefit of doubt about this matter. In my 18 months here I have heard him make scoundrels of people who want fair redistribution proposals for this nation. In recent times I have heard him make scoundrels of those people who have supported the contention that governments are made and broken only in the lower House, and I have heard the many other twists of the truth in which **Senator Withers** has been involved. On his track record I must disbelieve him. {: #debate-59-s7 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I do not think that the Senate derives much advantage from the proponent who brought **Mr Karidis** before us and has since sniffed the wind of public opinion and veered completely to the Government. As a proponent of government management his track record in South Australia is lamentable. So I pass it by and content myself with two or three very simple observations. As one who can see through the smokescreen of the long tautological statement by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate **(Senator Douglas McClelland),** which turns entirely upon the difference between a request and a motion for the adjournment of the appointment of the committee, in sanctimonious and prescient words **Senator Steele** Hall said that he must agree that the Opposition would have been bound to grant an adjournment if it was moved by the Government. So **Senator Withers** is accused of attributing to the Government a request when it notified him of an intention to move for an adjournment, to which **Senator Hall** says from the purity of his insight the Opposition would have been bound to agree. The point I make is that all this kerfuffle is brought up to camouflage the fact they were going to adjourn our motion and get it delayed until after Wednesday and terminate before Wednesday the visa of the person concernedKhemlani, the agent of the Government to procure a loan of $4 billion, accredited by the exMinister for Minerals and Energy and the Prime Minister as late as 9 July last. What despicable complainants of duplicity we have. {: #debate-59-s8 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP -- I enter the debate briefly to state that while this debate has been in progress **Senator Withers,** so I am told, has been in the passages. Of course, he should have been in the Senate chamber. He was told by **Senator Douglas** McClelland that his Press statement would be replied to in the Senate. He is not here in the Senate chamber when we are considering a matter which used to be the subject of an understanding between the Leaders in the Senate. As everybody knows, to some extent, over the last 12 months we have had understandings respected by both sides. Of course, what we have today is a clear breach of an understanding made between **Senator Douglas** McClelland and **Senator Withers** about a matter for debate next week. They decided on the matter mutually, and I emphasise the word 'mutually'. We know that discussion was conducted across the table. I heard some of it. In addition, **Senator Steele** Hall relates that he consulted **Senator Douglas** McClelland about the arrangements. So, what is this talk we hear from the Opposition about courtesy when arrangements have been made today consistently with a practice which has worked fairly well? It is a sign of a new arrogance on the part of the Opposition. Not only does the Opposition make an arrangement, but its Leader goes out of the Senate and makes a Press statement- not about whether **Senator Douglas** McClelland has defaulted but about a debate which would proceed next week. He knew- I overhear the conversation at the tablethat such a debate would not be completed today. So it is a ruse. Of course, what the Opposition should have done, if it was intending to proceed with this matter constructively, was to carry out its promise or indication that it would call Khemlani before the Senate. The Opposition will not use the opportunity because it knows that there is no substance in proceeding in that fashion. But it wants to keep the scare going by setting up a select committee of the Senate. That is the whole stunt. It wants to have a select committee which will be sitting during a period of controversy in order to keep dragging things before the public with the assistance of the newspaper barons. The Opposition thinks that in that way it can divert the argument that we and the public now find has been exploited. Along with **Senator Douglas** McClelland, I want to resist what is contained in the public statement by **Senator Withers.** He is becoming erratic. He must be, because he talks about the courtesy of the Opposition. He uses these words: >In any event, it was absolutely clear that the Government would have resisted by every device possible bringing my motion on for debate. It has never been debated. He does not know what the Government will do. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Opposition still has the numbers. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP: -- Yes, the Opposition still has the numbers in the Senate. Our Caucus might advise us to do anything. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- That is true, too. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP: -Listen to this, though. **Senator Withers** states: >The Government, clearly running scared - Apparently, the Government is clearly running scared from people who decided not to have this **Mr Khemlani** brought before the Senate even though they have the power to do so. I repeat what **Senator Withers** said: >The Government, clearly running scared, was obviously hoping that the Opposition would then use its numbers to gag and force the motion through. It would have cried unfair' - these are **Senator Withers'** comments- probably boycotted the Committee and continued its attempts to avoid the truth. What is worse in all this is the breakdown of an arrangement which we have had and which our Manager of Government Business in the Senate **(Senator Douglas McClelland)** has reported to us as being satisfactory in the past. The second point in relation to this adjournment debate that has ensued, is that **Senator Withers** went out into the public arena about a matter which is the property of the Senate- that is where it should be debated- in order to criticise our own Leader. I think it is a new indication of the sort of concern which the public is having that there is a new arrogance about the Opposition. It intends to use its numbers. It does not intend to debate these issues. It intends to use its numbers to keep the scare going in the hope that will influence the Australian electorate. I do not think it will. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The matter raised by **Senator Georges** will be drawn to the attention of **Senator Withers.** Speaking from the Chair, I deprecate any reflection on the proceedings of this Senate and the Chair. I draw the attention of the Senate to the following passage from Erskine May's *Parliamentary Practice.* I quote from pages 140 and 141 of the 18th Edition where the book states: the House of Commons resolved that to print or publish any books or libels reflecting on the proceedings of the House is a high violation of the rights and privileges of the House, and indignities offered to their House by words spoken or writings published reflecting on its character or proceedings have been constantly punished by both the Lords and the Commons upon the principle that such acts tend to obstruct the Houses in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to them. Reflections upon Members, the particular individuals not being named or otherwise indicated, are equivalent to reflections on the House. In conclusion I should just like to say that free speech is a wonderful principle but it should be tempered with moderation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.12 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1667 {:#debate-60} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The followi ng answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-60-0} #### Research and Public Relations (Question No. 821) {: #subdebate-60-0-s0 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) What persons or private companies outside the Public Service have been used by the Minister's Depanment Tor research, public relations, advice, or any other purpose, since 1 July 1973. 1. For what project or purpose were the services of each person or company utilized. 2. What was the cost of each of the consultations referred to above. {: #subdebate-60-0-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to ( 3 ) The information sought by the honourable senator is shown in the following schedule. {:#subdebate-60-1} #### Taxation Group Certificates (Question No. 842) {: #subdebate-60-1-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) In respect of how many employees for the financial year 1974-75 has the Australian Post Office and the Postal Commission contravened section 22 IF (5) (b) of the Income Tax Assessment Act which says 'a group employer shall . . not later than the fourteenth day of July in each year, issue to each employee a group certificate . . . ' 1. 2 ) What is the reason for any contraventions. {: #subdebate-60-1-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="A" start="1"} 0. I ) For the financial year 1974-75, the due date of 14 July 1975 for issue of group certificates was not met for approximately 5050 temporary employees of the PostmasterGeneral's Department, who had been re-engaged by either the Australian Postal Commission or the Australian Telecommunications Commission as from 1 July 1 975. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Because of the inherent difficulties in finalising within a short period all wage records for the many temporary employees of the Postmaster-General's Department stationed at numerous locations in post offices and outlying operational areas, it has often been impossible to produce all group certificates by 14 July. Under the Income Tax Assessment Act, the Commissioner of Taxation may grant an extension of time to issue certificates. For 1974-75, although extensions were sought by some States, the need to make formal application was inadvertently overlooked in Victoria and Western Australia, which also required such extensions. Difficulties were experienced also with some 250 employees previously located in the Northern Territory but relocated in other States as a result of the Darwin cyclone. Unfortunately, the full earnings records of Northern Territory employees were not available in time for certificates to be issued by 14 July. However, the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission arranged the completion and despatch of all outstanding group certificates by early August in time for employees to lodge their returns by 31 August 1975, the stipulated closing date for Personal Returns. {:#subdebate-60-2} #### Departmental Documents (Question No. 861) {: #subdebate-60-2-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice: >What are the titles of the reports, papers or documents produced by or for the Government since December 1 972 in the areas of the Minister's responsibility which have not been publicly released. {: #subdebate-60-2-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator to the answer which the Prime Minister provided to a similar question (No. 885) which appeared on page 930 of Senate *Hansard* on 2 October, 1975. {:#subdebate-60-3} #### Departmental Documents (Question No. 860) {: #subdebate-60-3-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, 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. {: #subdebate-60-3-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister's reply to Question No. 885 in *Hansard* of 2 October 1975 (page 930). {:#subdebate-60-4} #### Departmental Documents (Question No. 874) {: #subdebate-60-4-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Minister for Social Security, 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. {: #subdebate-60-4-s1 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable senator to the reply provided by the Prime Minister to question number 885. Senate *Hansard* 2 October 1975, (page 930). {:#subdebate-60-5} #### Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 891) {: #subdebate-60-5-s0 .speaker-K1X} ##### Senator Bessell: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What has been the total expenditure in Braddon (Region No. 2) under the Australian Assistance Plan since its inauguration. 1. What is the estimated Expenditure under the Australian Assistance Plan in Braddon for the current financial year. {: #subdebate-60-5-s1 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Braddon (Region No. 2) in Tasmania is within the region administered, under the Australian Assistance Plan by the North West and Western Tasmania Regional Council for Social Development. This Regional Council has access to administrative and community development officer funds, but does not yet have access to capitation funds for the support or initiation of welfare services within the region. Since the inauguration of the Australian Assistance Plan to 30 September 1975, the sum of $72,435 has been allocated to the region. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The maximum estimated expenditure in 1975-76 is $88,000. {:#subdebate-60-6} #### Government Administration: Caiden Report (Question No. 914) {: #subdebate-60-6-s0 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle: asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister seen a report that was prepared by a Professor Caiden of the University of California for presentation to the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration. 1. Was the report released to the press by the Royal Commission, and is it to be taken by the release of the report, the Commission concurs with its recommendations. 2. 3 ) Was the Minister provided with a copy of the report; if so, does he intend making it available to the Parliament. 3. If the Minister was not provided with a copy of the report, will he ask the Chairman of the Royal Commission in future to present such reports to the Governor-General, after which reports of this nature might be made available to the Parliament. 4. Does the Minister agree with Professor Caiden 's recommendations so far as the Australian Public Service is concerned. {: #subdebate-60-6-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="A" start="1"} 0. I ) to (5) I have seen a copy of the working paper prepared by Professor Gerald Caiden on the subject of efficiency in government administration. The paper was prepared for the consideration of the Royal Commission's Task Force on Efficiency. This Task Force is one of five established by the Commission to report to it on aspects of its terms of reference. I understand that Professor Caiden 's study has been published by the Commission as a working paper to the Task Force in the expectation that it will stimulate additional contributions which will assist the Task Force and the Commission in their deliberations. I am advised that the Commission has not made any statement regarding Professor Caiden 's recommendations. The public release of the document as a working paper should not be interpreted as signifying any particular viewpoint by the Commission concerning the recommendations. The Commission will take into account Professor Caiden 's paper, the views of the Task Forces and other information available to it before reaching its conclusions. The Royal Commissions Act and Letters Patent issued pursuant to the Act, provide for a Commission to report to the Governor-General. It is this Report that will contain the Commission 's views. There is no requirement for other documents, such as working and discussion papers, to be presented to the Governor-General. Indeed, there is no formal requirement for reports of Royal Commissions to be tabled in the Parliament. However this Government has consistently undertaken the tabling of Commission reports as soon as is reasonably possible. Professor Caiden 's paper was prepared for a Royal Commission Task Force and is not to be regarded as a formal report of the Commissioners. It is not a document which in the normal course would be tabled. I am told that approximately forty copies were made available for Parliament, before the release to the press, and I understand these were distributed to the Party Rooms and other locations. Only a limited number of copies remain but I would be happy to have copies made available to individual senators if requested. It would be inappropriate for me at this stage, as Minister responsible for the Royal Commissions Act, to comment on Professor Caiden 's paper which is only one of the various studies undertaken for the Commission. {: #subdebate-60-6-s2 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- On 10 September, **Senator Missen** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction the following question, without notice: >Is it a fact that the funds to be made available to cooperative housing societies in Victoria in 1975-76 have been reduced from the amount of $69m sought by the Victorian Government to $29m? Does the Minister agree that the reduction of funds available will mean that many prospective home owners will have to wait an indefinite period before their applications can be considered? Does the reduction affect some 120 housing societies in Victoria which are providing loans for those people in the middle income group who are ineligible for housing commission homes and who are unable to service higher interest loans from other lending institutions? How does the Minister see the likely effect of this severe cut in funds on employment in the home building industry? The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The 1 973-1 974 Housing Agreement is the means by which the Australian Government makes advances to the States for housing authority purposes, and for allocation to the States' Home Builders' Accounts for lending through co-operative housing societies to prospective home owners on low to moderate incomes. > >Allocation of advances for the 1975-76 financial year was considered in the overall context of the Budget and it was necessary, in determining the amount for each State, for the Government to have regard to the exigencies of the current economic situation which called for a greater measure of restraint in Government spending than we would otherwise favour. > >Nevertheless, there has been no reduction in the total amount to be made available to Victoria under the Agreement in 1975-76. The allocation of $98.159m is the same as the total of advances actually made in 1974-75. This is over *2Vi* times more than the amount of $39m that was allocated for welfare housing in Victoria in 1972-73, the last year of the previous Liberal-NCP Government. > >Under the terms of the Agreement normally between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of the total advances made to a State in respect of a fin ancial year is required to be allocated to its Home Builders' Account. However, the Agreement provides for more than 30 per cent to be allocated to the Account in a financial year when special circumstances warrant it and accordingly, in 1974-75, 37 per cent of the total, i.e. $36.359m, was allocated to the Victorian Home Builders' Account. > >The amount sought by Victoria for the Home Builders' Account for 1975-76 was $53.67m, not $69m. The amount allocated is $29.448m and this was determined after consultation with the State Minister of Housing on the distribution of the total allocation between the Home Builders' Account and the housing authority. The State Minister recommended that the Home Builders ' Account receive 30 per cent of the total and the Housing Commission the remaining 70 per cent. The 1975-76 allocation of $29.448m is almost *2Vt* times more than the $ 11.25 m allocated to the Victorian Home > >Builders' Account in 1972-73, the last year of the previous Government. > >In making comparisons with 1974-75 the special nature of the situation that prevailed in that year should be borne in mind. Because of the sharp downturn that had developed in private housing construction, it was appropriate for public housing to be stepped up above original allocations in order to use resources that otherwise may have remained idle. In this situation, the welfare housing advances initially allocated to Victoria for 1974-75 were increased throughout the year and the total represented an increase of 83 per cent on the previous financial year. > >In addition to the new moneys allocated each year to the Home Builders' Account a significant amount becomes available for re-lending through co-operative housing societies from the revolving funds established under the Commonwealth-State housing arrangements that operated prior to the current Agreement. Victoria estimated that some $6m would be available from this source for 1975-76. > >The formation of co-operative housing societies and the allocation of Home Builders' Account moneys to individual societies are matters for the State Government authorities. On the basis of the proposals for 1975-76 submitted by the State Minister in May last, when $53.67m was sought for the Home Builders' Account, it was envisaged that 125 societies would share in the allocation of funds. As yet, I am not able to say how many societies will recieve an allocation, but I have asked the Victorian Minister to provide a revised program in the light of the total allocation of $29.448m for the Home Builders' Account. > >In regard to the level of employment in the building industry, the private sector of the housing industry is now responding and signs of recovery are evident. The upturn in dwelling commencements which first became obvious in the March quarter, was sustained in the June quarter with increases being recorded in all States. Approvals have also increased, though admittedly still remaining below the level of a year ago. Even more encouraging has been the increase in the number of housing loans approved for new dwellings by the banks and especially the permanent building societies in recent months. The moves towards lower interest rates are further welcome signs of an improvement in the situation. I am hopeful therefore that the continued massive support for welfare housing made available by the present Government under the Housing Agreement will assist in the further recovery of the home building industry.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19751030_senate_29_s66/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant