House of Representatives
14 November 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1973

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 11.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3281

PETITIONS

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

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of five Australians more than the present scheme.

That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalised medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual’s right to choose his/her own doctor.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byDr Everingham, Mr Drury, Mr Giles, Mr McLeay and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost many citizens more, particularly single people and working wives.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalisation of health services which will lead topersonalised and mediocre standards of medical care, the creation of a huge new bureaucracy, and will limit the citizen’s freedom of choice.

That the present health scheme can be amended to overcome existing deficiencies, and that the proposed scheme is totally unnecessary.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond.

Petition received.

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That they oppose the Australian Health Insurance Program and any National Health Scheme;

That they wish to retain the right to choose their own medical care by selecting a General Practitioner, Specialist or any other medical classification of their own choice under the present conditions in private consulting rooms and also the right to choose an intermediate ward or private hospital of their own choice.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measure to interfere with the existing health scheme.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann, Mr Bonnett, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Cooke, Mr Corbett, Mr Jarman, Mr Katter, Mr Killen, Mr McVeigh and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That they wish to protest against the proposal nationalisation of doctors whether it be by direct legislation or by indirect sanctions against patients who wish to contract directly with doctors of their choice.

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

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Edwards.

Petition received.

Television

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will see that the powerful communicator, television, is used to build into the nation those qualities of character which make a democracy work integrity, teamwork and a sense of purpose by serving, and that television be used to bring faith in God to the heart of the family and national life.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Stewart, Mr Bury, Mr Edwards, Mr England, Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr MacKellar and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends, is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation.

Further, they believe that this economic support should be in the form of per capita grants which are directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.

  1. Your petitioners believe that in addition to this basic per capita grant additional assistance should be provided in cases of educational disadvantage, but they believe that the appropriate instruments for reducing economic inequalities are taxation and social welfare systems which deal with individuals and families and not with schools.
  2. The reduction of the existing per capita grants will impose great hardships on many parents who have chosen, at considerable personal sacrifice, to send their sons and daughters to independent schools. Indeed curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community.
  3. Some independent schools of high educational standards will be forced to close with the consequences that children attending those schools . will have to attend government schools already overtaxed and understaffed.
  4. Some independent schools have been encouraged to lower standards in order that their parents may continue to receive per capita grants.
  5. Parents shouldbe encouraged to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed legislation will penalise parents who try to exercise this choice, and discourage them from making a vital financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to equal per capita grants of government money spent on education.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Snedden, Mr Fox and MrJarman.

Petitions received.

Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that your Petitioners oppose the proposed reduction of Commonwealth per capita grants to independent schools on the following grounds:

  1. Your petitioners support the principle that ALL children are entitled to a basic per capita share of government moneys spent on education but at a time of rising costs this should mean increased rather than reduced government aid to children attending independent schools.
  2. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education which shall be given to their children. This freedom of choice is guaranteed to parents under the Declaration of Human Rights.
  3. Curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community by confining independent schools to the very wealthy.
  4. Some independent schools of high educational standards will undoubtedly be forced to close if the present proposals are carried out with the result that the children involved will be forced into the already overtaxed State school system with a resulting lowering in standards.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to equal per capita grants of government money spent on education.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Wilson.

Petition received.

Second International Airport for Sydney

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That jet aircraft operations have a detrimental effect by way of air and noise pollution on the environment, and

That in close proximity to the proposed Galston airport site are the Berowra Reserves, the Hallstrom Nature Reserve and the Muogamarra Sanctuary, which would be so affected.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That this House take appropriate steps to ensure that the Government does not proceed with the proposal to site the second international airport for Sydney in the Galston area or surrounding north western suburbs of Sydney. by Mr Edwards.

Petition received.

Second International Airport for Sydney

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the members of the Council of The Crusader Union of New South Wales respectfully sheweth:

That jet aircraft operations have a determine effect by way of air and noise pollution on the environment, in particular to our War Memorial Conference Centre located at the end of Crusader Road overlooking Galston Gorge.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House take appropriate steps to ensure that the Government does not proceed with the proposal to site the second international airport for Sydney in the Galston area or surrounding north western suburbs of Sydney.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Edwards.

Petition received.

Whales

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That whales are a significant element in the world’s wildlife heritage.
  2. That whales are highly intelligent, highly evolved creatures.
  3. That there is growing international concern at the continued killing of whales for commercial gain.
  4. That synthetic products are able to fully replace all whale products.
  5. That Australia continues to operate a whaling station and to import whale produce.
  6. That Australia supported a proposal to enforce a ten year moratorium on all commercial whaling at the 25 th meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in London, June 25-29, 1973.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to immediately revoke all whaling licences issued by the Australian Government and to repose a total ban on the importation of all whale produce.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Sir John Cramer.

Petition received.

page 3283

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM PRODUCTION

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Treasurer. Will Australia lose its prominent position on world aluminium production because of policy decisions of this Government? Has Comalco Ltd decided not to set up a $500m alumina refinery at Weipa because of the 331/3 per cent appreciation of the Australian dollar against the United States dollar, because 33 per cent of overseas funds for investment here have to be deposited in the Reserve Bank and because of the removal of the investment allowance for secondary industries? Is this another example of progress withering on the vine, which usually comes with socialism, or is this the sort of excitement that the Prime Minister finds so exhilarating when he talks at the Lord Mayor’s Ball in Melbourne?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– Other than newspaper reports of it I am not aware of the decision by Comalco. I suggest that the honourable gentleman put his question on notice.

page 3283

QUESTION

BANK CREDIT CARDS

Mr ASHLEY-BROWN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Treasurer seen reports in today’s newspapers concerning the new credit card which will be introduced by the major trading banks, together with 2 State banks, next year? In view of the Government’s concern for personal privacy and the confidentiality of personal records, will he ensure that no credit information about bank customers is exchanged by the banks without the customer’s permission? Will he also ensure that customers are not coerced into granting such permission by the threat of refusal of credit card facilities? Is he also aware that the main propaganda point brought by the private banks against the Chifley Government’s bank nationalisation proposals was the possibility of loss of confidentiality concerning the customer’s affairs and that the private banks, together with the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and the 2 State banks involved, are now proposing to abolish this confidentiality on their own initiative?

Further, is he concerned-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Will the honourable gentleman ask his question?

Mr ASHLEY-BROWN:

– Is the Minister concerned about the implication of such a common scheme in reducing competition between banks?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– I must again confess to having seen only the report in the Press this morning. I shall have to give the same answer to this question as I gave to the last question.

Mr Whittorn:

– He is not answering questions today.

Mr CREAN:

– I will not answer questions founded on newspaper reports only, when I have not seen the details of the matter referred to in those reports. I shall consider the details properly as I think I should. I will treat the question as being on notice.

page 3283

QUESTION

OPEN GOVERNMENT

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I preface it by saying that at his weekly Press conference yesterday the Prime Minister went back on his commitment to open government by refusing to repeat an assurance that his Ministers would answer questions put by the Leader of the Opposition on what interdepartmental committees their departments participate in. I ask: Is it true that one of the Prime Minister’s closest advisers told those present at that Press conference yesterday that the Prime Minister refused to give this assurance as he had been snowed by the Public Service? In what way has the Prime Minister been snowed by the Public Service? Will he now assert his authority to ensure answers are provided as he promised on 7 November?

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not believe that I have been snowed by the Public Service. I certainly welcome the advice of the Public Service. Where I do not accept that advice, I have no reason to believe that the Public Service does not accept my decisions.

page 3284

QUESTION

FUEL PRICES

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy: Is it possible to estimate the total cost to Australia of recent increases in imported oil prices? How are these likely to be reflected in the prices locally of motoring, aviation and industrial fuels? Given that whatever uncertainties exist in international oil supplies at least it is certain that such supplies as are available will come at continually and sharply increased prices, has any study been made of possible economies in Australia with respect to oil consumption, other than that announced by the Minister for Transport regarding car engine capacities? If not, will the Minister consider having such a study commissioned at an early date?

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The detailed information of the increased tax and royalty payments to each Middle East country is not yet available. From the latest information received we expect the increase to be an average of $US1.20 a barrel. In equivalent Australian currency, that is about 80c a barrel. As approximately one third of the refinery throughput consists of imported crude that, in turn, would mean an increase of approximately 26 2/3c a barrel of crude. Of course, it will depend on the refinery procedures in the individual refineries as to what the cracking finally yields, lt could be taken as a fair sample, that in respect of motor spirit in the heavy Middle East crude, there will be a yield of about 15 or 16 gallons from a 35-gallon barrel of crude. From that the quick calculation can be made to show that the increase in the price of motor spirit would be minimal only.

The Government is keeping a close watch on the whole matter because kites are being flown. I noted one being flown this morning in a responsible financial journal. The oil companies, of course, are not above trying to get in for their cut before the situation exists and doing a little preliminary softening up of the consuming public. With regard to imports generally, we are importing approximately 198,000 barrels of crude a day. The rise in costs over an 8-month period would be a matter of $3 8m. It is not possible to allocate the costs exactly to individual products for reasons that -I have already stated, but I would say that the impact will fall most heavily upon the consumers of fuel oil. The consumption of fuel oil is of course the paramount reason for the importation of crude from the Middle East. I might stress also that contrary to the panic propaganda some 27 or 28 per cent of the imported crude does not come from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries at all. That is another factor which has to be taken into account. We are watching the whole position very closely and I will be very pleased to institute any possible economies of consumption that can be reasonably introduced. I will act for that purpose. At the same time I am determined to see that no reduction occurs in the productive capacity of Australia and that the minimum inconvenience is caused to the people and particularly to the motoring public.

page 3284

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND: HOSPITAL WARD CHARGES

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Social Security: How much of the extra income tax levy as 1.35 per cent of taxable income will be channelled to other States of the Commonwealth from Queensland? Does the Minister agree that Queenslanders are being penalised because other States have higher private and intermediate ward charges in public hospitals?

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Starting with the last part of the honourable member’s question I point out to him that the fees which would be contributed by patients in public hospitals as private or intermediate patients are subtracted from the total operating cost. It is a SO per cent cost sharing basis on the remainder that we enter into. If we are to accept the present situation, and I assume that the honourable member thinks that we will accept the present situation of the differential of fees in public hospitals between the States, quite clearly a large windfall will go to Queensland at the expense of other States. If he reads the White Paper he will see that there are proposals to set at a common level intermediate and private ward fees. So that part of his question does not stand in fact, although I point out to him it was based on fallacious assumptions.

In regard to the amount of money going to Queensland I would have thought that it would have been obvious to the honourable member that if there is an increase of $80m in the amount of money going from the Australian Government to the State governments in support of their public hospital systems over what they would have received under the present system if it were operating next year and that if Queensland, as it will, receives $3Sm additional to what it would have received, which is nearly half, with much less than half of the population of the Commonwealth in that State generating much, much less than half of the taxable income in the Commonwealth, Queensland is getting a redistribution of income from the other States. Queensland is being very fairly dealt with. I suggest that the honourable member should not try to make an issue of it or other States might want to review the situation.

35-HOUR WEEK

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the rate of inflation is the most significant problem facing the Government? Since the Labour Party’s promise to implement a 35-hour week in the Public Service as a pace-setter is causing industrial problems and contributing substantially to inflationary pressures, will the Treasurer in the national interest add his influence to that of the Minister for Labour to persuade the Prime Minister and Caucus to withdraw from this commitment?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– Yes, inflation is a serious problem. I think it is a problem that involves both prices and wages. I believe every Minister is capable of making his own decisions in his own way.

page 3285

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CONTROL OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the gallup poll results published today showing that there is overwhelming support for the Government in its determination to buy back control of Australian resources through the Australian Industry Development Corporation? Can he say why concerted efforts are being made to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of ordinary Australians over this vital matter? Will he assure the nation that neither the Opposition in this Parliament nor other spokesmen for overseas interests outside the Parliament will deter the Government from gearing up the AIDC for its great work?

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

– I am encouraged by the gallup poll results published in several newspapers today indicating that the great majority of the Australian people are behind efforts to limit overseas control and ownership of our industries’ and our resources. This must be of very little comfort to those on the other side of the Parliament who impede and belittle all such efforts. My own experience is that other countries which I have visited are very surprised that Australia has taken so long to do what they themselves have long since done.

page 3285

QUESTION

ALUMINA REFINERY AT WEIPA

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Secondary Industry. Has his attention been drawn to the statement attributed to the Premier of the State of Queensland accusing the Government of Australia of responsibility for the decision by Comalco Industries Pty Ltd not to proceed at this time with the installation of an alumina refinery at Weipa or somewhere else in Queensland? How much weight should be attached to this accusation?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry · ALP

– My attention has been drawn to the remarks as reported in the newspapers, particularly in Queensland, of the Premier of Queensland. In fact it will be of some interest perhaps if I inform the House that on the Monday night before he made those remarks he and I attended a public function hosted by Queensland Alumina Ltd, and he listened to me describe the achievements of the Australian Government and he also listened to me describe the problems of this Government, and he did not dissent in any way. But, out of sight and out of mind, on the following morning he issued that Press statement. I took the first opportunity, at the opening of a plant in Gladstone the following day, to repudiate and reject it, as I do now. I strongly suggest that no weight be attached to it. The decision by Comalco was a decision it took by itself. It chose to put no reasons to the public as to why it took this decision.

Mr Anthony:

– It did.

Mr ENDERBY:

– It did not. The Premier of Queensland did. It is a well known fact that decisions of such magnitude, decisions which affect the world wide trading operations of enterprises of that sort, are influenced greatly by overseas trends, and the coming into balance of the supply and demand situation throughout the world in the processing of alumina and the marketing of aluminium is obviously and clearly the most important thing that that company must have had in mind. It is sheer, rank, irresponsible political opportunism on the part of the Queensland Premier to try to score cheap political points in the way in which he did in Queensland.

page 3286

QUESTION

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday at his Press conference he was asked whether a consolidated list of interdepartmental committees had been prepared and given to him. In answer he said that he had forgotten. I ask him now: Has a consolidated list of interdepartmental committees been prepared? If so, will he table that list? If it has not been prepared, will he give an instruction that it should be prepared and give an undertaking that he will table such a consolidated list of interdepartmental committees?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I did say I could not remember whether I had ordered a list of departmental committees to be prepared or whether it had been prepared. I have not checked since. I believe that if it was prepared it would certainly be many months out of date. I do not remember ever having seen such a list. Did I say that I had ordered it to be prepared? If so, it was at the beginning of the year.

page 3286

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY FILES: ACCESS

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Social Security able to confirm that, under the previous Government, debt collecting agencies and other business undertakings of the sort represented in this Parliament by the parties now in Opposition were given access to the confidential files of social security beneficiaries? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to statements in which the ex-Ministers by whom this convenient extension of the old boy network was initiated or condoned expressed concern that there might be breaches of confidentiality in relation to records held by the proposed health insurance commission? Will the Minister reaffirm that the present Government, unlike its predecessors, is committed to the confidentiality of personal records and that procedures which he personally has initiated will ensure that this confidentiality is maintained?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– I can confirm that there was a practice of many years standing tolerated by the former Government and governments previous to it which allowed widespread access to information contained in the personal files of clients of the Department of Social Security. The most obvious people who had such access were the police departments of all States and the Commonwealth police. In fact, I have been acquainted of one case in which a police officer, estranged from his wife, was constantly tracking her down by using information from the endowment files of the Department of Social Security. I have already had listed various agencies - the list covers several pages - which have been able to obtain information on one basis or another from the Department of Social Security. Included in the list are some agencies whose functioning in relation to this information can be described only as debt collecting. Among the obvious agencies are the State housing authorities which use the files in relation to arrears of rent Also included in the list are semi-government authorities and power generating and distribution authorities, to name but a few. Also on the list are voluntary agencies which have no association with the Government, such as the Returned Services League of Australia. I am arranging for comprehensive information to foe supplied to me on all of these matters and, if the information is fully available in time, I hope to make a statement in this House tomorrow.

I am also aware that the confidential files of people who are clients of the Department have been made available for what could be termed academic research. Interestingly enough, the last point made by the honourable member for Batman concerned the attitude of certain health insurance funds and their concern about confidentiality. One of the people who had access to the files is Professor A. H. Pollard, Professor of Economic Statistics at Macquarie University, New South Wales. Professor Pollard is an honorary member of the Council of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd and an honorary member of the Executive Committee of the New South Wales Branch of the Medical Benefits Fund. I do not care to say any more than that at this stage. I will more fully detail these matters in the Parliament, I hope tomorrow but if not tomorrow, early next week.

I do assure the members of this House who are genuinely concerned about the longstanding breach of the confidentiality of information supplied to the Department of Social Security on trust by members of the public, that I will take steps to preserve people’s rights and that this will be done in an effective way. We will not merely mouth homilies, as has happened with the Opposition now, and neglect to preserve people’s confidentiality and rights in relation to these matters. We will act effectively.

page 3287

QUESTION

HMAS ‘SYDNEY*

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Defence: Why is the aircraft carrier HMAS Sydney’ being paid off and dismantled when it would have been ideally the most economical way to freight the Chinook helicopters from the US, as was originally intended, and also the most economical way to withdraw the Australian troops and equipment from Singapore? Apart from HMAS ‘Melbourne’ which as flagship of the Fleet is required for operational duties, what source of seagoing strategic mobility is now available to Australia which is not under the direct control of the communist-led Seamen’s Union of Australia?

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– A recommendation came to me from the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defence on whether HMAS ‘Sydney’ should undertake a refit which would involve the Department of Defence in the expenditure of more than $lm to extend the life of the ‘Sydney’ until 1974. It was to go out of commission in 1974 in normal circumstances. We were not prepared to authorise such a large expenditure to carry out a major refit for such a short period. Therefore the decision was quite properly taken that the ‘Sydney’ should no longer remain in service as a unit of the Royal Australian Navy. The latter part of the honourable gentleman’s question concerned the availability of transport. This matter is now under review by the Department of the Navy. Whatever decision is made in relation to transport facilities will certainly be made known by the Government at the appropriate time.

page 3287

QUESTION

HEALTH CENTRES

Mr COATES:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Health inform the House whether any previous Australian Government has ever made grants to the States similar to or on such a scale as those announced during the past few weeks to cater for the community’s health needs with regard to comprehensive health centres and centres for mental health, alcoholism and drug dependency? In view of the Opposition’s call for a cutback in Government spending, is this an area in which the people of Australia would be happy for cuts to be made?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– There has been no previous plan to fund community health services from federal moneys. This was part of the Australian Labor Party’s platform for some years. We are implementing the plan. It has received universal acclaim from the States, the Ministers and the departments concerned. Unfortunately, the States have been under increasing pressure to provide sufficient hospital beds, and they have been so preoccupied with trying to keep up the supply of crisis medical facilities that they have not had the courage, shall we say, to divert or they have not been willing to take the risk of diverting some of those funds into the preventive, rehabilitative and educational sides of medicine which this new program will implement. They are now welcoming this opportunity. I am sure that it will give them breathing space in their hospital bed building programs and that it will decrease the demand for hospital beds. It will help to keep people out of hospital and have them treated earlier, more effectively and with less disruption to their work and family ties. Wim regard to the second part of the honourable member’s question, no suggestion has come to me from the Opposition or from any of the States as to ways in which the expenditure by my Department could be cut down to help inflation. I think that any reduction in this type of spending would only aggravate inflation, because it would cause more disruption of the work force due to illness.

page 3288

QUESTION

STAFF OFTHE PRIME MINISTER

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, is supplementary to the one I asked him yesterday morning. Is it a fact that the salary of Mr Mick Young, who we understand has been appointed to his personal staff, was paid last year by one overseas corporation Hansen Rubensohn-McCann Erickson with money received by it from another overseas corporation Marrickville Margarine? Is it also true that since the election Mr Young has accepted an extensive and lavish overseas trip to Sweden, paid for by a major overseas aircraft company with the intention of trying to sell to the Government through the Australian Labor Party a fighter aircraft to replace the Mirage? If so, will the Prime Minister advise this House of what influence Mr Young will have on future defence policy decisions by his Government and how he sees the WhitlamYoung combine in relation to theWhitlamBarnard combine? Finally, will he assure the House that, in spite of any past associations by his senior personal adviser with overseas corporations, in any policy recommendations brought forward Australia’s national interests will be held to the forefront?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I got the impression that this question was intended to be critical of Mr Young. In that case, it would be out of order as a question without notice.

page 3288

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT PURCHASES

Mr THORBURN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Defence - (Honourable members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Question time will not continue until the House comes to order.

Mr THORBURN:

– Has the Minister for Defence read newspaper reports, published after his tabling of the Whitmore Committee’s report on defence legal services, in which there is a clear inference that senior public servants and senior Service officers have shown ineptitude and irresponsibility in negotiating contracts for the procurement of defence equipment, particularly in regard to the purchase of the Fl 1 1C aircraft? Are these newspaper reports correct?

Mr BARNARD:
ALP

– I did see the report relating to the tabling of the Whitmore report. There was an inference probably not an intentional inferencethat the problems were due to the failure of departmental officers and members of the military forces to give sufficient consideration to major contracts of defence procurement. I think that it should be clearly understood by the House as I am sure it is, certainly by those who have preceded me as Minister for Defence or as Service Ministers that the final responsibility for major defence procurement orders rests with the Minister in the first instance and with the Government in the final analysis. It is not the responsibility of departmental officers, except to give advice.

I turn to the second part of the question, which relates to theF111 program. Honourable members will recall that the decision to purchase the F111C aircraft from the United States of America was made in October 1963. The then Minister for Defence, the late Athol Townley, was in the United States of America and cabled back to the then Government the memorandum of understanding which involved the purchase of the F111C aircraft. At the same time he indicated to the then Cabinet that the United States offer would remain open for one month only and that it was not likely to be renewed. In those circumstances the Cabinet made a decision to purchase the F111C aircraft. I think that it ought to be pointed out to the House that amongst the members of that Cabinet led by the then Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, later Sir Robert Menzies, who himself is, of course, a distinguished lawyer, were the present Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, and a former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Lowe. They are all lawyers and would be skilled in dealing with details of this nature. So it is quite clear that departmental officers at that time had little opportunity to advise the Government because of the decision that the Cabinet had made to accept the offer from the United States of America.

Let me turn finally to the last part of the honourable member’s question, which relates to the Whitmore report. Two of the recommendations already have been adopted by the Department of Defence. The third, relating to defence procurements which have occurred in the past and about which there is some legal dispute, is now under investigation. As soon as that investigation has been completed the House will be advised. I conclude by repeating to the House that decisions on major items of defence procurement rest quite clearly with the Minister and the Government and, except for the advice which Ministers and the Government receive from them, no responsibility should be directed to departmental officials or members of the defence forces themselves.

page 3289

QUESTION

COMMENTS BY MINISTER FOR HEALTH ON SUGAR

Mr ANTHONY:

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be aware of a letter which the Minister for Health wrote to the Australian Sugar Producers Association in which he said that sugar is a poison. I ask: Does the Prime Minister know that the Minister wrote another letter to another organisation - the Proprietary Sugar Millers Association Pty Ltd - in which he made some remarkably ill-informed comments on industry methods, efficiency, organisation, research and promotion, in which he repeated in part his charges about the effects of sugar on health and in which he made a not very thinly veiled threat to cause some problems for the industry? Will the Prime Minister explain how the Australian people should distinguish between a Minister’s personal views and expressions of the Government’s official views? Does it not cause a great deal of confusion when a Minister puts his personal views, however sincere they might be even though ‘badly misinformed, in letters written on his official letterhead as a Minister?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the right honourable gentleman complete his question?

Mr ANTHONY:

– Yes, I will. Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Minister’s way-out views reflect the opinions of the Department of Health and, indeed, the Government?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I have heard that my colleague has written some letters on these subjects. They have not come before the Government. His views are his own. Until they are considered by the Government they are not the Government’s views. I would not express a view about the benefits of sugar. I am still assessing the views of my 2 col leagues, the Minister for Northern Development and the Minister for Health, on this matter. The Cabinet, frankly, has not got round to considering this issue, although I am told that, in view of the testimonial by the Minister for Northern Development on his own behalf and going back 2 generations in his family, the consumption of sugar by members of this House has risen amazingly.

page 3289

QUESTION

PAINTING ‘BLUE POLES

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the enormous public interest in ‘Blue Poles’ will it be possible to arrange for the painting to be shown in all the major capital cities and large provincial centres of Australia?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am attracted to the proposal and I will consider it. In the meantime I hope that all honourable members will have a reproduction of it on the Christmas card from my wife and me.

page 3289

QUESTION

BROAD REGIONAL GROUPING FOR ASIA

Mr PEACOCK:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, at his Press conference, the Prime Minister was asked about his concept of a broad regional grouping for Asia and whether he would consider the United States of America and the Soviet Union as possible members. He replied: ‘I won’t speculate on membership as extensive as that, I have never suggested it’. I ask. Is it not true that in Washington on 30 July the Prime Minister said that China was ‘obviously’ one of the countries which ought to be involved? Also, in answer to a question on notice on 3 October, did the Prime Minister not say that he saw no restrictions on individual membership, and this applied to the great powers, including the Soviet Union? While accepting that the Government is flexible on the timing, structure and membership of any arrangements, will the Prime Minister say whether he sees any objections to China and the Soviet Union being included in the sort of Asia-Pacific arrangement which he has in fact already suggested?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The honourable gentleman raises a very large subject. I do not purport to say that any country cannot be in a regional arrangement or to specify that any particular country must be in a regional arrangement. My own view is that it would be very much better for the whole of the western Pacific region and the South East Asian region if there were some framework in which, irrespective of ideology, the heads of government could confer fairly regularly. Australia and Japan obviously have very close ties. Australia in many ways has closer ties with Japan than with any other country. Japan has closer ties with Australia than with any country except the United States of America. Obviously Japan and Australia must confer regularly. They do at least once a year at the ministerial level.

It would be of very great advantage if all the countries between Australia and Japan also were able to confer regularly irrespective of ideology. I do not urge that the United States or the Soviet Union should be in such an organisation. If other people urged it, I would certainly contemplate it. But I would believe that there is some advantage in the contiguous countries conferring without requiring the participation of the 2 super powers. The participation of the 2 super powers is likely to polarise the deliberations of the people in the western Pacific and the South East Asian region.

I presume that the honourable gentleman wishes me to comment further on this. There are some difficulties at this stage in having such a regional organisation because the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations do not have active diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Two of our fellow members of the South East Asian Treaty Organisation, the Philippines and Thailand, still recognise, however tenuously and faint heartily, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek as the President of all of China. Indonesia has always, since it was internationally recognised itself,- recognised the regime in Peking as the legitimate Government of the whole of China including the Province of Taiwan. Nevertheless, 6 years ago Indonesia suspended those relations. Malaysia and Singapore were British colonies at the time that Britain recognised the change of government in Peking and therefore technically they recognise the Government in Peking as the Government of the whole of China including the Province of Taiwan. Nevertheless Malaysia and Singapore have never had diplomatic relations with Peking or with any government purporting to be the Government of China.

I heard an interjection about Tibet. I realise quite well that the honourable gentleman who is the spokesman for the Opposition on foreign affairs never interpolates references to Tibet. But since some of those who sit behind him are less informed and responsible on these matters it is well to point out that the rival governments the governments which contend for recognition as the Government of China have always agreed that Tibet was part of China. Both Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and the Peking Government have always asserted in the whole world that Tibet was as much part of China as they have both asserted that Taiwan was part of China. This would be known everywhere in the world except amongst some members of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament. Honourable members should realise that the Kuomintang regime which retains some tenuous existence in the Chinese Province of Taiwan has always been more nationalist and imperialist in its attitude than anybody has ever been able to establish that the Government in Peking is. For instance, the Government in Peking long ago disowned the jus sanguinis the dual nationality doctrine. Generalissimo Chiang Kaishek’s regime, the Kuomintang regime, still asserts it. Furthermore, the Government in Peking recognises Mongolia as a separate state; the Chaing Kai-shek regime does not. The fact is that it is well to contemplate and there is no single country in the region which would reject the notion that China must sooner or later be in any regional association for consultation in our region.

page 3290

QUESTION

RURAL INDUSTRY: PROFIT LEVELS OF RURAL COMPANIES

Mr WHAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to a statement by the Chairman of Elder Smith Goldsborough Mort Ltd in which he announced a profit of $9. 4m for the past year and anticipates another satisfactory result for 1973-74? In view of this profit level and the security obtained by long term contracts negotiated by this Government, does the criticism by Sir Norman Giles of the Government’s attitude towards the rural industries suggest some inconsistencies on his part?

Mr Daly:

– That is Geoff’s brother.

Mr Anthony:

– I wish he were.

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– You had better take some sugar, I think. It is becoming more and more apparent as the balance sheets of some of the major wool companies are coming to hand that there are increasingly large profits being made by these companies. Of course, these are the companies that are selling wool at auction on commission on behalf of growers and which are selling wool properties and other commodities associated with livestock production in Australia. But in order to put a cloud over and to try to hide the profits that they are making, at the same time as they make such an announcement they deliver at every opportunity a criticism of the Government for reducing the incomes of primary producers. This,, of course, is the paradox with which we are faced - that we have the companies on the one hand making more and more profits and, on the other hand and at the same time, trying to hide, the extent of these profits from the wool growers themselves. This is typical of the hypocrisy of some of these major companies that are in fact attempting to ridicule the Government at the same time as they are making higher and higher profits for themselves.

page 3291

QUESTION

STANDING ORDER 153: QUESTION

Mr SPEAKER:

– My attention has been drawn to standing order 153 as it relates to a question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party. Standing order 153 states:

Questions shall not be asked which reflect on or are critical of the character or conduct of those persons whose conduct may only be challenged on a substantive -motion, and notice must be given of questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons.

I am also informed that any payments made or privileges granted to Mr Young by outside organisations are not the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

Mr Sinclair:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In no way was the question which I asked critical of Mr Young. It was questioning an area of the Prime Minister’s responsibility. Surely those who are appointed to the Prime Minister’s personal staff are within the responsibility of the Prime Minister. It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister in .this Parliament to answer to us at question time as to the nature of the policy references and the policy advice that will be given to him in the course of his duties. For that reason, I believe that the quesion was completely in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have given the ruling on the advice that I have received that any payments made or privileges granted to

Mr Young by any outside organisation are not the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

Mr Snedden:

– I rise to order to seek clarification of what you have said. A question was asked and the Prime Minister said that he would not answer it. Are you now stating that you intended to rule earlier that the question was out of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have just explained that my attention was attracted to standing order 153 and I think the Leader of the Opposition should know by whom. Also the ruling that was given by me a moment ago was based on advice that I received.

Mr Snedden:

– Have you ruled the question out of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise to order-

Mr SPEAKER:

– At the time I did not rule the question out of order. That was quite obvious. The Prime Minister need not answer a question unless he thinks fit. That is a matter for his determination. I have pointed out the application of standing order 153 for guidance on future occasions when honourable members ask questions which include criticism of the conduct of people.

Mr Anthony:

– I rise to order also to seek clarification. I take it that the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party was in order today and has not been ruled out of order but you have issued a warning against further questions of that nature.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is absolutely correct.

page 3291

GRANTS COMMISSION ACT

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– Pursuant to Section 16 of the Grants Commission’ Act 1973, I present the fortieth report (1973) of the Grants Commission on the applications made by the States of Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania for financial assistance under section 96 of the Constitution.

page 3291

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) ACT

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

– Pursuant to Section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1930-1963, I present a statement of moneys received and expended during the year ended 30 June 1973 in the administration and development of the Australian Capital Territory.

page 3292

DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– For the information of honourable members, I present a report on the activities and developments of the Department of Supply for the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 3292

WOOL DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS ACT

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 35 of the Wool Deficiency Payments Act 1971- 72, I present the report of the operations of the Act during the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 3292

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CORBETT:

– Yes. Last night in the course of debate, the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said, referring to me:

I will give him full credit for the country lines policy introduced in 1970. As a matter of fact the honourable gentleman with Senator Lawrie I think, issued a remarkable Press statement on 11 June 1970. Honourable members should bear in mind that the Budget for 1970 was not introduced until August. But in June the 2 gentlemen issued a Press statement. It happened to be after the Cabinet meeting which would have dealt with this matter. The statement said what a great thing it would be if there were a IS mile radius for country lines. They had a remarkable insight into what was to happen. The incredible thing is that the Press statement was made 9 days after the Cabinet meeting and 3 months before the Parliament was informed about Cabinet’s decision. But they knew what was on and had a major win in their own interest.

I am sure that the Postmaster-General would not deny having strongly inferred that I was in possession of a Cabinet decision to increase the distance for free telephone line installations to 15 miles and used this information publicly for my own advantage. The inference that I was in possession of a secret Cabinet decision is completely untrue. I did not know when that Cabinet decision was made until the Postmaster-General announced it last night. This is a completely untrue and unjustified insinuation. It is also an unjustified attack on the integrity of the Cabinet of ‘that time. The policy on country telephone lines, which was-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order’. The honourable gentleman is now making a personal explanation as to how he was misrepresented, not in regard to the policy of the Country Party.

Mr CORBETT:

– No, but the PostmasterGeneral referred to the Press release that I made, and I believe it is only fair that I should give the reasons why I made that Press release and make it clear that the release was not the result of a Cabinet decision, which the Minister infers I knew about. In fairness, I should like to give the reasons why we made the Press release.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is not in order if he refers to Country Party policy on telephones. He is now making a personal explanation and explaining how he was misrepresented.

Mr CORBETT:

– I was a member of the committee which made that recommendation to the Country Party. It was made long before the Cabinet decision, and therefore the Press release was based on something that happened long before the Cabinet decision was made. Obviously the Postmaster-General’s inference is completely untrue. I believe that this type of innuendo and insinuation is the lowest form of attack on a member, and the Postmaster-General should be ashamed of himself.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes. Last evening, in the course of debate, I advised the Parliament that a Press statement had been issued in Canberra on 11 June 1970 by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) and Senator Lawrie. That Press statement said-

Country Party seeks new telephone policy. Two Country Party parliamentarians have asked the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Hulme) to introduce a new policy.

Of course, the new policy had been approved by Cabinet 9 days before. It is a remarkable coincidence that before the Budget session, when Parliament was not meeting, 2 members came to Canberra and issued such an accurate Press statement in the course of which they clearly indicated that they had had discussions with the Postmaster-General. I assume that they spoke about everything except the country lines policy.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Lang · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr STEWART:

– I do. As members fo this House are aware, last Sunday night I announced grants totalling more than $3m for a wide variety of sporting and recreational facilities and complexes. As always, it was my intention to make this news available to all sections of the media. Because of the length of the release and the details involved in the 78 different grants, my office distributed this statement to the Parliamentary Press Gallery the previous Friday, very clearly embargoed against Sunday 8 p.m. delivery. However, the Sydney Morning Herald’ broke this embargo and printed the story on the grants the following morning. After inquiries, I received a written apology from the ‘Herald’s’ Chief Political Correspondent, Mr Brian Johns, claiming that the time-honoured agreement relating to embargoed releases was broken inadvertently by one of their reporters.

I would like all other members of the Press Gallery to know - especially the other Sydney newspapers who were scooped through no fault of their own - that I was most annoyed and embarrassed, by this incident. I have received the ‘Herald’s’ apology and I accept it. I sincerely hope that neither I nor any other Ministers will be again victims of this type of offhandedness.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr McLEAY:

– Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented yesterday at question time by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Birrell) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden). The misrepresentation appears at pages 3181 and 3182 of Hansard. The passage is far too long to read. The honourable member for Port Adelaide and the Minister sought to discredit material on the health scheme that I have been circulating in my electorate and implied that it was false and untrue. The position is that the pamphlet was distributed about a month ago and the figures therein were correct until the day the White Paper was tabled in this Parliament. The figures have never been questioned outside the Parlia ment - only here under privilege. I should like to quote the figures, updated according to the White Paper. They deal with private accommodation in a private hospital. One week in a private room in a private hospital - this is the top rate - costs $259. Under the Government’s proposed scheme there will be a refund of $112, which means that the patient will have to pay $147 a week.

Mr Hayden:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The matters which were raised at question time yesterday referred to the complete misrepresentation in that pamphlet that people would have to pay for public ward treatment. I answered on the basis of the question being framed in that context. The honourable member is now introducing new matter. I suggest that if he wants to perform as the audible but scarcely coherent echo of the private health insurance funds he must expect to be the subject of criticism.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Boothby.

Mr McLEAY:

– A person in a private room in a private hospital who is paying $259 a week will receive a refund of $238 from the present funds, under the existing scheme.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is making a personal explanation as to where he was misrepresented. It is not within his province, in a personal explanation, to debate payments to hospitals or anything else. He should explain only where he was misrepresented.

Mr McLEAY:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am doing that. It may seem that I am making a speech, but I am not doing that at all. It is necessary for me to do what I am doing. The Minister’s answer yesterday covered 2 pages of Hansard. The position is not as the Minister said it was. Under the present scheme, a person in the situation I have mentioned will be paying only $21 a week, but under the Government’s scheme he will be paying $147 a week. I will not transgress your ruling, Mr Speaker-

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, I take a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Boothby is now introducing new matter. I ask him to confine his remarks solely to where he was misrepresented. He should not introduce new matter.

Mr McLEAY:

– Mr Speaker, I will bow to your ruling. I assure you that I am not introducing new matter. The Minister, who continues to take points of order, is talking about public hospital accommodation. If he would, in response, clear up this matter he would do a service to the nation.

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the basis of the question. I have it here.

Mr Sinclair:

– Is the Minister taking a point of order?

Mr Hayden:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Boothby is introducing completely new material. Could I make this point?

Mr Sinclair:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister does not have the call. He can make a personal explanation only if he has been misrepresented, but he does not have the call. A personal explanation has been made by the honourable member for Boothby and the matter closes there.

Mr McLEAY:

– I wish to complete the personal explanation, Mr Speaker, and reply to the Minister. The position in relation to public hospital accommodation has not been spelled out to us. Mr Speaker, I will not test your patience any more. The Minister is suffering a severe case of paraphrenia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member is now getting on to the subject of the debate. He said that it ‘has not been spelled out to us’. He is actually saying that it had not been explained specifically to the Party. He is making a personal explanation as to where he was misrepresented. That has nothing to do with the Party.

Mr McLEAY:

– If I had stated the whole of the misrepresentation it would have taken up 2 pages of Hansard. I endeavoured to short circuit the matter. I resent the constant and unnecessary denigration by the Minister of members on this side of the House. In my view, it discloses paraphrenia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Boothby keeps ignoring the Chair. The personal explanation has nothing to do with what the Minister said about members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Boothby is making a personal explanation on behalf of himself. Therefore the matter is closed. Order! There is too much audible conversation. I will resume my seat.

There will be no more business until the House comes to order. There are too many interjections. If honourable members continue to defy the Chair I assure them that I will take action. Order! I warn the honourable member for Barker.

page 3294

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Meat Export Charge Bill 1973.

Meat Export Charge Collection Bill 1973.

States Grants (Home Care) Bill 1973.

Aged Persons Homes Bill 1973.

Delivered Meals Subsidy Bill 1973.

Air Navigation Bill 1973.

Atomic Energy Bill 1973.

Aliens Bill 1973.

Territory Authorities (Financial Provisions) Bill 1973.

Air Accidents (Australian Government Liability) Bill 1973.

Superannuation Bill (No. 3) 1973.

Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Bill 1973.

Handicapped Children (Assistance) Bill 1973.

Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1973.

page 3294

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SOCCER TEAM

Ministerial Statement

Mr STEWART (Lang Minister for

Tourism and Recreation) (12.36) - Mr Speaker, I ask leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Snedden:

– Leave is granted.

Mr Street:

– Leave is granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr STEWART:
ALP

– I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), both Victorians, for having agreed to my being given leave to make this statement. I realise that they are both Australian rules supporters. I desire to offer congratulations to our Australian soccer team. For the first time in the long history of Australian soccer we have qualified for the World Cup finals to be held in West Germany next June and July. I am certain that when those finals are held there will be many Australians in West Germany barracking for our Australian soccer team.

I should like the House to join with me in congratulating all those who had a hand in this success, particularly the players led by their captain Peter Wilson, the coach, Rale Rasic, the manager, John Barclay and the President of the Australian Soccer Federation,

Sir Arthur George. I am sure Australia is proud of this splendid team which so clearly emphasised the multi-national character of our country. Not all the players were born in Australia but all of them played their hearts but for their country in exactly the same way. This was yet another victory for the integrating power of our land. The soccer World Cup rivals the Olympic Games in global importance and exceeds it in television following. Some 90 countries start off on the long road towards the Cup and only the elite 16 reach the final series. To underline Australia’s achievements, I mention that countries with great soccer traditions such as England, Russia and Hungary were eliminated from the finals.

Australia goes to the finals next year as the world representative of the entire Asian and Oceania region, having conquered all the teams in our path. Perhaps some of our Asian friends in the hour of our triumph are bitterly disappointed, but I should like to extend, particularly to Korea, whose team we beat yesterday evening in Hong Kong, our congratulations on their magnificent fight. In Australia the Korean team held us to a nil-all draw. In Seoul they held us to a 2-all tie, and last night they were defeated by only one to nil. I am sure that Australia will represent the Asian region next year with dignity and, hopefully, with a measure of success. Australians have been eminently successful in scores of sports in the past. The world has come to respect and admire our champions. I am delighted that soccer can now be added to their list. I offer the congratulations of the Parliament to the team.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– I ask leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Opposition parties welcome the statement made by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart). I am glad that he has seen fit to congratulate the Australian team. I watched the match last night. I had red eyes sitting up watching it, as I am sure many honourable members did. I had not realised that I would be so excited? as I was when Jimmy Mackay kicked that ball into - as the players would look at it - the top left hand corner of the goal. He did not give the Korean goalkeeper the slightest chance of stopping it. I had not realised how excited you could be about a soccer match. I have never felt the slightest sense of excitement about a soccer match before. I have had plenty of excitement at the Melbourne Cricket Ground at a grand final when over 100,000 people have been there. That is when you really get a sense of excitement.

Sitting there last night and seeing that goal scored on television I realised that the Australian team is going off to West Germany. 1 understand that matches will be played in several West German towns and that the 16 elite soccer teams of the world will be there. Many forecasts have been made that in the future Australia will find that its national game is soccer - not the rugby code which the Minister for Tourism and Recreation played or the Australian rules game which I played. I still believe that Australian rules is the greatest spectacle sport, although I regard rugby, which I played, as a great team game. Quite clearly soccer is a great international game. The Minister and I, and every honourable member can think of sportsmen who played rugby or Australian rules football and who, if they had played soccer all their lives would have raised the quality of Australian soccer to such an extent that we would be sending an Australian team to West Germany confident that it would win the World Cup. I think it is true to say that the soccer administration does not expect Australia to win the World CUP. However, I am confident that the Australian team - it is a totally Australian team, not a multi-racial team as the Minister said, although its members may have different origins - will win one or two games and perhaps draw a couple of others.

Mr Holten:

– They will know that they have been playing.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– As my colleague said, they will know that they have been playing. Whatever the outcome, what was reported to have been said in South Korea will never be said here - that if the team did not win its members need not come home. We will give the Australian team a warm welcome when it returns from West Germany, whether or not it wins games. I thank the Minister for making his statement and for giving me the opportunity to join with him.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– by leave - I want to say a few things on behalf of the Australian Country Party. We also would like to extend our congratulations to the members of the Australian World Cup team who were successful last night. There are probably honourable members in this House who support almost every form of sport, including soccer. However, I believe that soccer probably is a game played more universally than any other and that it probably transcends the divisions between East and West to a greater degree than any other game. By that I do not mean that in playing the game there is to be seen anything other than the urge to win. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart), in complimenting both the South Koreans and the Australians, reflects the attitude that those in this Parliament would have in regard to playing the game. It is necessary that there be increased communication between individuals. Australia has participated in the World Cup series for a number of years without having achieved this measure of success. I believe that viewing the series and playing in it is a step forward towards what was once the Olympic tradition, which unfortunately sometimes has fallen under a cloud. I join with the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) in extending congratulations to this truly Australian side and wish the players well in the series of matches which they will contest on Australia’s behalf in West Germany.

page 3296

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES: ATTITUDE OF MINISTERS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The biased attitude of certain Ministers to industrial disputes.

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

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– The Opposition wants sensible debates on industrial matters, and has taken some steps to achieve that. There have been examples of co-operation between the Government and the Opposition in regard to the recent Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. The Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) sensibly accepted a Bill much improved by Opposition amendments and changes. The Minister is now moving towards holding tripartite talks between himself, employers and employees. The Opposition’s attitude to those talk6 is almost identical with that of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, who is reported as having said: ‘I think it is always possible that you might gain something, and you cannot lose anything’. That is a realistic enough attitude by Mr Hawke, and it depicts our attitude also. In a statement indicating that he proposed to hold these talks, the Minister spoke of the need for better communication. I think it would have been preferable if, before launching his proposal for talks and determining terms of reference, which were decided unilaterally, he had established better communication with the ACTU, the States - for it was the Premier of Victoria who first indicated the need for talks - and the employers.

Be that as it may, what the Opposition really wants to bring to the notice of the House on this occasion is that other Ministers are intruding into the affairs of the Minister for Labour, and it is our view that they should keep off the the grass. What they are saying and have said is very much contrary to the spirit of the tripartite talks which the Minister is proposing. The Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson) in particular has shown a partisan, vicious and one-sided approach to industrial matters. I am surprised that the Minister for Labour accepts this interference, for I am quite certain that in the days when he was having one or two friendly discussions with the Australian Workers Union he would not have allowed anyone to get in his path for more than a moment of two. The Minister was willing, as we know, to use the Commonwealth Industrial Court legislation - which I think he voted against in this House - in order to win against his own union.

However, the point here is that the Minister who is responsible in these important industrial areas must not be bypassed, for people dealing with the Commonwealth need to know who is responsible and who is the official spokesman for the Government. Some Ministers have indicated a biased attitude. They have shown an abuse of power. We know what the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) did in relation to the Snowy Mountains Council and the power dispute in New South Wales. He secretly sent a letter to the Snowy Mountains Council demanding that it produce power only in conformity with the wishes of the striking power unions. I have asked him for the minutes of the meeting held on 23 September - the telephone hook-up meeting - but those minutes so far have been kept secret. In that instance the Minister plainly acted on the side of the striking power unions and against the New Souh Wales Industrial Commission and the Government and people of New South Wales. Hansard shows, I believe, that he misled this House in relation to his activities in that instance.

The Minister for Housing has taken a more serious and partisan attitude to building difficulties and strikes, which the Builders Labourers Federation claims are holding up $3,000m worth of building work and 40 projects in New South Wales. One of the tragedies of this situation is that in this neverending dispute, as it appears to be, a good deal of violence and a great deal of difficulty and hardship have been caused. As early as May of this year newspaper editorials were calling for an end to the dispute, but there has been no end up to this stage - unless one is in process at the present time. Early in that month there were headlines referring to 400 police guarding city work-in sites against striking members of the builders labourers Federation, and a number of people were arrested in that instance.

One of the results of the alleged green bans has been to prevent work proceeding on a housing project which, on information available to me, in fact has been approved by the National Trust. That being so it is hard to give credence to the green bans motivation of the Builders Labourers Federation in all instances. It has become plain that in New South Wales the stage had almost been reached where the project had to have the imprimatur, according to the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, of a mob of industrial anarchists. That is a situation which cannot be allowed to continue.

It ought to be noted that a significant Minister of the Government has - in fact 3 Ministers have - supported this union in its activities against orderly progress in New South Wales. A situation has been reached in which the State Labour Council - ‘again according to the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ - caused itself to be dissociated from the tactics employed by the Builders Labourers Federation, Surely that indicates a pretty extreme situation in relation to this one union. As a result there has been a bid to deregister that union. It has been pointed out that unions quite clearly have a mandate to look after the industrial interests of their members but not to act as a conservation foundation at large. There are proper authorities for that purpose. There is even the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass), although I do not know what he has done in the course of this year. As far as I am aware he has made no significant statements on the subject in this Parliament.

Mr Whittorn:

– He has praised the union.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Yes, he has praised the union for what it is doing. But we will look at that a little more closely in a moment. Again, quite recently, the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ had this to say:

Not content with egging on the saboteurs of the Builders Labourers Federation, Federal Ministers now threaten penalties against building contractors whose crime is their refusal to bow to industrial anarchy …. To gain its ends, the BLF uses strongarm tactics, menaces and intimidation. Behind its rejection of building approvals from properly constituted authority lurks the threat - and, on occasion, the actuality - of physical violence. These are the policies which are being blessed from Canberra.

That is not a Liberal Party politician speaking. That is an editorial from one of the great newspapers of Australia. It is my view that 3 Ministers have supported the leaders of this union at a time when the tide was starting to run against them. The Minister for Housing in particular, _the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) on an earlier occasion, sought to bolster the fortunes of this union.

In particular the Minister for Housing has acted falsely. He issued a Press statement which was baseless. In so doing he has again abused power. Let me examine the first charge - that he has acted falsely. He claimed that Mr Justice Aird had given a direction to the men to return to work and that lock-outs must not be imposed by builders. There was no direction. I am advised that there was a recommendation. I am also advised that no lockout was imposed. We need to look at this situation because a good deal hangs on it. The Builders Labourers Federation advised that it would be prepared to go back to work on a partial basis and on conditions which it determined. It was not an offer to go back to work. The Federation was prepared to work in certain places on conditions which it determined. This is like asking an employer to continue to employ somebody who is prepared to do only half his job. In those circumstances it would certainly notbe a lock-out. I think it was quite false and unreasonable to suggest that it was a lock-out. The Minister in his Press statement said it was an illegal lock-out. But the Master Builders Association refused. It said that work must continue on sites where work had already commenced. Mr Justice Aird on 2 November is reported in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ as having said:

This offer was refused by the Master Builders Association of New South Wales and, in my view -

That is in the Judge’s view - quite properly.’

If action by an association of this kind has won the commendation or more than the tacit approval of the judge in question how can its action be branded as a lock-out by a Federal Minister, by the general public or by anyone else? That is utterly improper action on the part of the Minister concerned. So on the basis of this false charge the Minister embarks on a vicious, partisan one-sided approach to the Master Builders Association. He says that he will invoke all the penalties of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, that he will examine contracts to see whether he can fix the contractors for violations of contracts, that he will make sure that penalties are provided in all future contracts and that he will give a low priority to contractors who have been involved, as he says, in these matters. That means that they will not get a chance to tender on fair and just terms.

That was all in the Minister’s Press statement. In the television program ‘This Day Tonight’ the Minister said that he was protecting Commonwealth money and that is why he acted. When he was asked whether he would act against unions which were holding up Commonwealth projects, he said no, that it would be for the contractors to do that through the conciliation and arbitration procedures. As far as the Government is concerned, the unions can hold up Commonwealth contracts and involve themselves in a wastage of Commonwealth funds and the Government will do nothing about it. But if a contractor is falsely accused of having done this, the Government will try to throw the book at that contractor in a vicious and partisan manner. The Government will act against employers with all the force of law that it can muster, but if there is any suggestion that a union or some union leaders have held up a particular project, the Government will do nothing; it will say that it is for the employers to act. But when the Minister says that, he knows that it is Government policy to remove every sanction from the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Therefore, on that basis there would be no grounds on which employers could act in that circumstance.

I believe that this kind of attitude is in direct conflict with the tripartite conference proposed by the Minister for Labour. For the sake of industrial peace in Australia we must hope that there will be some success from that conference. But there cannot be success from that conference if people like the Minister for Housing basically and naturally see the employer as the enemy. That is what he has done, and he has acted in that way in a quite unreasonable fashion. The Minister’s statement was false in other matters, but they are not major ones and therefore are not worth relating to the House. But he wanted a pretext to attack the Master Builders Association in support of the builders’ labourers in order to demonstrate his particular unity with the extreme Left and with the industrial anarchy in New South Wales.

In a moment or two I should like to say something briefly about the conference originally proposed by the Victorian Premier. I was glad to see that the Minister for Labour radically changed his mind from the position that he first took when he rubbished this proposal and other proposals of the Victorian Premier. He said:

Premier Hamer’s proposal for an ‘industrial peace conference’ is more in the style of Premier Askin’s political gimmickry.

He had some other things to say. Then he went on and used the words that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) indicated yesterday in the House he had used. He said:

Industrial unrest cannot be solved by union leaders, employers and politicians sitting around a table of champagne and cigars making grand and meaningless declarations and gestures on labour relations.

If the Minister for Labour held that view on 9 November, I am glad that he subsequently changed his view and suggested a conference because whatever the limitations of that conference might be, it is a move which, in the words of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, might result in something. In the Minister’s statement there are expressed some odd views concerning the tripartite conference which I believe he should clarify. In his second and fourth grounds for having a conference he suggests that penalties will be imposed on both parties - on the unions as well as on the employers - if agreements are broken. If that is so, it should be spelt out. He is also suggesting that the sanction clauses in Part VII of the Act should be removed, and is almost suggesting that they should be removed from employers as well as from employees. If that is so it would indicate an even handed approach by the Minister in this matter I think for the first time since he was rolled on a much more even handed industrial policy a year or two ago. But if he is proposing that, I would have thought that the parties which attend this conference would need to know of it. But. despite whatever reservations the Opposition might have about this proposed tripartite conference and the lack of preparation that should have taken place before the original announcement was made, we must hope that the conference will create a better climate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– (Quorum formed) Mr Speaker, I think it is deplorable that when a discussion on a matter of public importance is raised by the Opposition’s official spokesman on industrial matters only 4 members of the Liberal Party bother to come into this place to hear what he has to say. So that this may be put on the record I propose to write into the annals of history the names of the faithful four who bothered to come in here and listen to their official spokesman. Apart from the official spokesman, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) there was the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox), the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), who was kind enough to call for a quorum, and the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street). Not a living soul from the Liberal Party - -

Mr Nixon:

– Mr Speaker, I have been sitting here all the time.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If that is the case I did not see you, which is unusual. But if you were here I apologise to you. I was talking about members of the Liberal Party. Immediately I said that there were only four, up jumped the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) and said: ‘What about me?’ Apparently he has decided to switch sides and join the Liberal Party. I can understand why he is beginning to feel ashamed of his own Party and is now wanting to change sides. This has been an extraordinary debate because of the fact that nobody from the Opposition side wanted to hear even the honourable member for Wannon. This indicated a lack of enthusiasm and a lack of expectation of excitement on the part of honourable members opposite. The other extraordinary thing about this debate has been the poor level of debating displayed by the honourable member for Wannon. If he cannot rise to the occasion no one can because on the question of industrial relations he is easily the most talented of those on the Opposition side. It is like a breath of fresh air to us on this side of the House to hear the reasonable approach which the honourable gentleman so often displays. If one can take him at face value, I believe he is genuinely anxious for the industrial peace conference to succeed. But if he is anxious I wager he is the only member on the Opposition side who wants the industrial peace conference to succeed.

I will say that last night the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) did rise above his normal standard when he deals with communism. He made a very worthwhile suggestion which I shall note and which / I intend - I say this quite seriously - to put J to the industrial peace conference, namely that when an application is made for a new award the union will not be penalised for being patient enough to wait until the judgment is finally given. So patience will be rewarded by the granting of retrospectivity covering the whole of the interregnum between the lodging of the application and the granting of the award.

The honourable member for Wannon was a little unkind to me - this was the only thing about his remarks that saddened me somewhat - when he criticised me, I thought most unfairly, by saying that there should have been better communications between me, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the employers over this forthcoming industrial peace conference. There have been communications between my good self, and the various bodies - the unions and employers. I do not intend to reveal to the public the nature of those talks. I cannot reveal, without prejudicing the success of the conference, the names of the people with whom I have spoken. Neither can I reveal the enormous encouragement I have received from the parties which will be coming to this conference. I can also say at this point that in order that the conference will go off with maximum success, I do not intend to keep a record of any of the remarks made by the members at the conference and neither do I intend to repeat privately or publicly any of the conversations which I will inevitably find myself engaged in with one group or the other.

Mr Hurford:

– You are certainly a statesman.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am obliged to the honourable member for having such perception. This industrial peace conference can succeed if it receives goodwill and the support of men of goodwill. It is getting quite laudable support from the Press and from the media generally and for this I am very grateful. Given this sort of approach to this terribly complex and sensitive problem that will have to be faced at the conference, we can succeed and Australia will be all the better for it.

I cannot deal with some of the criticisms which the honourable member for Wannon made against my Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson). He was again, I think, unfair. He showed a rare and unusual streak of bitterness in his character - one which I have never observed before - when he described the Minister’s statement as vicious and by-partisan. All that the poor Minister did was to say that he was gravely concerned about costly delays which have been caused on Government construction projects in Sydney by Master Builders’ Association lockouts. The learned and honourable member for Wannon went on to express the view, which is a very complicated legal view - I assume he has had legal training to fit him to engage in these sorts of assumptions - that this was not legally a lockout at all. For the honourable gentleman’s benefit - and the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) would put his mind at rest on this - whenever there is a bans clause in an award it automatically becomes an offence, and therefore an illegal act, to engage in a lockout or a strike. However, the honourable gentleman did make a very telling point when he asked: ‘Why does the Government talk about punishing employers for lockouts and not about punishing the employees for their strikes?’ That could be put very well by a person who had not had such a long association with the governments with which the honourable member had previously been associated before the advent of the Whitlam Labor Government because for 23 long weary and dreary years we saw the Opposition Parties, when they were in Government, doing precisely the same thing in reverse. It was always the unions which were wrong and it was always the employers who were right.

There was only one bright star in the previous Government’s forces and again oddly enough that was the honourable member for Wannon who in 1956 went on record - he is very proud about this; he mentions it at every waterside workers’ meeting that he attends - proudly proclaiming his support for the shearers’ strike. Good luck to him. I am pleased to hear it. Does anybody have the right to say that he is a traitor to his class? Does anybody have the right to say that he has betrayed the interests of Australia just because in 1956 he supported the shearers’ strike? Of course not. All that he did in 1956 was to try to be rational and objective by supporting the people who were right and condemning the people who were wrong. That is what I always try to do and that was what my colleague, the Minister for Housing, was doing when he commented on the lockout by the Master Builders Association.

The honourable gentleman seems to be trying to pour petrol on the fire and to cause trouble between myself and my very dear colleague, the Minister for Housing, by saying that everybody has taken everything out of my hands and that I have no say any more in labour matters. I assure the honourable gentleman that no statement which affects labour matters is ever released by Ministers unless it comes to me first. The Minister who prepared the release which has been referred to came to me and I was glad to endorse it. In fact, I altered a few words to make it a little tougher. After that toughening up process I said: ‘It is OK with me, Leslie, go ahead’. This release was well thought out by us. Of course, I am the official spokesman for labour. I am not being bypassed.

The honourable member for Wannon then attacked my good friend, the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) on his support for the 35-hour week struggle in New South Wales. The Minister for Minerals and

Energy conferred with me throughout that struggle and he had my full and complete support in what he did. Of course there should be a 35-hour week in the power industry just as there should have been an increase in the shearing rates in 1956. I was right this year in supporting the 35-hour week proposed in the power industry just as you were right in opposing the employers in 1956 for resisting the increase sought in the wages of shearers.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the Minister that the honourable member for Wannon is not in the chamber.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No. I was looking at the very lovely lady sitting alongside the honourable member for Wannon. He had much to say about the 400 policemen who had to stand guard to prevent builders labourers from going to work. The honourable member for Wannon said that it was a shocking thing that 400 police were needed to stop the builders labourers from going back to work. They did succeed in stopping them from going back to work. The police arrested many of the builders labourers. An odd thing about the New South Wales Police Force - I hope the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) is not in the chamber; I see that he is not - is that its members were unable to find even the addresses of the ‘33 Club’ and the ‘Forbes Club’ and, when they eventually did find the addresses of those 2 gambling dens of iniquity, all that they did was to stand outside and take the names of the patrons who went in. The police made no arrests at all. One wonders whether there is not someone in the present New South Wales Government who is doing Very nicely, thank you’ out of gambling dens. Otherwise, how does one explain the fact that police can stop builders labourers from going on to their place of work but they cannot stop gamblers from going into these places of ill fame.

Mr James:

– Tell us how Bill Waterhouse got his licence back.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I apologise to the honourable member for Hunter. He has been here all the time. He asks a very good question: How did Bill Waterhouse get his licence back? How did he? If the honourable member for Wannon were to concern himself with matters such as this, he would be doing a greater public service than he is doing by attacking my ministerial colleague for doing the job as he sees it ought to be done. Of course I deplore physical violence. Every honourable member on this side of the House deplores physical violence - except one, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes), who would not have engaged in an act of physical violence but for the fact that his honour was challenged and he had no alternative but to go out into the King’s Hall and stand up for his good name..

I wish I had time available to me to talk about the excellent work being done by Mr Justice Aird. The honourable member who raised this matter was right in referring to the excellent work that the learned judge is doing. He is doing a good job and he ought to receive the support of both sides of the Parliament. But Mr Justice Aird’s work is not being helped by the kind of undisciplined remarks in which the honourable member for Wannon has been engaging this afternoon. There is no doubt at all, if I may return to the conference, that -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– The Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) can buffoon all he likes in this House. The fact is that the matter of public importance now being debated points out the double standards of the Labor Government and its Ministers. The Minister for Labour, when he was the shadow Minister for Labour and National Service, always argued against sanctions or fines. But he has introduced legislation -into this House to abolish sanctions and fines. Yet his colleague, the Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson), in a typical double standard fashion has requested that sanctions or penalties be imposed against the Master Builders Association of New South Wales. The Minister for Housing has a reputation for seeking headlines only surpassed by the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby). I do not know where the Minister for Housing is today but for some reason - although he is at the crucial point in this debate - he is not to speak on the matter. Why does not the Government ask the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) to stand down and let the Minister for Housing defend his indefensible position? That is what he ought to be doing because it was he who made the intemperate and quite stupid statement on 7 November which can be clearly seen, despite what the Minister for Labour sees, to be partisan in its efforts to discredit the Master Builders Association.

The Minister for Labour totally ignores the fact that Mr Justice Aird’s recommendation, that the men return to work applied to all jobs under dispute. Yet the Builders Labourers Federation Executive kept workers off 22 building sites, after the men voted to return to work. In other words, the Builders Labourers Federation Executive wanted the best of both worlds. It knew the men were sick of striking and holding the country to ransom, so it accepted the instruction that the men resume work whilst at the same time hiving off 22 jobs that were to be kept in a strike position for their own greedy, selfish, political motives. The fact that some of these strikes were not part of the green bans emphasises how political was the motive of the Builders Labourers Federation ‘Executive. What it wanted to do was to pick off the members of the Master Builders Association, one by one, and force its greedy demands to be met. This tactic of divide and conquer is the same tactic as unionists have berated employers for using in days gone past.

It is no wonder that Mr Justice Aird said, as reported in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ on 2 November and quoted by the Minister for Labour and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser): . . . the offer was refused by the Master Builders Association of New South Wales, and in my view quite properly.

That puts in proper context the buffoonery with which the Minister has carried on this afternoon when replying to the honourable member for Wannon. On 7 November the Minister for Housing sought to impose penalties on and viciously attacked the Master Builders Association with attempts to blackmail it. This must rate as one of the basest and most despicable acts brought before this Parliament. Certainly the Minister has a responsibility to see that major Commonwealth works are proceeded with as quickly as possible. But he has an even greater responsibility to see that justice is done to all sections of the building industry, both employer and employee. His blatant support of the militant communist Mundey, in the face of the words of Mr Justice Aird, only discredits him and his Government.

What about the Minister for Labour, who only yesterday was describing himself as a statesman in industrial affairs? Modesty, of course, has never been one of the Minister’s attributes. The House recognises that, even if the House does not agree on his statesmanlike qualities. What he and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) - the Prime Minister who described himself as the greatest, with feet of clay, I might say - forget is the old axiom that self-praise is no recommendation. The people of Australia are making the judgment, and they say, as reflected in gallup poll results, that the Australian Labor Party has 42 per cent of the support of the electorate and that it is sinking fast. If the Minister for Labour is a statesman - I do not believe it, and I do not think that history will show it when it has the value of hindsight, and I do not think it will ever record or remember his name - what is he going to do about the blatant political and biased intrusion into industrial matters by his colleague, the Minister for Housing? Did he carpet his colleague? Did he report him to the Prime Minister? What has he done? He has assisted him. A supposedly unbiased Minister responsible for industrial affairs has assisted a blatant attack on employers. The sheer hypocrisy of the Minister ought to call for his resignation.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, I have a fairly thick skin, but one thing I cannot stand is a person saying that I am hypocritical. I ask the honourable member for Gippsland to withdraw the remark that I am guilty of hypocrisy.

Mr NIXON:

– Recognising the personal sensitivity of the Minister for Labour, so newly found, I withdraw the word ‘hypocrisy’, but all the cant and humbug in the world of which the Minister is so capable will not rescue the Minister for Housing in the charge that he made. The fact is that on the one hand the Minister for Labour has introduced a Bill into this House seeking the removal of sanctions against unionists, and on the other hand the Minister for Housing is seeking to impose sanctions on employers in the housing industry. No matter what the Minister says, all the cant and humbug of which he is capable cannot hide that fact.

The Minister for Labour has called for an industrial peace conference. I was staggered to hear the Minister say a moment ago that not one word spoken at that conference will be recorded. He will encourage everybody to be peaceful and quiet. I am told on the best of authority by my friend, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), that that honourable member has received a letter from the Minister.

Mr Killen:

– It was a paper delivered to a learned society.

Mr NIXON:

– It was a paper that the Minister had delivered to a learned society. The letter was addressed to ‘My dear friend Jim’ and signed ‘Yours ever, Clyde’. In it the Minister said that he would be proud to encourage public discussion and debate on industrial matters. Now we find the Minister, who stands for open government, will go into closed session with his tripartite conference. I can tell the House why. I am sorry to have to say it. Having re-read the 11 points which he presented to the House, which he had hastily written on the aircraft on his way to Canberra yesterday, the Minister has found that there are some points with which Bob Hawke will not agree. So he will try now to get Bob Hawke and his offsiders to say nothing about the matter. He will say: T will be quiet as Minister, so you be quiet as Bob Hawke, President of the ACTU’. Bob Hawke is President of the Australian Labor Party, too. The Minister is now to put a cloud of secrecy, a dark cloak of closed government, over the tripartite conference.

I have written a note to say how pleased I am that the Minister has gone to the trouble of calling a tripartite conference. He has been a failure in every other area of industry, so he might as well try this. Some hope might come out of this conference if he can get people sitting together around a table and discussing matters reasonably and logically. I think the fact that he will be the only politician present, as distinct from statesman, will not add lustre to the tripartite conference. Nevertheless, as an Opposition spokesman, I wish him the best with his conference, because I can tell the Minister that the people of Australia are fed to death with strikes. I say this to the Minister: It is time you got off your fat cat bottom and did something about it. To August this year 1.8 million working days have been lost and the wage earners have lost $3 1.4m, and you are the responsible Minister - nobody else in this place. You are the responsible Minister, and you have failed miserably. What about your political promise that there would be less industrial trouble? What about the political promise of the Prime Minister who, when Leader of the Opposition, said that there would be less industrial trouble when Labor came to power?

Mr Bonnett:

– That is a laugh.

Mr NIXON:

– That is a promise. I do not know what the position will be by the end of the year, but already this year we have had almost double the normal number of strikes and almost double the normal amount of wages lost. That is the proud record of the Minister for Labour. So I for one hope that the tripartite conference does work. The Minister cannot blame the Senate’s rejection of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill for the present industrial trouble. It will not wash. The fact is that every employer organisation in Australia has said that the amendments the Senate made to the Bill tried to bring a balanced view to a totally biased trade union organisational style piece of legislation. There is no point in the Minister blaming the Senate, as he did when he was in’ Copenhagen, where he was studying the world of culture, saying that there would be a double dissolution if the Senate did not pass the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON (HindmarshMinister for Labour) - Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) made the statement, as though it were based on fact, that while I was on an aircraft yesterday I scribbled out the 11 points I put to the House. That was a patently absurd statement and a demonstrably untrue statement, because I was in the House all day yesterday,- 1 was in the House the day before and I have not in fact left .Canberra since Saturday. So how I could be scribbling out my 11 points on an aircraft yesterday is beyond my understanding. The honourable member then went on to say that because Bob Hawke did not like the 11 points I was now meeting under a cloud of secrecy, the word ‘cloud’ being emphasised with the proper expressions and tone of voice. This seems to cut right across what the Opposition has been saying. The Opposition says that the Government is biased in favour of the unions, and now the Opposition is complaining because the Government is doing the things that the unions do not like. .

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister is now out of order. In making a personal explanation the Minister can state only where the he has been misrepresented and cannot debate what the Opposition has done or said.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– This is truly a remarkable matter of public importance. Even more remarkable have been the 2 speeches made in support of it. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) put 2 errors of fact as the highlight of his speech. Not wishing to fall into the same trap, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) spent his time saying nothing. It is truly remarkable, of course, that this matter should be raised this morning. One would be pardoned for thinking that it is the idea of some agent provocateur designed to inhibit a solution of the present building trades dispute, because the matter is raised in this House not yesterday, not tomorrow, not last week but on the very morning that conferences between the trade unions and the employers in the building industry are reaching their most critical stage. The people who claim to be in favour of industrial peace and want to see a period of industrial tranquillity initiate a debate on a matter of public importance designed to exacerbate the present difficulty, and for that they may claim no credit.

It is interesting that the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron), who quite rightly is recognised as a great statesman in this place, is not the only one who blames employers for industrial disputes. Another person who makes statements from time to time with great authority about industrial matters said on 7 February this year that many industrial disputes occurred because of management’s failure to establish adequate consultation with employees. That gentleman said that an analysis of strikes revealed that about 30 per cent were directly concerned with the managerial policies of employers. He said that this figure was higher than that of comparable countries in the Western world.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Who said that?

Mr RIORDAN:

– The gentleman who said that was none other than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch). Apparently this is another area of conflict between him and the honourable member for Wannon. That statement was made at the School of Business Administration in February this year and was reported in the ‘Australian’ newspaper of 7 February this year. So here again we hear the 2 voices of the Opposition, which are almost as blatant as its double standards and its twofaced attitude.

What the honourable member for Wannon did was make a speech which contained 2 fundamental errors. First of all, he claimed that it was false for the Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson) to claim that there was a lockout. He rationalised his claim by saying that the Builders Labourers Federation had agreed only to a conditional and partial resumption of work. Nobody is talking about the Builders Labourers Federation. That is only one side of it. Tradesmen, such as members of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union, the Building Workers Industrial Union and the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, have never been on strike, and they have been locked out. Of course, the honourable gentleman politely ignores that because his instructions from his rich and powerful friends are to leave it out. In other words, that is where the real guilt lies. The builders locked out men who had never been on strike and who had never expressed any intention of going on strike. But, in their callous and cynical way and wishing to extend this dispute, the builders locked them out. The honourable member for Wannon excuses all of that or simply overlooks it.

His other major error was to criticise the Minister for Housing for not taking some steps, through the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to have the workers penalised. He should know that the Minister for Housing has no right at all in that field. The industrial relationship exists between the employees and the contractors. The relationship between the Government or the Minister and the contractors is one of common law and not one pursuant to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If we take out those 2 things, what has the honourable member said?

Mr Fulton:

– Nothing.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I am indebted to the honourable member. He is absolutely right. The honourable member for Wannon has said nothing - except for one thing. He referred to the violence which has occurred in the building industry. He said that it had been going on for a long time. I agree with him completely. In fact, there has been a significant and very substantial removal of violence from the building industry this year. It was last year that the violence occurred in the building industry. One could be pardoned for asking what the honourable member did about it. The answer is nothing. What did his friend, Sir Robert Askin, do about it? The answer is nothing. The New South Wales police turned their backs on pleas for protection made by both workers and employers. The honourable member for Wannon has the nerve to come into this House and attack Ministers of this Government. The Opposition’s concept, which it wants to foist upon this Government, is that industrial battles should be fought in somebody else’s back yard. Members of the Master Builders Association have Government contracts, and the Government is entitled - indeed, obliged - to ensure that those contracts are honoured. It is interesting to note that the principal party to this dispute refused to debate the issue with the Minister for Housing on the Austraiian Broadcasting Commission television program ‘This Day Tonight’ on 7 November.

The next attack relates to the power dispute. In spite of all the debate which occurred, it is still claimed that the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) was in some way responsible for that dispute. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Honourable gentlemen opposite are in that position.

Mr Nixon:

– Put your glasses on, Joe.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I have my glasses on. The honourable member should get himself a pair that are not so red tinted, so that he can see what the facts are without being blinded by prejudice. He should look at the world in terms of reality and not just the twisted way he wants it to appear. The Minister for Minerals and Energy sought to protect and did protect the Commonwealth from having put at its doorstep a dispute which was manufactured by the New South Wales Government. He refused to be put into the position of having strike breakers in the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority working under the conditions that the strikers were trying to obtain. Those are facts which the honourable gentleman cannot ignore. Let me remind him that the Prime Minister of this country (Mr Whitlam), in a truly statesmanlike way, attempted to offer the facilities of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to facilitate a resumption of work in the power industry. But the Premier of New South Wales threw out the offer. He refused to give it even cursory consideration. He rejected it out of hand because he did not want a settlement.

The duplicity and double standards applied by the Opposition in these cases have to be seen to be believed. Last night the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) said that he would support a strike on safety issues. He suggested that officers who are skilled in the particular industry should be attached to the Commission so that they could go to the place and make an interim determination on safety issues. That is a very sensible suggestion, and I congratulate the honourable member for making it. I just do not understand why he voted against provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill which would have allowed exactly that to happen. Perhaps he will explain it at some other time. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), the Minister for Housing and the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) have acted with propriety. Nothing has been said in this debate which in any way accurately reflects on that propriety. The Minister for Housing was concerned that buildings worth $24m had been stopped, not because of a strike by employees but because of a lockout by members of the Master Builders Association. He also was confronted with the situation that buildings worth a further $27.5m were to be threatened because of the same situation.

It ought to be realised by honourable members on both sides of this House that in industrial disputes reason is the ingredient of a solution. Ranting and raving by Opposition members seeking to gain cheap political advantage has never solved anything. When the Master Builders Association or any other large employer organisation decides to attack innocent people - people who are not involved in the dispute - and to throw them out of work, one must immediately question its motives. I believe that it is open to serious questioning as to whether this dispute has been provoked because of the shortage of building materials which were insufficient-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr Clyde Cameron) agreed to:

That the business of the day be called on.

page 3305

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

- Mr Speaker, I was misrepresented by the honour.oble member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) a few moments ago. I thank him for his complimentary reference to me; but he spoke about a vote which I cast in this chamber. If he recalls the circumstances to his mind, he will remember that the clauses concerned did not come up in this chamber because the Bill was guillotined; so we did not have a vote on them. Therefore, he might withdraw the false things that he said about me, if he would not mind.

page 3306

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 2) 1973

Bill presented by Mr Hayden, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley Minister for Social Security · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill before the House is the second National Health Bill for 1973. It contains provisions already announced by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his Budget Speech of 21 August, a number of amendments which are of an administrative nature and other amendments relating to eligibility of pensioner medical service entitlements. Honourable members will recall that on 21 August the Treasurer announced this Government’s proposal to abolish the $10 charge presently applied to eligible pensioners and their dependents who are supplied with hearing aids from the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories. Also, that these persons should be supplied with hearing aid batteries free of charge. The Bill provides for the implementation of both of these decisions.

At that time, the Treasurer also announced that the handicapped children’s ‘benefit would be doubled. This benefit is payable to the proprietor of an approved handicapped persons home for each day on which the handicapped child receives handicapped person care in that home. The Bill provides for the rate of this benefit to be increased from $1.50 a day to $3 a day, with effect from 1 January 1974. This measure is expected to cost the Australian Government $0.2m for the remainder of this financial year and $0.5m in a full year. The Bill includes a number of amendments which are of an administrative nature. The first of these is to provide for the transfer of administration of certain parts of the Act from the Department of Health to the Department of Social Security. This Government has always held the view that the administration of social welfare schemes has been too fragmented and that their operation should be controlled by the one department. Provisions in the Bill give effect to the transfer of Parts III to VI of the Act, and other parts relating to matters arising in connection with these Parts, to the Department of Social Security. These Parts relate to the operation of the medical and hospital benefits schemes and the operation of the pensioner medical service. The amendments are in accor dance with the administrative arrangements ordered by His Excellency the Governor General on 19 December 1972.

The second administrative amendment to the Bill is to widen the regulation making power contained in section 13a. This section enables alterations to be made to the tables of medical benefits contained in the Schedules to the Act. However, the existing provisions permit amendments of the items and benefits in the tables of the Schedules. Honourable members will be aware that at presenta Medical Fees Tribunal is examining a list of fees submitted by the Australian Medical Association. Decisions have already been handed down on parts of that list. It is apparent that these and future decisions will significantly alter the structure of the medical benefits schedules and the benefits for services. The amendments proposed in the Bill will allow more substantial changes of the schedules by permitting the replacement of tables in the Schedules to the Act by regulations, the amendment of the rules of interpretation of the table in the First Schedule, and schedules, by regulations and, finally, the amendment of those regulations by other regulations. The existing provision in the Act that amendments to the tables in the Schedules made by regulation must be incorporated into the Act within one year plus 15 sitting days of the House still remains. In accordance with this provision, the opportunity has been taken in this Bill to incorporate into the Act amendments to the tables of benefits which have been made since March 1973.

A further amendment of an administrative nature relates to proposals made by the Australian Society of Anaesthetists and the AMA, to the Medical Fees Tribunal. If these proposals are accepted in total or in part an amendment of the Act is needed to cover anaesthetics administered when there is a number of services performed at the same time. The provisions in the Bill are similar to section 16a of the Act, which provides for a reduction of the benefits to half for the second operation on the one occasion and to one quarter for any further operations on the same occasion. More substantial reductions of the anaesthetic benefits have been proposed by the Australian Society of Anaesthetists, and it is expected that the Tribunal will indicate the reductions appropriate in its view. Until then the reductions cannot be specified in the body of the Act and this provision in the Bill allows these to be made by regulations.

As honourable members will know, the pensioner medical service is one of a number of fringe benefits available to pensioners who satisfy the 1967 social services means test. Its principal objective is to provide a basic range of medical services to persons whom it could reasonably be expected are unable to afford health insurance coverage. As increases in the rates of pension have been granted, more persons have become eligible for the ‘benefits of the pensioner medical service. As I announced to the House on 11 September during the introduction of the Social Services Bill (No. 4) 1973, the 1967 means test will continue for fringe benefit eligibility purposes but future increases in the rates of pension will not extend eligibility for fringe benefits, including pensioner medical service entitlement, to persons whose means are outside the new. limits proposed. These limits will be those applying after the recent increases granted in the Budget. For a single pensioner the disqualifying limits of ‘means as assessed’, by application of the relevant provisions of the Social Services Act, will be $33 a week, and for a married pensioner couple $57.50 a week, before fringe benefit eligibility ceases. ‘Means as assessed’ refers to the provisions in the Social Services Act relating to means testing, including the formula for deeming certain property to have a notional ‘income’ inquivalent This means that the weekly income of a single pensioner, including pension, could he $49.50 before eligibility for pensioner medical service entitlement ceases. The corresponding combined income figure for a married pensioner couple is $86.50.

The provisions in the Bill fix the eligibility for pensioner medical service entitlement at the levels I have just outlined. Clearly, any extension of these limits arising from further increases in the rates of pensioner benefits would create situations of inequity between such pensioners and the many non-pensioner families in the community who have weekly incomes less than these amounts but who are required to take out health insurance coverage. Honourable members will be aware that these provisions will apply only until the introduction of the Government’s universal health insurance plan. This plan will not limit pensioners’ entitlements to the restricted range of services available under the present pensioner medical service, and will, therefore, represent a tremendous improvement in the entitlements of pensioners as it will, indeed, in the entitlements of everyone in the community.

Perhaps I ought to state at this point that under the Australian Government’s health insurance program, legislation for which shortly will be introduced into this Parliament, medical services obtained by pensioners from a private medical practitioner will be fully covered. This will refer not only to consultation at home or in a doctor’s private surgery but also to procedural items which currently are excluded from medical benefit cover under the private health insurance arrangements. But the program will go further than that. Pensioners, as will be the case with everyone in the community - that is, there will be no distinction, no second rate citizenry - will be able to obtain the services of a specialist of their choosing, no doubt with the assistance of a general practitioner, and medical services in the private surgery of that specialist and have those services fully covered by the Australian Government’s new health insurance program. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Katter) adjourned.

page 3307

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

Bill presented by Mr Crean, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment in 1973-74 of special grants of $10m to Queensland, $ 19.9m to South Australia and $8.65m to Tasmania. These payments are in accordance with the recommendations of the Grants Commission contained in its fortieth report, which has been tabled in the House. The Bill also seeks the usual authority for payment of advances to the 3 States in the early months of 1974t75, pending receipt of the Commission’s recommendations for that year and enactment of legislation to provide for the grants to be paid in that year.

In the last session Parliament passed the Grants Commission Bill 1973 which widened the powers of the Commission to enable it to investigate and recommend upon applications for financial assistance by regional groupings of local authorities. Under this new legislation, which is now operating, the Grants Commission retains its previous responsibilities with respect to applications for special grants by some States.

The Australian Government makes special grants to financially weaker States to compensate them for such factors as lower capacity to raise revenue from their own resources and higher costs in providing government services of a standard similar to those in the financially stronger States. When special grants were first paid they constituted the only regular form of general revenue assistance paid to the financially weaker States for this purpose. For many years now, however, the main way in which special compensatory assistance has been provided has been through the higher per capita financial assistance grants paid to the four less populous States. The financial assistance grants are the main general revenue grants to the States. The special grants may, therefore, be regarded as supplementing the financial assistance grants, and as having the special characteristic of being independently as well as expertly assessed by the Grants Commission.

The method used by the Grants Commission, briefly put, is to calculate grants which will bring the claimant States’ budgetary positions up to the average of the two most populous States taken as ‘standard’ after allowing for differences between the States concerned in their financial practices and their efforts to raise revenue and control expenditure. This involves a detailed comparison of the standard and claimant States’ budgetary revenues and expenditures.

The recommendations of the Grants Commission for payment of special grants consist of 2 parts. One part is based on a preliminary estimate of the claimant State’s financial need in the current financial year, and is treated as an advance payment subject to adjustment 2 years later when the Commission has compared in detail the Budget results, and standards of effort and of services provided, in that year for both the claimant State and the States which it takes as standard. The other part represents the final adjustment to the advance payment made 2 years earlier and is known as the completion payment. It may result in the final grant in respect of that year being higher or lower than the original advance payment.

The Commission has recommended that an advance payment of $ 10m be made to Queensland in 1973-74 - the same amount as paid in 1972-73 - and that no adustment be made to the advance grant of $9m paid to the State in 1971-72. For South Australia, the Commission has recommended the payment of special grants totalling $ 19.9m, made up of an advance payment of $15m for 1973-74 and a completion payment of $4.9m in respect of 1971-72. This completion grant brings the total special grant in respect of 1971-72 to $11.9m. The relatively high completion grant reflects the fact that it was only in 1970-71 that South Australia applied for a special grant again after some years’ absence from claimancy, and the advance grant recommended for 1971-72 was fairly tentative.

The Commission has recommended the payment of special grants totalling $8. 65m to Tasmania in 1973-74, made up of an advance payment of $10m for 1973-74 - the same amount as paid in 1972-73 - and a negative completion grant of $1.35m in respect of 1971-72. This completion grant brings the total special grant in respect of 1971-72 to $9.65m. The negative adjustment in respect of Tasmania’s 1971-72 grant means that the Commission considers, after detailed examination, that the advance payment of $llm made in that year was an over-estimate of the State’s needs for that year.

The 1973-74 advance grants to each of the 3 States will, of course, be subject to adjustment, if necessary, in 1975-76. The bases of the Commission’s recommendations are set out fully in its report. The Commission’s recommendations have been adopted by Parliament each year since the Commission’s inception and the Government considers that they should be accepted on this occasion. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Katter) adjourned.

page 3308

QUESTION

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:

That in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: The Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974, the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974 and the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill 1974.

Speaking briefly to this motion as I do not wish to take up the time of the House, the 3 measures which are covered by this motion for suspension of Standing Orders are all important measures of Government policy. They seek the agreement of this Parliament to proposals to put before the people of Australia 3 important changes to the Australian Constitution. It is vital that they be passed promptly in order that the people themselves have the opportunity to express their views in referendum.

I cannot see why there should be any opposition to letting the people decide these issues. In these Bills - although they are very important - we are seeking not to change the laws of the land but to give the people the right to express their views. Yet I understand, by bush telegraph and other means, that the Opposition for its own selfish and spurious reasons of which we will no doubt hear shortly, do not want the people to have the right to decide what they want in these matters. I understand that honourable members opposite are going to oppose all 3 Bills which means, of course, that possibly every honourable member on that side as usual will submit his name on a list for speaking. Not only is this a completely unprincipled and undemocratic attitude; it is also doomed to failure and this is the reason amongst other things, why we moved for the suspension of Standing Orders, namely, for speed. If the Bills are obstructed in another place they will be passed again in due course by this House and the referendums will then be held in any case in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution.

All that the Opposition can hope to achieve by opposing these Bills, no matter what the length of the debate is, is to waste the time of the Parliament and to delay the timing of the referendums. I cannot see why - nor can anybody on the Government side see why - honourable members opposite should be allowed to waste the time of the House in this purposeless and obstructive way. Honourable members opposite cannot hold up the legislation except for a time. To my mind, there has already been too much of this sort of obstruction and time wasting. If the Parliament had passed the Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2)- which this House has passed on 2 occasions and which the Senate has twice rejected - one of these Bills would not now be necessary and the people of Australia would have equality of voting power. I would remind the House that in the debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) almost unlimited time was given to those opposite to enable them to express their views, no doubt precisely the same views as they will be expressing again in this measure.

If this House were to agree promptly as it should that the important proposals in these Bills should be put to the people, we could get on to debating other important measures which must be passed before the House rises. I repeat: This is not legislation to bind people by law. It is a proposal to give the people the opportunity to decide whether they want these laws enforced, and for that reason it is urgent and necessary that the matters be put to the people without delay. I like Parliament. I like being here a lot, but I warn the House that unless the Opposition is willing to adopt a reasonable attitude on measures of this kind and to approach them not merely for the purpose of wasting time and delaying the business of the Government by indulging in obstructive tactics, we are doomed to a much longer session than has been anticipated. Much as I like this Parliament, there are many other places where I should prefer to have my turkey dinner this Christmas. These are matters which the Opposition might well keep in mind. We have an important program of legislation before us in addition to the measures I have mentioned today, and all the other Bills will take a considerable time to put through. People in Parliament must be realistic. While every one of us would no doubt like to speak on every measure brought before the House, such a course would not be possible in any Parliament in the world. Therefore reason must prevail. Members must have an equal opportunity to put their views on measures of this nature. I have endeavoured to ascertain what can be done about these Bills, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) has been co-operative to this extent, but the matters I have mentioned are of such importance that it would not be possible, without limiting the time for debate, to have them put to the people when they should be put.

I am not unmindful that honourable members opposite would like unlimited debate on the substantive motions so that they could prevent the Government from putting these proposals to the people by way of referendum when the Senate elections take place. We cannot afford to be sidetracked in that way. Adequate time will be available if members use it effectively to put every point of view on these 3 constitutional measures. We propose to allow debate on them to proceed for the rest of this week, which is a fair proposition if members apply themselves to those conditions. I repeat that every argument that was advanced on Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) will be brought forward again in tedious repetition, particularly by members of “the Country Party. Consequently, to say that there will not be adequate time for debate on these measures is begging the question. I have no wish to delay the House any further before it gets on with its important deliberations on these measures, so I commend the motion to honourable members. I hope, in the interest of the people, “that the proposals for submission to referendum will be accepted with a minimum of criticism and unanimously adopted by the House.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– Parliament is in the plainest danger of becoming a complete and utter farce. Not only the people who sit in this chamber, but also the people throughout the nation, should apprehend this fact. It could well be that there is no need for application of the guillotine on these measures, though I have not seen the list of speakers and I do not know how. many of my colleagues on this side of the House wish to speak. It could well be that by adopting a quiet and responsible approach to this crucial issue, the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) could have the 3 Bills passed through the House in a shorter time than he has propounded.

Government is not a matter of instinct or prejudice. If we are not at liberty to discuss vital matters affecting this country, there is no point in our coming here at all. It is not every day of the week that a nation working under a federal structure turns to alter its Constitution. The Government is proposing 3 very significant alterations to the Constitution. I suggest that the ramifications of these amendments can be seen only by close examination and the free exchange of ideas, and this must be done in a leisurely fashion. If the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) constantly wants to impose fierce, unreasonable guillotines in this House, he is making a rod for his own back. The honourable gentleman is taking the view that he has the numbers today, but he should remember that the one who is on top today could well be the one who falls down tomorrow. I ask him, as one of the great Latin scholars in this place, to bear in mind the dictum facilis descensus Averno

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I support the proposition of the Leader of the House (Mr Daly). My reason is that constitutional provisions must be introduced to ensure that the people will have an opportunity to cast a vote on these vital issues affecting this country. First of all, there is the question of democratic elections.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member for Chifley that he is now discussing the reasons why Standing Orders should be suspended. I do not want him to debate the substantive motions.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– It is important that the Standing Orders be suspended at this point of time so that these Bills may be passed through this House within the necessary time so that the. people can express their opinions on the vital issues involved. It is the only way that this can be done. If we do not go ahead with the Bills now, the people will not be able to express their opinions at the required time by exercising their right to a democratic vote. For that reason, unfortunately this action is necessary. I remind the House that a great deal of time is wasted here. I fully agree with what the Leader of the House said a few moments ago. If honourable members opposite want to get home for Christmas, we shall have to get on with the business before us. We are happy to stay here.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– So are we.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– That is up to you.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Some honourable members will be spending the rest of the day outside if they do not keep quiet.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. The fact is that unless time wasting procedures are dispensed with, and unless honourable members opposite play their part in getting through one of the heaviest legislative programs in the history of this Parliament, we shall not get home for Christmas. This Government has had to put up about twice as many Bills this session as have been introduced in any other session. It must do so to implement the proposals that were endorsed by the people, but unfortunately we are getting frustration after frustration, and time is being continually wasted to stop the Government from getting on with its big legislative program. There is one important key issue here. The purpose of this legislation - -

Mr Giles:

– On a point of order. Is it correct that the honourable member should accuse us of wasting time while every sentence of his is wasting the time of the House?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– The important issue here is that the people have the right to a democratic vote on the basic issues covered by the proposed legislation. One of these issues is their right to determine whether there should be democratic elections in this country. It is the right of the people to vote on these issues, and the sooner we get on with the job of passing the legislation to make this possible, and the sooner members of the Opposition desist from their obstructive tactics and their raising of unimportant issues, the sooner the people will be able to express their opinion. I ask the House to support the motion. It is unfortunate that it may be necessary to resort to the guillotine to get these measures through, but the fact is that this Government’s record on guillotines is far better than that of the previous Government, which guillotined 17 Bills and gagged another 3 in one day.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– The Government’s action in seeking to apply the guillotine, especially on a question dealing with an alteration to the Constitution, is deplorable. As the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) said, our national Parliament is becoming a farce when debate on such an important issue is limited and members are denied the opportunity of expressing their opinion on it. I could not agree with him more wholeheartedly. We are seeing a doctrinaire approach to the management of this Parliament by this present Government such as we have never seen before. It is not good enough, and the Opposition will not take it, nor will the Aus.tralion people take it. We saw the prices and wages referendum Bills forced through this House with such indignity that, on that ground alone, I do not believe that the people of Australia ought to accept the proposals in those Bills when they are put to them.

The national Parliament has not had time to debate and to examine the questions so that honourable members in their turn can make their own rightful judgment on how they should vote. If the Government thinks it can use bulldozer tactics in this Parliament and then obtain the support of the Australian people it will be very surprised. Right across this nation every member of the Opposition will say to the people: ‘We did not even have time to discuss the matter. The Government is forcing the public now to make a judgment. There is only one action to be taken in those circumstances and that is to play safe and reject the proposals.’ If the Government thinks it can apply these jack boot principles on a matter of great importance it is wrong. This is not just a normal procedural matter of the House. This is a proposal to change the Constitution of the nation and the future destiny of our children and our grandchildren. Here is the Government, in a matter of minutes, wanting to use the procedures of Parliament to enable the people to make a decision when they have not all the facts before them. If these are the sorts of tactics the Government wants to play, we can play it rough on this side of the House too.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– We see once more the Opposition determined to prevent or at least to make it difficult for the Government to achieve any significant social reform. Whatever measure can be tested by reference to what should be done and what should be brought about in this House one can predictably gamble on opposition from the Libera] Party and the Australian Country Party These proposals for these constitutional-

Mr Katter:

– There is no gamble.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I ask the honourable member to listen. The proposals for these constitutional reforms can be traced back virtually to the turn of the century. However, the present proposals go back in more immediate times to 1959. What is the Government’s proposal? That the people of Australia - not this House - should be given the chance to consider whether they want to change their Constitution. That is the gist of it. The Government’s proposal is not that the Constitution be changed here and indeed it cannot be changed here.

Opposition members interjecting -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I intend to maintain order during the rest of this debate on whether Standing Orders should be suspended. I ask honourable members from both sides of the House to contain themselves.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. The anger, the frustration and the intemperate language are predictable from the

Opposition. All the Government seeks to do is to give the people of Australia at a referendum the opportunity to consider 3 propositions that have been put forward and argued about by writers on political science and by writers on constitutional reform virtually ever since this nation came into being. The matter has been stirred up from time to time and was put forward and discussed as recently as a month ago in Sydney at the Constitutional Convention. Where does the opposition to the people having a chance to express their views come from? It comes predictably from the Liberal Party and the Country Party.

One should see what these 3 propositions are that the Government wants the people of Australia to be allowed to consider - propositions which the Oppositions opposes. It says that the people should not be allowed even to consider them at a referendum - perhaps one of the most democratic ways of deciding things in a democratic society. The first is the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill. Reflect on those words, Mr Speaker. The proposition is that the people should be allowed to think about democracy. Who opposes the Bill? The Country Party is foremost, predictably. Who joins with it in its opposition? The Liberal Party, predictably.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister will now debate the reason why Standing Orders should be suspended and not get on to the substantive motion.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I am indebted to you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. The reason why Standing Orders should be suspended to deal with these urgent Bills is that they are essentially important. Nothing could be more important than the democratic processes of Australia and nothing could be more important and indeed urgent than that the people of Australia should be entitled to consider these propositions. If one wanted another reason for declaring these urgent Bills it is the obvious entrenched Opposition determination to prevent the people being allowed to think about them and to express their views that comes from the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party.

Consider the second Bill, Mr Speaker. It seeks to let the people of Australia consider the role that local government should play in their own affairs and the relationship between local government and the State Parliaments and the relationship between local government and this Australian Government. What could be more important than that? What could be more urgent that that? Predictably the opposition comes from the Liberal Party and the Country Party.

Mr Corbett:

– Why not?

Mr ENDERBY:

– I do not mind the Opposition saying that local government people should have no say in their own affairs. That is predictable and understandable. We have seen enough of Opposition members to understand this. They are always saying that. But what is wrong and scandalous is that the Opposition says that the people of Australia should not even be allowed to consider these proposals in referenda. That is the proposition that the Opposition is putting up and that is what we seek to prevent.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– The Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), on behalf of the Government, seems determined to try to set some kind of record in this place. It is not a record of which he or the Government should be very proud. It is a record of saying one thing and doing another. The way he is going about it I do not think that he will have any trouble setting the record if he has not set it already. He has given a classic example of his tactics this afternoon. The Minister came in and said that he had 3 Constitution Alteration Bills of great importance to Australia. I agree with him; they are of great importance; they are of great significance. But the next minute the Minister said that the House would be wasting its time if it debated these measures fully. In one breath he said that the Bills are important; in the next breath he said that we would ‘be wasting the time of the House if we debated them fully. Perhaps the Government’s attitude is shown clearly in its first effort to have the debates on the 3 Bills taken cognately. I ask you, Mr Speaker: What similarity is there between simultaneous elections and giving local government access to the Grants Commission. Indeed what similarity is there between having electorates based on population and the other 2 subjects that I have just mentioned? They are three entirely separate issues which will have a profound influence on the form of government in Australia and they deserve to be debated fully and they deserve to be debated separately.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the honourable member has made a mistake. There has been no motion before the Chair that these 3 Bills should be discussed in a cognate debate. They will be discussed separately.

Mr STREET:

– I realise that. The point I was making was that the Minister earlier said, firstly, that they were important and, secondly, that the House would be wasting its time in debating them fully. The Minister has recognised the individual importance of these Bills by not proposing a cognate debate. I can see that. But he has proposed a time guillotine on each one of them so that they will not have the full consideration of this House. They have been rushed into this House; they will be rushed out of this House before the people of Australia have had a full chance to recognise their implications. The one thing that we agree on is their importance. But we do not agree on the way in which we should deal with them. The people of Australia have a right to know how they will be governed and what the system of government will be. Here is the Government rushing the Bills in and rushing them out for purely political purposes. That is not a good way to govern a country and that will be recognised by the people of Australia when they next get an opportunity to say something about it.

I recognise that the time that has been laid down for the expiration of the second reading stage of the first Bill is 8.15 p.m. this evening. I suppose that the Minister will say that my remarks are denying the honourable members who want to speak on the Bill time to raise the issues that they would like to raise. So I will not take up any further time in this debate except to put on record my utter disgust with the fact that these 3 important constitutional Bills will be considered in a matter of about 10 hours debate all finished in this House by 10 p.m. tomorrow night. When the people of Australia have an opportunity to voice their opinions on this sort of conduct I am sure they will do it.

Mr FOX:
Henty

– In the remaining minute or two of the time allowed for this debate, I should like to put a few facts on record. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) said that the record of the present Government with regard to the use of the guillotine is far better than that of its predecessor. These are the facts: In the life of the last Parliament the LiberalCountry Party Government used the guillotine on 4 occasions. Admittedly, these 4 occasions involved 20 Bills, 17 of them in one instance. However, the fact remains that in 3 years the guillotine was used on only 4 occasions in respect of 20 Bills. As to the period during which this Government has been in office, in the 6 months since May last this is the ninth occasion on which the Government has used the guillotine, and those 9 occasions have involved 14 Bills. The Bills now proposed to be dealt with are three of the most important Bills that have ever been discussed. Surely those who have an opposite viewpoint with respect to the propositions to be submitted to the public as a result of these Bills should have he opportunity to explain to the public why they hold that view. The Leader of the House (Mr Daly) suggested that if these Bills were not guillotined

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allowed for this debate has expired.

Question put.

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative, by an absolute majority.

Declaration of Urgency

Mr DALY:
Grayndler Leader of the House · ALP

– I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills:

Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974

Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974

Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill 1974

Question put -

That the Bills be considered urgent Bills.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 52

Majority…… 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Mr DALY:
Grayndler Leader of the House · ALP

– I move:

That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows:

Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974:

For the second reading, until 8.15 p.m. this day.

For the Committee stage, until 8.30 p.m. this day.

For the remaining stages, until 8.43 p.m. this day.

Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974:

For the second reading, until 5 p.m. on Thursday, 15 November.

For the Committee stage, until 5.15 p.m. on Thursday, 15 November.

For the remaining stages, until 5.30 p.m. on Thursday, 15 November.

Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill 1974:

Notwithstanding the order of the House of 1 March -

For the second reading until 9.30 p.m. on Thursday, 15 November.

For the Committee stage, until 9.45 p.m. on Thursday, 15 November.

For the remaining stages, until 10 p.m. on Thursday, 15 November.

As has been indicated, that will allow a considerable time for debate. I might mention for the benefit of those honourable members opposite who might realise that to be brief and to the point is a very effective method of debating that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in speaking to these 3 important measures covered every point very effectively in speeches which occupied only 18 pages of double space typing. Honourable members opposite might also be brief in making their speeches. Honourable members opposite complain that only a short time is to be allowed to debate these measures, but earlier today they took up the time of this House on a matter which could well have been deferred, and therefore they lost a couple of hours of debating time for these measures.

We are declaring these measures urgent Bills because of the constitutional position and the need to have them passed by the Parliament. When the guillotine, as it is called, is applied honourable members opposite always scream about the lack of democracy and justice. I have in my hand a book entitled Turn Again, Westminster’, by Woodrow Wyatt, who is a prominent British parliamentarian. Referring to the application of the guillotine in the House of Commons, he said:

A ritual attaches to the application of the guillotine motion. A day’s debate is devoted to it. The Opposition makes howls of protest at the undemocratic driving through of a BUI which is not to be adequately debated. The Government reply accurately that the Opposition used to do exactly the same when they were in power. The Opposition reply that they never did it in quite the way that the present Government are doing it nor on such a serious matter, and so forth. The Government speakers produce examples to the contrary. Cries of ‘Gag’, ‘Hitler’. ‘Fascist’, ‘Dictators’, Stalin’, rend the air. At the end of the debate the Government win, but all seem satisfied by the empty baying that has preceded the vote.

I commend that to honourable members as an indication of the type of criticism that is levelled at us by honourable members opposite. That happens in the House of Commonsthe mother of parliaments. The Government in the House of Commons adopts this method with obstructive Oppositions. In this Parliament we apply the guillotine only when we are forced to do so. Earlier the Opposition Whip said that the previous Government applied the guillotine only once last year. But he did not tell honourable members that the then Government put 17 Bills on the block with the application of that guillotine. It made more sales in one swoop than Hookers make in a year and knocked the middle out of the legislative program. Among the people who supported that action most enthusiastically were the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) and his Deputy. Consequently today when they moan about this they should remember that we are giving justice as it is deserved and in addition we are giving full and adequate time for discussion on measures on which the people should not be delayed in passing their judgment as to whether or not they should become law. This is not against the Parliament; this is a law of the people.

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

– It would be a good thing if the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), instead of quoting from some second rate British politician’s writing on the institution of the parliament had quoted what is involved in the motion for an allotment of time. Legislation that goes through this Parliament is based on powers granted by the Commonwealth Constitution. Under this allotment of time in respect of legislation relating to amendments to the Constitution we will be allowed in the Committee stage 15 minutes on each of the 3 Bills, including voting time. That is probably an effective speaking time of 5 to 7 minutes. The Minister for Secondary Industry (Dr J. F. Cairns) said in regard to a previous motion that a referendum is the most democratic form of getting decisions. Of course what he forgets is that under the Constitution itself in this country there can ‘be no referendum unless this Parliament makes provision for it to be held and the Parliament must be given the opportunity to have a full discussion as to the warrants, the arguments and the benefits of the case that will be put before the people.

Mr Enderby:

– Why do you always oppose these things?

Mr PEACOCK:

– It is not a question of always opposing. You know that you are bound by a Caucus clique. You do not take your decisions here. You do not use this place as a persuasive body. Your decisions are taken outside. You must march in here and steamroll the decisions through. It makes no difference at all.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The House will come to order. I ask the honourable member for Kooyong to ignore interjections and I suggest that all interjections cease.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I will try not to strike any more raw nerves, if that is the case. This motion deals with an allotment of time. If the motion is adopted it will reduce the opportunity of members on this side of the House to seek, notwithstanding the forms with which honourable members opposite bind themselves, to persuade them to accept a different view. What other reason is there for legislation put before this Parliament? Why do we have a parliament in the first place? It is for people to participate in debate and try to persuade others to adopt viewpoints. Honourable members opposite do not want to hear any persuasive arguments. This Government allegedly wants to throw a question to the people. The Minister ignores the legislative stages that it must go through. He is debasing this chamber. He is delinquent in his duties. He has a complete disregard for the role of honourable members in a matter as important as this. This really epitomises the attitude he takes to parliamentary democracy. He would be just as happy to dispense with it. He wants to clothe yourself in more powers. He wants to eradicate the right to debate the issue of those who want to deny him those powers. He sits here with a predetermined approach, denying us the opportunity of putting a different viewpoint.

I will not be able to speak tonight; I will speak tomorrow. This motion seeks to restrict the Committee stage to from 5.00 to 5.15, and the time for the remaining stages of the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill to 5.30. How can we move any amendments in the Committee stage in that period of time? The effluxion of time is such that it will not ‘be possible even to do that. The Minister knows that he is denying the processes of the Parliament to honourable members. It is time that someone nailed him for that. It is time that he recognised that we ought to have an opportunity to put contrary views in this place prior to putting them out in the electorate and that he recognised that he is debasing the institution itself.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I think we have heard a very good stage performance by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). I suggest that had the honourable member been serious about his opposition to this guillotine he would have chosen to attack the proposed limitation of time for the second reading debates and not the allotment of time for the Committee stages of the Bills. He is as aware as I am-

Mr Jacobi:

– They gave us only one minute last year.

Mr Anthony:

– On a constitutional matter?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Interjections will cease. If they do not, I will take appropriate action irrespective of from which side of the House they come.

Mr SCHOLES:

– The honourable member is as aware as I am that these are one-clause Bills. I suppose one could” amend the title of the Bills, as one member of the Opposition attempted to do on a Bill, the other night but 1 would suggest that any amendment which will be moved to” this legislation by the Opposition will be a time wasting device because it has already taken a decision that it will oppose the Bills on the second and third readings.

Mr Nixon:

– Sit down.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order!The honourable member for Gippsland will be sitting outside in a minute. He will be sitting outside for a week on the next occasion.

Mr Nixon:

– It ought to be a week on this occasion.

Mr SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member will cease:

Mr SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member will cease interjecting.

Mr SCHOLES:

– The honourable member for Kooyong complains that only 15 minutes will be allowed for the Committee stages of the Bills. I point out to the honourable gentleman that when he was a member of the previous Government at a time when the numbers in this chamber were different, 5 minutes was given to a Bill. li the Opposition had accepted nearly an hour ago the time proposed to debate this legislation it would have meant that about 4 hours would be available and that for the 3 Bills there would have been 2 full days of debating time. I cannot remember longer debating periods being given to matters which I would have thought every member of this Parliament would support. I can well understand honourable members opposite wanting a lot of time to debate this legislation so that they can tell the people why they want to exclude local government from receiving Commonwealth funds, and why they want to maintain electoral gerrymanders which keep in office some of their colleagues in the States. I can understand why they want to tell the people why they should not be allowed equality of voting.

Mr Nixon:

– You tell them why they cannot debate it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will not issue any more warnings to the honourable member for Gippsland.

Mr SCHOLES:

– The situation, of course, is that honourable members opposite need a lot of time to tell the people why they require loadings of up to five to one in their favour in electorates.

Mr Sinclair:

– What has that got to do with this?

Mr SCHOLES:

– It may well be that honourable members opposite do not even know that these Bills cover State as well as Commonwealth electoral laws. If they do not know that then I find it very surprising that the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) is not aware that ‘five to one’ is a very conservative statement of the ratios between electorates in some of the States.

Mr Maisey:

– In Western Australia it was brought down by a Labor Premier.

Mr SCHOLES:

– Under an Act of Parliament which he has no power to alter because of the operations of a gerrymandered Upper House in his State. I am hopeful that in the time that is available for this debate honourable members will be able to tell us why the ratio between voters in Western Australia runs at 15.4 to one. Under an Act passed by a Liberal-Country Party Government for the Upper House in that State - a country dweller has 15 votes compared with one for a city person. That is not an unreasonable loading, according to the Country Party. The ratio is ten to one in the Lower House. No wonder the Country Party wants time to debate this legislation. Its members can talk for the rest of their lives but they will not explain this away.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– I do not think that anybody in this chamber could accuse me of rising simply to waste time or to regard this issue as simply an ancient form of party strife. It is a matter that I take with the utmost seriousness. First, I remind honourable members what Parliament is supposed to be and perhaps even once was.

The very derivation of the word ‘parliament’ is ‘parler’ meaning ‘to speak’, so that Parliament is a place where speeches are made, where discussion takes place and where argument is answered by argument. When one deprives Parliament of that function one kills Parliament. When the spirit is dead it is not long before the body begins to rot. This, I fear, is what is beginning to happen in this Parliament. I hope that it will be resuscitated before that stage is reached. I refer to one or two arguments which have been used, particularly by the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby). He said, in effect, that we are dealing with matters that are to be decided by the people in a referendum. Therefore, he implies, there is no need for these matters to be considered by this Parliament, because they will be decided by the people. The way in which the question is to be put to the people is of importance to all honourable members. It may be that in the course of this debate a suggestion is put forward that the form in which the question is proposed to be put to the people by the Government is not the best way that it should be put. That is the first point I wish to raise. There is a reason for the Parliament to debate this matter.

Secondly, and more importantly, the Parliament consists of the representatives of the people. When a referendum of this kind is to be put to the people surely the Parliament, of all places, is where there should be discussion on the issues to be raised in the referendum; that is, unless one takes the view that Parliament does not matter at all and that the views of the elected representatives of the people are of no consequence. If that view is taken, very well, let us not have any debate in Parliament.

Finally, in passing - by way of illustration - I refer to the Bill to alter the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to borrow money for and to grant financial assistance to local government bodies. It is a simple little matter affecting local government and one in which aldermen will be concerned. They may get a little more money to use in order to bribe their ratepayers. It is a simple little matter indeed! The cash nexus between the Commonwealth and the States, and between the Commonwealth and local government means that one can be starved and the other can be fed. Indeed, this Government is doing its best to starve the States to death. I emphasise that point. If the Government has that power to enable it to feed local government and to starve State governments we shall move to a constitution similar to the Constitution of the United Kingdom which provides for Westminster and county councils. Nothing is in between; there are no State governments. This would mean a complete and radical change in our Constitution in the course of time from a Federal Constitution to a unitary constitution with local government bodies, as is the case in the United Kingdom. To say that this is a trivial matter, that it does not require debate and that nothing said in this place will be noted by the people when they vote, is simply to misconceive the whole situation. I believe that this curtailment of debate is a suffocation and ultimately will be the murder of Parliament itself.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– The honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) earlier said that the guillotine had been used by the previous Government on 4 occasions only.

Mr Fox:

– On 4 occasions only in the life of the last Parliament.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– He forgot that one guillotine was used in respect of 17 Bills.

Mr Fox:

– I did not forget it. I said that.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I have here a copy of the Votes and Proceedings for the House of Representatives for 4 May 1971. It reads:

Allotment of time: Mr Swartz then moved - That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows:

Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1971-

  1. For the second reading, 1 hour;
  2. For the remaining stages, 1 hour. United States Naval Communications Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1971- For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes. Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill 1971 - For all stages of the Bill 5 minutes. Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Bill 1971 -

For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes. Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1971 - For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes. Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1971 -

  1. For the second reading, 1 hour;
  2. For the remaining stages, 30 minutes. Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1971- For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes. Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1971- For all stages of the Bill, 5 minutes. States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill 1971-
  3. For the second reading, 4 hours;
  4. For the remaining stages, 5 minutes.

The fact that 4 hours and 5 minutes were allotted for the debate on Rural Reconstruc tion, which is a most important issue, shows the influence of the Country Party on the previous Government. The next Bill to which I refer is the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill 1971.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. - Question put.

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 63

NOES: 50

Majority 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3319

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr FOX:
Henty

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim .to have been misrepresented?

Mir FOX - Yes. I was misrepresented on 2 occasions, by both the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) and the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage). They stated that, when I spoke a few minutes ago and referred to the number of occasions on which the previous Government used the guillotine during the life of the previous Parliament, 1 was not honest enough to say that on one occasion it involved 17 Bills. I did draw attention to the fact that 17 Bills were involved. The remark, coming in particular from the Leader of the House, comes very strangely, because he is the man who, on the occasion when the 17 Bills were guillotined said:

When a Party is a few numbers short, what can it do with an arrogant, overbearing Government which is perpetuating at this moment what we might term the rape of democracy?

Democracy has been raped in this Parliament today by the honourable gentleman and those who sit behind him.

page 3319

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November (vide page 3055), on motion by Mr Whitlam:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– When one picks up this Bill and reads the long title of it, one immediately understands the way in which the Labor Government is going about its business. It has deliberately chosen terms which are designed to mislead the electors. It has deliberately chosen terms which put the rosiest possible complexion on the proposal for the amendment of the Constitution. The title of the Bill states that it is a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections. That sounds very attractive to the person who reads it and says: “Yes, I would like to have them held together’. The Government has refused to give us adequate time in which to explain what lies behind this Bill, lt has refused to give us time in Committee to move amendments to this Bill, and particularly to move an amendment to the title, because it is the title that the elector will see when he goes to the ballot box to mark his ballot paper. It would have been more honest for the Government to have titled this Bill ‘a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to provide that the term of office of a senator shall be for 2 terms of the House of Representatives’, because that is what the Bill is designed to do.

The proposal contained in the long title is a fraud. A constitutional referendum is not needed to ensure simultaneous elections. All that is required is for the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and his Government to have the courage to have a House of Representatives election. All they need is the courage to go to the people. There must be an election for half the Senate in the first half of next year. Let the Government have a House of Representatives election at that time, and then there will be simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. There is absolutely no need for a referendum to achieve that purpose. Therefore, in view of the way I correctly described the long title, the long title which will be put to the Australian people on the ballot paper is a fraud.

We will have 15 minutes for the Committee stage. In the Committee stage we will move an amendment. We will not even have the opportunity to explain our case. The 15 minutes for the Committee stage will include the time taken in division. In fact, there are 5 clauses to the Bill. The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) - he is now in the chair as the Deputy Speaker - who fancies himself as pushing the present Speaker out of that position on his performance -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER .(Mr Scholes)Order! The Leader of the Opposition may make any point he wishes in debate, but I suggest, that he not detract from the dignity of this House by making the type of allegation he just made against the occupant of the chair, whoever he happens to be. I suggest that he should apologise to the House for the remarks he made about the Chair.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, you chose to participate in this debate and you -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have not participated in this debate. I ask the honourable gentleman to apologise to the House for the remarks he made about the Chair.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not make remarks about the Chair; I made remarks about the honourable member for Corio.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I suggest to the honourable gentleman that he referred to ‘the Deputy Speaker who is now in the chair and who seeks to push the Speaker out of the chair’. I ask the honourable gentleman to apologise for those remarks. They were not about the honourable member for Corio.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, in deference to the continuance of this debate, I apologise and in those terms.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to apologise unreservedly.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I beg your pardon.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman to apologise unreservedly.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– You wish me to apologise to you?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– No, to the House.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I apologise to the Chair. Mr Deputy Speaker, the long title of the Bill ought to be changed. We will not have the opportunity to pursue our amendment to it.

This Bill purports to require an amendment of the Constitution in order to have simultaneous elections. That is rubbish. It is just not true. As I said before, it needs only a decision by the Executive, the Government or the Prune Minister to have a House of Representatives election with the Senate election, and there will be simultaneous elections. If the Government is worried about the people of Australia having to vote at elections too frequently, it has the cure in its own hands. Why will it not take it? The honourable member for Corio - you, Mr Deputy Speaker - speaking on a procedural motion a moment ago, said that this was a one clause Bill. There are 5 clauses in this Bill - not only 5 clauses, but a very significant and terribly important long title of the Bill. For this deabte we are to have a minimum of time and no opportunity to examine the clauses.

The simple fact is that, by the Constitution, the Senate has been given a position of power. It was given that power by those who founded the Constitution. It was debated at length and it was decided that the Senate should possess powers which are contained in section 53 of the Constitution. It makes the Senate a powerful House. It has had that power all its existence. If the Government wants to change the power of the Senate, why does it not do so directly? Why does it not change section 53 instead of trying to achieve a run down of the Senate by this rather murky method. As the Prime Minister said in his second reading speech, the major reason for this proposal is that there can be an occasion on which the government will have a majority in this House and a majority in the Senate. That is what the Government wants. That is its purpose. If that is what the Government wants, this is not the way to go about it. If the Government wants the power of the Senate to be reduced let it go “to section 53 and take away from the Senate the power to introduce any Bill or the power to disallow or reject any money Bill. The only power the Senate does not have is to amend or originate a money bill. If that is what the Government wants, let it be clear, open and frank about the matter. I have heard so much nonsense about open government but I have seen the prostitution of that concept by this Government in its short term of office and I know that the Government is fundamentally incapable of being plain, direct and honest, which is what it ought to be when dealing with the Constitution of this country.

In speaking to this Bill, the Prime Minister made a few points which should be mentioned. He said:

I do fundamentally question the present out of phase state of our electoral process, requiring us to conduct in each 3 -year period one House of Representatives election and one separate Senate election.

He knows that is not the case. There is no constitutional requirement for elections to remain out of phase. Why does he come into this House and put limitations on the opportunity for honourable members to debate? Is it so that he can make these half-truth statements and not have them contradicted? One can be led only to that conclusion. Giving his reasons for the constitutional amendment, he said:

Most of all, there is the benefit to the Parliament - the reflection in both Houses simultaneously of the people’s will so that the Government and the Parliament may get on with the job.

The Opposition does not think that getting on with the job means guillotining these important measures. That statement discloses that what the Prime Minister really wants is a majority in the Senate and in the House of Representatives at the same time. Possessed of that power - a majority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate - there is no reason whatever why the Government cannot introduce and pass legislation which would return the Senate from its present proportional representation system to some form of election which would lead to the ludicrous position which it had in its earlier life when, at one stage, there were 2 Opposition senators to 34 Government senators and when, from 1946 to 1949, there were 3 Opposition senators to 33 Government senators. Is that the sort of proposal the Prime Minister wants? We know that the platform of the Australian Labor Party is for the abolition of the Senate. There is every reason to suspect that the real purpose of this Bill is to deprive the Senate, by a backhanded method, of the power which it possesses.

The further reason that the Prime Minister gave was that it was an election commitment of the Australian Labor Party. If it was an election commitment we are entitled to look at the entire platform. In the entire platform we will find that the Labor Party is committed to socialisation of this country, centralisation of power in Canberra and abolition of the Senate. For democrats in Australia that prospect is frightening to the extreme. Can one imagine a left-wing junta of this kind in total control, with no counterbalancing force of State governments and no counter balancing force of the Senate? We would become the greatest centralised power continent in the world. Do not forget that we are a big continent. We are very widespread geographically. We have States. In the future we will be, a country with many millions of population. Within the lifetime of most honourable members here the population of Australia will exceed 25 million and in the lifetime of the youngest honourable member here it is likely to approach 50 million. Do we want Australia in the future to be centralised in this fashion? Of course not.

There was another curious litle part of the Prime Minister’s speech in which he said that another reason for the legislation is that it takes up the unanimous recommendation, dating as far back as 1958, of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Review’. That is not a half falsehood; that is a complete falsehood. It was not a unanimous recommendation. Senator Wright, who is still a member of the Senate, put in a dissenting report. He made it perfectly clear that ‘a 6- year term of the Senator is one of the strengths from which he derives his independence. Continuity of the Senate is regarded as a strength’. He went on to say:

There are, in my view, real objections to the provision that every time the House of Representatives precipitates an election one-half the Senate should go up for election too. Such elections of the House of Representatives may emanate from internal personal differences, alterations of party allegiances, or miserable party manoeuvres.

Further, the growing constitutional development of the right of Heads of Government to secure a dissolution of the popular House upon request, in my opinion, makes it imperative that the Prime Minister should not have the power to treat the States’ House as an appendage of the Popular House and take one-half of the Senate to election at the will of the Executive Government.

The final sentence of his dissenting report is this:

The Senate would be better abolished than exist as an echo of the Federal Executive Government.

This point was picked up by Mr Odgers, the present Clerk of the Senate, in his very distinguished book entitled ‘Australian Senate Practice’ in which he says:

Having in mind the considerations which constrained the States, particularly the less populated States, to demand as the price of federation an Upper House with powers to exercise independent judgment in order to protect the interests of the States, it is inconceivable that those same States would agree to weaken the Senate by destroying its independence.

The Senate is often referred to as a States’ House. Many people deny that it is a States’ House and say that it is a Party House. It is true enough that it is a Party House, but that does not deprive it of the character of being a States’ House because it so happens that the smaller States all have 10 senators.

Tasmania with 10 senators has only 5 members of the House of Representatives and probably would have only four if it were not for the special provision giving it a minimum of five. New South Wales also has 10 senators but 46 members of the House of Representatives. The whole basis of the compact of Federation was to allow the States, no matter how small, to exercise their voice through the Senate where the size of the States makes no difference to the number of senators. This is very important. The States have a right to look to the Senate and to know what the powers of the Senate are so that they can have the opportunity to press their views through the Senate - through the States’ House.

The truth is that these 3 referendum proposals have been put together by the Government for the specific purpose of trying to confuse the issue at the next Senate election. The Government knows that at the present time it has no possibility of winning the next Senate election. It knows that it cannot convert the next Senate election into a majority for the Labor Government in the Senate. Because the Government knows that it is going to poll badly on that issue it wants to try to put forward some, what might be called, populist causes to confuse the issue. In putting forward the populist causes it is quite willing to put the questions on them in terms that I have described before as quite fraudulent. The long title of this Bill is not what the Bill seeks to do. This populist way of doing things is being followed so that people going to the Senate election will be, it is hoped by the Government, led to vote for the Australian Labor Party in the Senate election because they are supporting the referendum proposal which they have before them at the same time. But we will do all we can to make sure that the people of Australia fully understand the clauses of the Bill, the nature of the Bill and what it is all about.

It is interesting to recall to mind statements made by the Prime Minister just the other night when he was delivering a lecture; I have forgotten which lecture it was. On that occasion he repeated words that he had used earlier. He said that a government can live with a Constitution no matter what are the terms of the Constitution. He went on to say that the Constitution is not an alibi for a government’s not pursuing the course it wishes to pursue. That is true in this respect. It is no alibi for the Government to bring on this referendum when it has the clear power in its own hands to bring about simultaneous elections as from next year.

This proposal - that which is called the simultaneous elections proposal - should be rejected on 2 grounds: firstly, because it is unnecessary; and secondly, because its adoption would be dangerous in constitutional and democratic terms. It is unnecessary because if the present situation is unsatisfactory it can be cured by a House of Representatives dissolution at the time of the next Senate election. Threats of a double dissolution have been made by the Government, by the Prime Minister and by his Ministers. This constitutional amendment process is unnecessary because the power is in the hands of the Government. It is also unnecessary because if it is sought to discipline a hostile Senate a double dissolution should be held. Section 57 of the Constitution specifically provides for it.

We have had threats of a double dissolution if we do not pass legislation. There have been 2 outstanding examples of that. One was in relation to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. We were threatened with dire peril if we did not pass it. What in fact happened? The Government accepted the Opposition’s amendment. The other was in relation to the Commonwealth Electoral Bill. We were told that if we did not pass it we would be in dire peril and that a double dissolution would be forced upon us. The capacity for a double dissolution on that ground probably has now totally evaporated, simply because the Prime Minister failed to take advantage of the opportunity he had of asking for a double dissolution when it was rejected for a second time by the Senate. He has continually failed to do so since. The probability is that in constitutional terms that opportunity has now slipped from his grasp. The Prime Minister is glad it has slipped from his grasp. He would not want to argue that he had the right.

This proposal is dangerous because it will mean that the independence of the Senate and therefore its ability to play its proper role in a 2-chamber system will be impaired. In our democracy the Senate has been designed not to be a replica or a rubber stamp of the House of Representatives. To tie the Senate to the House of Representatives in the manner proposed by the Bill will tend to make it such a replica and therefore weaken its independence. If that is intended it should be put to the people directly by way of an amendment to section 53 of the Constitution and not in the fashion of this proposal, which seeks to take advantage of a temporary situation that it is in the Government’s hands to cure and to argue that because of the temporary situation there ought to be a permanent change. It is dangerous because in weakening the independence of the Senate and reducing its effectiveness it would tend to make the Senate redundant. That would have an immense effect on the smaller States, as I have already pointed out.

It is part of the Australian Labor Party’s policy, as contained in its platform, to abolish the Senate. This proposal is part of the strategy to achieve that objective. It is dangerous because the Upper House should not be dragged along behind the popular House. House of Representatives elections have had to be held frequently in the past to overcome internal problems. I instance what occurred in 1928, 1929 and 1931. Should there be a Senate election on each occasion when, for party political reasons and domestic internal matters, an election for the House of Representatives is forced? The Senate should not have to be submitted to an election at the same time. The proposal is dangerous because the Senate is a check on the authoritarianism of government. The Senate is the watchdog of government. The Senate is a protector - as it has proved on numerous occasions - of the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens. To weaken and to destroy the Senate is to impair this vital role. If the Government sees the Senate as a frustration, as an annoyance or as an inconvenience, this is part of the price we pay for democracy. Democracy is worth it.

I have been told that the Australian people have voting fatigue. I know that people do not like to have to go along frequently to vote and that, more particularly, the Party supporters do not like to have to go along frequently and put things in letter boxes, hand out how to vote cards and so on. But I believe that we are deceiving ourselves if we think that because of voting fatigue the Australian people will surrender any part of the democratic tradition of this country. They do not wish to surrender any part of that democratic status.

Mr Cohen:

– Why do you not give them a chance to decide?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– If a Senate is regarded as being excessively frustrating, the matter can be resolved by the double dissolution provision. What is the difference between an election for the House of Representatives and the whole of the Senate and an election for the House of Representatives and half of the Senate? The double dissolution would serve a purpose which is clear and understandable, but an election for half the Senate every time there is a House of Representatives election would have no real purpose other than to ensure a majority for the Government in both Houses.

If that is the real purpose, it should have been explained to the House and to the people explicitly, plainly and honestly. This Bill quite clearly ought to be opposed. I heard a canary call earlier: ‘Why do you not let the people decide?*

Mr Fox:

– A galah, not a canary.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I thank the honourable member for Henty for the correction. It is perfectly clear that the public relations machine of the Labor Party, which distorts everything, would represent any action on our part not to oppose such a proposal as being soft on it. We do oppose it. We will oppose it from this moment on. We will continue to oppose it right through to polling day. I believe that we will win; that is, that the referendum proposal will be defeated. I believe that it is the interests of the Australian people that we do win. All I ask of the Australian people is that they ignore the inanities of the kind we have heard today. I also ask that there be honesty by the Government in its presentation of the true purposes of this referendum proposal. The Opposition will play its part in making sure that it presents only what it believes to be a fundamental principle. If the people wish to change the present position, so be it; we will accept their decision. But we will do everything in our power to explain to the people why they should not choose to change the Constitution in this way.

I give notice that in the Committee stage of the debate on this Bill I will be moving an amendment that seeks to change the long title of the Bill. I ask those who are in control of the legislation for the Government to give further consideration to whether they think the long title of the Bill honestly puts its purpose. The way it ought to be put, quite clearly, is that it seeks to achieve the purpose provided for in clause 4, which seeks to insert new sections 12 and 13 in the Constitution that would give each senator a term of office which is 2 terms of the House of Representatives. That would be a much fairer way to present the question.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– Rarely has the House heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) to worse advantage. The man aspiring to be Prime Minister of this country has argued today against letting the people have a chance to decide what their legislation shall be. This legislation is not to implement anything. It is to give the Australian people the chance to decide what shall be the laws of this country. Very graciously, after an apologetic speech, the Leader of the Opposition said that if the people wanted this, he would accept it. Is he not good and decent? But he will not let the people decide whether they want it and that is the fundamental purpose of this legislation. Those honourable members directly opposite, representing much less than 50 per cent of the Australian electorate, and those who sit in the corner of the House, representing less than 10 per cent of the electorate, now have decided that they, the minority parties in this country, will not let the Australian people have even a vote on a measure of such great importance to them. Honourable members opposite are telling the people that they are the ones who will be the be-all and decide-all in connection with this legislation.

The Leader of the Opposition said: ‘You may have a double dissolution’. I warn honourable members opposite that they should be careful. Their requests might be granted in due course, much to their annoyance and political dismay. However, even if their request is granted, that will solve the problem for only one occasion. It would be a short term solution. But what about the future?

This legislation lays down a pattern for the Australian people, giving them the opportunity to decide to bring together the elections for both parliaments for the lifetime of this nation. In case, honourable members opposite need bringing up to date, I remind them that my information is that the Liberal Party in Victoria changed the law in that State to bring together elections for the Legislative Council and the Legislative. Assembly. So, the Liberals in this House are arguing one way and the Liberals in the Leader of the Opposition’s own State are deciding on something that is supposedly different. Consequently, we have those people opposite who call themselves democrats telling the Australian people that they do not even trust them to vote on the measure. We will put a fair case from this side of the House to the Australian people and, if this is to be the case, the Leader of the Opposition can put the negative case. But in that case, will he include the fact that he spoke and voted in this Parliament to stop the people from even having a say in the making of their laws?

This Bill provides for an alteration of the Constitution so that elections for the House of Representatives and for the Senate are held at the same time. That is what we are asking the Australian public to decide on - not the Government. not the Opposition, but the people who sent us here. Consequently we believe that the present system whereby the Senate and House of Representatives elections must be held separately is costly, unsatisfactory and inconvenient and it is time the system was changed. For the convenience of honourable members, let me firstly give a little background to the occasions when the Senate and House of Representatives elections have not synchronised. This first happened in 1929 when the Bruce-Page Government was defeated in the House of Representatives after only 10 months of office on an amendment to the Maritime Industries Bill moved by W. M. Hughes. The House of Representatives was dissolved on 16 September 1929 and an election for that House only was held on 12 October. The next Senate elections were not due until 1931.

The Senate and the House of Representatives elections were brought together again with the elections of 19 December 1931. Joint elections continued up to and including the elections of 10 December 1949. Then followed the Senate’s ‘failure to pass’ within the terms of the Constitution the second Commonwealth Bank Bill and the Governor-General on the advice of Prime Minister R. G. Menzies granted on 19 March 1951 a simultaneous dissolution of both Houses of Parliament.

The consequential elections were held on 28 April 1951 and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the terms of the newly elected senators were taken to have begun on 1 July 1950. The back-dating of the term of service necessitated further Senate elections before 30 June 1953 whereas the newly elected members of the House of Representatives began their 3-year term from the date of the election - that is as from 28 April 1951.

The next general election for the Senate was held on 9 May 1953, and the next general election of members of the House of Representatives was not held until 29 May 1954. The Senate and House of Representatives elections were brought together again al the elections of 10 December 1955.

However, the elections of 9 December 1961 left the Government with a majority of only one in the House after the election of a Speaker. This situation caused the Government to seek a dissolution of the House of

Representatives after only 2 years of office and a further election was held on 30 November 1963, once more resulting in the Senate and House of Representatives elections being held at different times. Senate elections followed in 1964, 1967 and 1970 and elections for the House of Representatives were held in 1966, 1969 and 1972. This ‘out-of -phase situation’ has been maintained because while the House of Representatives may be dissolved at any time, the Senate dissolves only on the occasion of a double dissolution.

As the holding of general elections for the Senate is tied by the Constitution to the 12 months period immediately preceding the expiration of the term of service of the retiring senators, the bringing together of the elections for the 2 Houses can be achieved only by a dissolution of the House of Representatives before its full term, except by altering the Constitution as proposed by this Bill.

The 1959 report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Review noted that the existence of fixed senatorial terms had increased the number of elections and that the number of occasions on which there would have been separate elections for senators and members of the House of Representatives would have been greater unless the House of Representatives had been dissolved before the expiration of its full term. On that Committee at that time were many members of this House, amongst them members of the Australian Country Party and others.

The present Bill follows generally the lines of the proposals of the 1959 Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Review. It honours an election commitment made by the Australian Labor Party and it takes up the proposal of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to the Constitutional Convention held recently in Sydney. The vital provision in this Bill is for a new section 13 of the Constitution. Under the new section. The term of service of a senator expires upon the expiry or dissolution of the second House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after he was chosen or if there is an earlier dissolution of the Senate, upon that dissolution’. In general, Senators will have a term of service equal to 2 terms of the House of Representatives rather than a fixed term of 6 years, thus making it possible for elections for both houses to be held simultaneously.

The Bill includes provisions covering a double dissolution situation as well as the position of senators elected under the present arrangements. Senators elected after a double dissolution will be divided by the Senate into 2 classes. The terms of one class being equal to 2 House of Representatives terms and for the other class, one House of Representatives term. In one case, the Senators whose terms began in July 1971 will continue in office until the second House of Representatives elections after the constitutional alteration comes into force; that is, 19.8, unless there is a double dissolution or an early House of Representatives election. In the other case, Senators whose terms commence in July 1974 will in normal circumstances, serve until 1981. These provisions will ensure that in no case the term of a senator will be less than that for which he was chosen.

These proposals simply provide for simultaneous elections for both Houses - nothing more and nothing less - and they provide that we ask the people, not the Parliament, to decide. It must be stressed that they are not intended to change the basic character of the Senate as the second chamber in our parliamentary system. Senators will still enjoy a term twice that of members of the House of Representatives. The principle of continuous existence, commonly found in countries where upper Houses still exist, will be maintained by the rotation of senators. Half the Senate will be elected at the time of each election for the House of Representatives.

The arguments in support of simultaneous elections are clear and simple. Our present system requires the elector to cast his vote on an excessive number of occasions. Since 1950. electors have been called upon to vote in 9 Senate elections, 8 House of Representatives elections and 2 referendums, excluding State and local government elections. Of the 9 Senate elections, four were held separately. Another Senate election must be held before 30 June 1974. Fewer national elections would simplify and sharpen the political process. Voters would know the choice before them - the election of a government - and could be more confident that the government so elected could effectively carry out its mandate, while political parties would be able better to plan their campaigns and formulate policies for government.

Were these the only arguments in favour of. simultaneous elections for both Houses, in my view they would be judged to be more than sufficient. But there are many more. The detrimental effects of separate elections on the workings of Parliament and good government provide the most compelling arguments in support of simultaneous elections. The Joint Committee on Constitutional Review of 1959 said, at page 36 of its report:

Separate elections tend to emphasise the component parts of the Parliament at the expense of Parliament itself.

With simultaneous elections, the party returned with a majority of seats in the House of Representatives usually obtains the majority of the Senate vacancies in dispute at that time. The election is a statement of which party the people wish to entrust with the reins of government, the party from which they want leadership. The popular will at that time will be reflected in both Houses of Parliament. Separate elections do not, in practice, affect the formation of governments, but often they lead to situations where the government in the lower House the duly elected government at that time is frustrated by an oppositionheld senate. Notable examples can be found in Australian political history. In some cases, a government may be frustrated by an earlier elected Senate. A Senate no longer representative of the popular will of the electorate, as is exemplified in another place at this time. The Joint Committee stated, again at page 36:

It is not conducive to sound government that the future of a recently elected government should depend upon eventualities of elections for senators which take place during the normal life of the House of Representatives.

In a democracy such as ours, financial considerations should not be the determining factors in important decisions about the electoral process. But when additional expenditure is both unnecessary and detrimental, as in the case of separate elections, financial considerations are very relevant. There can be no doubt that the holding of simultaneous elections would represent a substantial saving to the public purse. I shall give a few examples. The elections for the Senate in 1953 and the House of Representatives in 1954 cost the taxpayers $489,491 and $479,051 respectively a total of $968,542. In 1955, the simultaneous election for both Houses cost $600,912. The 1961 simultaneous election cost $866,439. Two years later, the House of Representatives elections, plus one Senate seat for Queensland, cost $942,497.I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) about this a few moments ago. It will be of interest to honourable members. I have here figures showing the cost of elections from 1961 to 1973 and the esti mated cost of possible future elections if held during 1974. The figures have been compiled by the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr Frank Ley. I seek leave of the House to have them incorporated in Hansard.

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

Mr DALY:

– I thank the House. The financial benefits of simultaneous elections can readily be seen from these figures. The cost of a simultaneous election is only a little greater than the cost of a single election for either House. Put another way, the cost of a combined election is approximately 55 per cent of the total cost of 2 separate elections.

These changes are long overdue. Separate elections are inconvenient, time consuming and expensive for the voter, for the State and for political parties. But their greatest disadvantage is the uncertainty and inhibition of decision making which can result when the 2 Houses of Parliament are politically out of step. In an era when decisive leadership is of paramount importance, we cannot allow the anachronism of separate elections for Parliament’s 2 Houses to continue. This legislation seeks to give the people the opportunity to decide whether they approve of these proposals. I stress that. The people are entitled to this opportunity, and it is their right to expect the Parliament to give it to them. We on this side of the Parliament believe in democracy. We believe also that, if approved, the proposals will represent a great step forward in the democratic process, with consequent benefit to the Parliament, the people and Australia. I hope that they will be carried when presented to the Australian people.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– It is my hope and expectation that the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) must stand in contemplation of disappointment, for I am sure that when this proposal is understood by the people it will be rejected. The honourable gentleman this afternoon has sought to encourage the House to accept one simple proposition, which is that this Bill is a simple measure merely calling for the simultaneous .election of both Houses of the Parliament. ‘Why’, said the honourable gentleman, with his magnificent sense of exuberance, ‘are you opposed to it? Why not let the people decide? Why not let them adjudicate on the merits of this issue?’ I do not contest that in the least; nor did the founders of our Constitution contest it. Under section 128 of the Constitution, if either House of the Parliament passes a Bill for a referendum and the other House refuses to pass it, the Governor-General, upon the expiration of 3 months, may - the operative word is ‘may’ - submit it to the electors. The fact that that provision is in the Constitution argues 2 things, I submit. Firstly, it argues that both Houses of the Parliament are under the plainest duty to turn, with a measure of honest scrutiny, to a proposal for a referendum that comes before them. Otherwise why put it in the Constitution? If the Minister cares to read the Convention debates dealing with this matter - that is an exercise that would enlighten him and make our life much more tolerable - he will find that what I am putting is quite true.

The second proposition I put to the honourable gentleman is that there can be no suggestion of holding back a measure from the adjudication of the electorate, provided it has passed one House of the Parliament. According to the honourable gentleman’s argument as he has trotted it out this afternoon, all we have to do is to put up our hands and say that we are all for letting the people decide, without attempting to exert ourselves in the least, either physically or intellectually, to find out what it is all about. ‘Trust the people’, says the Minister. Let me repeat it so that the words will sink into his sponge-like existence: Trust the people’. I invite the honourable gentleman to trust the people. He belongs to a party that subscribes to the abolition of the Senate.

Why does not he submit that proposal to the people? Here is a glorious opportunity to do so: we have a Bill already drafted before us. Will the honourable gentleman accept an amendment to provide for the deletion of all those provisions in the Constitution relating to the Senate?

Mr Hurford:

– Will you move it?

Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable member for Adelaide happens to believe in the uni-camera] system. I do not That is one of the distinguishing features between the two of us. It is one of the reasons why this afternoon I ask the Minister, who, with boisterous exuberance, has invited us to trust the people, why he does not take the opportunity when it is presented to him. The honourable member for Adelaide has an assessment of his own level of intelligence that is in inverse proportion to what his level of intelligence is. Today the Minister for Services and Property is saying to the Opposition: ‘Why don’t you trust the people?’ I say to the Minister: “Why don’t you trust the people and ask them to give their views on whether the Senate should be retained?’ Listening further to the argument put forward by the Minister, one would think that for the last 30 or 40 years this country had been in a state of tumult, with a multiplicity of elections.

I did not hear the speech of the Prime Minister - no discourtesy meant on my part - but I have read it with close attention and I am bound to say to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Services and Property that I have a very considerable degree of sympathy with the arguments advanced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam).

What were the arguments? He said that elections were too frequent. I do not contest that proposition in the least. I think that it is a simple, uncluttered statement of fact. Further, he said that elections are too costly. Again, I do not contest that. The Minister for Services and Property this afternoon has put into Hansard for us all to read the approximate cost of holding elections in present times. The Prime Minister further said that frequent elections make the working of Parliament difficult. Further - this is a gloss on the other argument he put - it is to the detriment of the public purse to have frequent elections. Not one of those propositions would I find myself in any measure of disagreement with whatsoever. But what does the Government propose to do in an attempt to cure all that is involved here? It seeks to amend the Constitution.

The Minister could solve this problem in a matter of a few months. He has said that we might be facing a double dissolution sooner than we think. I think that he is the one who should tremble because he will have to find out that the trams of Sydney are still a little on the hard side. If he has to go back to cabs he will find that they are probably a little uncomfortable for his liking. Why does the honourable gentleman not say here: ‘In the next few months we can take the House of Representatives to the people with the Senate.’ Why not? In 1963 Sir Robert Menzies asked the then Governor-General to dissolve the House of Representatives and we went to the people. There was no inhibition there. What is wrong with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Services and Property - that well known supporter of the gubernatorial establishment - going out to the Governor-General and saying: We want you to dissolve the House of Representatives’?

The Government has a thundering good reason for a dissolution. We want to bring together the elections of both Houses of the Parliament to cut out the need to have elections at odd times. It would be possible to avoid the frequency of elections and the additional cost that the Prime Minister spoke about - the detriment to the public purse. The Government would be able to ensure a smoother working of the Parliament. What is wrong with my honourable friend the Minister for Services and Property? Why this shyness? Why this taciturnity? It is unlike him. I suggest that the honourable gentleman must be under some severe form of pressure. We have not heard from him on these points. He has a passionate attachment for doing things in simple fashion. Here is a remarkably simple way of solving the problem. The Government would be able to avoid holding a referendum. The Minister should think of the cost that could be saved. The honourable gentleman would be able to say to his colleagues and to the rest of the country: ‘A great brainstorm hit me.’ That would be a remarkable event. However, we could all look at the consequences with amusement. He could say: T have been able to find a way of saving money. I suggest that instead of holding a referendum to provide for both Houses to be elected together, we simply go out to the Governor-General and invite him to allow us to have the elections of the House of Representatives with the Senate elections.’

My honourable friend is not as unreasonable as he tries to make out. There are occasions when there are displays of reason by the honourable gentleman. I indicate to him now that when he comes to have dinner with me tomorrow night, on his performance to-day, he will need to bring a food taster with him. What is wrong with adopting the proposal I suggest? There is not one of the elements of argument put by the Prime Minister that could not be met in the simple fashion that I have put forward. But what would be the overall effect if this Bill for a referendum were to be passed and the matter were put to the people and carried? It would make the Senate, in a very real sense, the potential victim of the political distemper of this chamber. Having regard to some of the displays of distemper that I have seen opposite, that would put the country in very substantial jeopardy.

Let me illustrate the point. I put it by way of hypothesis, not by way of insult, intended or otherwise. Assume that the Prime Minister finds himself beseiged by the supporters of the Federal President of die Australian Council of Trade Unions and there is a significant shearing away of support for him in his government. In the course of the next 2 or 3 months this may be the likelihood. It may not be as unreal as one would imagine. It would mean under this proposal that if this House had to be dissolved the Senate would have to be dissolved. So the caprice of political behaviour in this chamber would be the determining factor for the Senate. For very sound reasons the provisions relating to a double dissolution were put in the Australian Constitution. Section 57 was put there only after the most elaborate and exhaustive debate. This was part of the compact of Federation to ensure that if there were disagreements between the 2 Houses there would be a set way of providing for those disagreements to be resolved.

Speaking for myself, I have no objection whatsoever to the Senate’s rejecting as many Bills as it wishes, save one notable exception - a supply or appropriation Bill. I make that exception for technical reasons. The will of the people could be frustrated if the situation were otherwise. But in this instance, for example, a Bill relating to the provisions of conciliation and arbitration or a Bill relating to the Electoral Act or any other Bill could be rejected by the Senate. Then the mechanisms of the Constitution could be brought into play. If we try to do it otherwise it must significantly disadvantage some of the provisions of the Constitution. That is the main reason, that I oppose this Bill in this House and would oppose the Government’s proposals in the country if a referendum were held. This Bill, if it and the subsequent referendum proposals were carried, would largely suffocate the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution - not merely trench upon it but suffocate it. It would mean that every time there was a political disturbance in this House which forced the Leader of the Government of the day to hand in his commission or, rather more pointedly, to go to the Governor-General and say ‘I ask you to dissolve the House of Representatives’ the effect of that would simply be that half of the Senate would have to stand for election again for no reason at all other than a political disturbance which had taken place in this chamber.

In the Constitution, the provisions relating to dissolution of the Senate are quite clear, It refers to the dissolution of the Senate; not of part of the Senate. The whole of the history of the provisions relating to the dissolution of the Senate hinge on the fact that if Bills are rejected twice by the Senate and it appears that the will of the majority of the people - the popular will - is in any way being frustrated, the Constitution enables those provisions to start to move and it enables the country to be kept in a measure of stability. Surely it is one of the aims of government to have stability; not some dull, mould-like stability, but stability in government to ensure that the whole parliamentary process is enabled to work safely. What is being proposed by the Labor Government today is a significant attempt to undermine the Constitution not for the sake of convenience - if mere convenience were the argument here we could meet it rapidly in 3 or 4 months’ time - but to undermine the Constitution in a way which, frankly, I do not think the Government quite comprehends. If convenience were at stake I am sure that the Minister would respond to the suggestion I made to him.

I notice him smile with the utmost affection as I say that. But as he reflects on the suggestion he may ascribe to that view.

Let me put it this way to the Minister. If the referendum were to be carried, say in May next year, it would not be until the next elections were held for the House of Repre sentatives that the Government would be able to pull out half the Senate. So, half the Senate today would be brought out in another 18 months or 2 years following upon the Senate election in May. I ask the Minister to look closely at that proposal. If he does, he will see the incredibly stupid position into which he has launched the Government.

Mr McKENZIE:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– It is important in debates such as this that at least we attempt to answer some of the arguments that are put up by honourable members on the other side of the House. I have pleasure on this occasion in doing my best to demolish all the arguments of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) who, I think, has not really fully substantiated his case. I do not believe that if this Bill is carried, and the question is put to the people at a referendum and agreed to by them, it will result in the Constitution’s being undermined. Rather, the Constitution will be strengthened, for capricious government, which can be brought about by a Senate’s rejecting legislation that has been passed by an elected House of Representatives, can have the effect of lowering the respect in which the public holds the Parliament and the legislative process.

The honourable member for Moreton said that if the provisions of this Bill are understood the people will reject the question when it is put to them at a referendum. I hold the contrary view. Section 128 of the Constitution, which was quoted by the honourable member for Moreton, lays down the ways in which the Constitution of this country can be changed. I see nothing in that section that would lead me to believe that the process we are now undertaking in putting this Bill before the House, and subsequently putting a question to the people at referendum, is at variance with the spirit of that section. Why not let the people decide? The honourable member for Moreton says that the matter ought to be discussed in this Parliament. We are discussing it here and it will be discussed in another place. I have no doubt that it will be rejected in the Senate. Then, according to the provisions of section 128, the Bill will come back to us, and if we pass it again, the Governor-General may decide to put it to the people. Of course, the difference in practice, as the honourable member for Moreton well knows, is that generally speaking the Governor-General accepts the advice of a government. He is not bound to do so, but usually he would, whereas he would not accept the advice of an Opposition. Therefore, in theory, although the Senate can twice refuse to pass a Bill for a referendum, it does not occur that way.

The honourable member for Moreton indicated also that he was in’ favour of a bicameral legislature. I must admit that there are occasions when a bicarmeral legislature can be an advantage, but I believe also that there are other and better ways of going about the legislative process, and I would suggest that one way in which legislation could be much better considered would be by this House of Representatives setting up a system of standing committees along the lines of those established by the House of Commons in Britain. I feel that if the Senate has had any advantage to this Parliament and to the country in the past few years, it has been in its experiments and innovations with the committee system. I believe that that practice ought to be followed by this House regardless of whether the Senate ultimately is dissolved as a separate House.

Of course, in Queensland, the home State of the honourable member for Moreton, there is a unicameral House. I think it is the only State of the Commonwealth where such a system applies. No matter how many Government supporters might disagree with some of the actions taken by the Queensland Government, I think no one would seriously suggest that in Queensland compared with the other States of the Commonwealth, the ordinary processes of government have been seriously affected. I do not know whether the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) is in favour of a presidential system. I do not think he indicated in his speech that he was. However, apart from any unicameral House of Parliament in Australia, our sister country of New Zealand has only one House, and I do not hear people suggesting that in that country the ordinary processes of law, the ordinary legislative processes, are being overrun in any way.

One of the points made in the debate by both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and the honourable member for Moreton related to the question whether we should have a double dissolution to get over the problem of a Senate’s objecting to legislation and rejecting it. Of course, this would be only a transitory settlement of the problem, for the same difficulty could arise again and again, as we have heard in regard to what happened in 1929, 1951, 1963, and so on. So, this problem will arise again and again, one would imagine, unless we resolve it by changing the Constitution. To say that this will get over all the problems is not really a valid answer to the arguments that have been put up for bringing the elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate into conjunction. As far as section 57 of the Constitution is concerned, of course the other provisions regarding a double dissolution will apply. Therefore, it will still be possible to have a double dissolution regardless of whether the question proposed to be put at the referendum that will be conducted if this Bill is passed is carried and an alteration made to the Constitution.

The Leader of the Opposition made great play on going to a double dissolution. I ask honourable members to recall what happened between 1963 and 1972. In that period the Senate and the House of Representatives’ elections were not in conjunction and yet at no time did the government of the day decide to go to the people to bring them into line so that money would be saved. The result was that in that period elections cost the Australian people say another $7m because the Senate and House of Representatives elections were not held in conjunction. That situation was allowed to continue. Why did not the government of the day last year - say around April or May - have a double dissolution? If it had decided to have one, we know what would have happened. I venture to suggest that the majority of the present Government would not have been nine, but closer to ninetynine. Of course the Government did not have to go to the people at that time and it chose not to do so. In fact, the election was held as late as possible, but we all know that it did not save the former Government.

I do not see how anyone can agree with the proposition that by carrying this Bill and by subsequently putting a question to the people at a referendum we would be depriving the Senate of its power. The Senate has the power at any time to reject legislation, provided that the number of senators who are in favour of such rejection vote that way. That situation will continue. What happens in other countries that have bicameral systems of government? What about the United States of America? Not only does it have simultaneous elections, but also elections are held on exactly the same date, the first Tuesday in November, every 2 years, and a presidential election is held on the same day every 4 years. Obviously tha

United States believes in simultaneous elections. Its elections could not be any more simultaneous.

Mr Reynolds:

– And the results are predictable, too.

Mr McKENZIE:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– Yes. I believe that there has been an irrelevant injection into the debate by the mention of this point raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Moreton. I should like to refer now to the question of the cost of elections because this is one of the very cogent arguments advanced in favour of holding simultaneous elections. The Minister for Services and Property mentioned that the conjoint elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives in 1961 cost $866,000. The election for the House of Representatives which followed cost $942,000. The following election for the Senate cost $1,042,000. The election for the House of Representatives in 1966 cost more than $lm, and the cost for the Senate election in 1967 crept up to nearly $1,400,000.

There has been a continuing rise in the cost of elections. So at the present time the cost of holding an election for either House of the Parliament is getting very close to $2m. That is a lot of money, and I think that we ought to give some consideration to this matter. It may be said that $2m is not very much in a total Budget of some $ 1,200m, but $2m is a lot of money in anybody’s language. If we can save more than $20m over a period of 10 years, I think that this House ought to give serious consideration to this matter. These things are not new. The subject matter of this Bill was dealt with in the report of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, and I think that I ought to read into the record the names of the personnel who comprised that Committee. It was chaired by Senator Neil O’sullivan who, I think, was the Leader of the Government in the Senate either at that time or later.

Mr Daly:

– He was a Liberal.

Mr McKENZIE:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– Yes, he was a member of the Liberal Party. The other members of the Committee were Senator Kennelly and Senator McKenna, both Labor Party senators; Senator Wright, a Liberal; Mr Calwell, a former Labor member of this House; Sir Alexander Downer, as he now is, who was a Liberal Party member of this House; Mr Drummond, who was a Country Party member of this House; Mr Hamilton, who was a Country Party member of this House; Mr P. E. Joske, as he then was, who was a Liberal Party member of this House; Mr Pollard and Mr Ward, who were both Labor members of this House; and, at the bottom of the list because I imagine that at that time he had junior status, the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). As has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, this Committee, with the exception of Senator Wright who objected to some of the findings of the Committee, brought in a unanimous report. I think it is important that I should read some of the things which the Committee said and which bear on the question presently before the House. Paragraph 226 of the report states:

The Committee has recommended (19S8 Report, paragraph 49) that the Constitution be altered to omit the provision now made for senators to be chosen for terms of six years and to provide instead that senators should hold their places until the expiry or dissolution of the second House of Representatives after their election, unless the Senate should be earlier dissolved under the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution.

The Committee upheld the idea of having bicameral legislatures. It stated:

The Committee is of opinion ‘that the existing structure of the Federal Parliament requires the Senate to retain the distinguishing characteristic of continuous existence so commonly found in countries where upper houses still exist. The Committee also believes that senators should have longer terms than members of the House of Representatives in the system of two chamber government. Accordingly, it acknowledges the considerations which were to the fore during the Convention Debates in framing the provisions dealing with the terms of senators.

I think this covers some of the points made by the honourable member for Moreton. The next paragraph is interesting because it states:

Nevertheless, as long as the principle of continuity is maintained and senators can be assured of a term of service extending over the entire terms of two successive Parliaments, there is, in the opinion of the Committee, no compelling reason why senators should have fixed terms of six years.

I believe that it could well be to the advantage of honourable members who are not able to get a copy of this report if certain paragraphs of the report were incorporated in Hansard. I ask leave of the House to incorporate is Hansard the following sections: ‘Disadvantages of the Allotment of Fixed Terms for Senators’, Benefits of Simultaneous Elections’, and Recommendation and Draft Constitutional Alterations’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

page 3332

DISADVANTAGES OF THE ALLOTMENT OF FIXED TERMS FOR SENATORS

  1. There are, to the Committee’s way of thinking, reasons why one-half the number of senators should retire at every general election of members of the House of Representatives which are sufficiently cogent to justify a constitutional amendment. 237. Section 28 of the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives should continue for 3 years from the first meeting of the House and no longer, but that the House may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General. The Crown’s constitutional right to dissolve the House before it has served its full term of 3 years is necessary for the maintenance of responsible government. As a result, however, it is always possible for a general election of members of the House of Representatives to take. place without being accompanied by an election for senators. 238. A position of this kind arose in 1929 when the eleventh Parliament, which had lasted less than a year, was dissolved following a defeat of the Government on the floor of the House over the Maritime Industries Bill. It was only because the twelfth Parliament was dissolved 2 years later that the next election for senators was able to be held simultaneously with the election for members of the House of Representatives. 239. Even without a premature dissolution of the House of Representatives, it is quite possible for elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate to occur at different times because of the fixed terms which senators have under the Constitution. 240. Since senators’ terms are fixed they have to begin on a specified date. As mentioned earlier, section 13 provides that the terms of senators elected at elections for one-half of the Senate places should commence on 1 July following their election. Circumstances could make it quite inappropriate to hold a general election shortly before the expiration of senators’ terms. At one time, a senator’s term began on 1 January following his election but the date was changed to the present date by the first constitutional amendment to be made, which was carried at a referendum in 1906. Members of the Commonwealth Parliament pointed out in 1906 that it was desirable to hold elections for the House of Representatives and for Senate vacancies at the same time but since the terms of senators began on 1 January after election, - elections would usually have to be held in the preceding months of November or December. In 1906, this was regarded as inconvenient especially in agricultural districts where harvesting was in operation. For this reason, a constitutional alteration was submitted to the electors and carried by a substantial majority in every State of the Commonwealth. 241. The allotment of fixed terms for senators may have pronounced effects if a double dissolution of the .two Houses occurs. Section 13 of the Constitution provides that the terms of senators next elected after a double dissolution should commence on the 1st July preceding the day of election. This day might be just before the elections taking place after a double dissolution but it could, on the other hand, be the greater part of a year earlier than the elections. In such circumstances, it may be necessary to hold the next elections for senators long before the House of Representatives has run the full term of three years which the Constitution contemplates. 242. The events following the double dissolution of 1951 are themselves a sufficient commentary on the position which may arise after a double dissolution. The ensuing elections took place in April 1951, and senators’ terms commenced, therefore, in July 1950, which meant that the terms of one-half of them expired at the end of June 1953, and the terms of the remainder expired at the end of June 1956. Obviously, Senate elections had to be held before the middle of 1953, that is, at a time falling substantially in the middle of the working life of the House of Representatives. The Senate elections were held in May 1953, and the election for the House of Representatives, which practically served its full term of three years, was not held until a year later. Since the terms of senators allotted six year terms following the double dissolution expired at the end of June 1956, further separate elections of senators were necessary if the House of Representatives was to be accorded anything near a three year term. Only an early dissolution of the House of Represenatives, occurring less than seventeen months after the previous election in 1954, made it possible to conduct elections simultaneously. 243. The Committee concludes from Parliamentary experience since Federation, firstly that the existence of fixed senatorial terms has increased the number of elections and secondly, that the number of occasions on which there would have been separate elections for senators and members of the House of Representatives would have been greater unless the House of Representatives had been dissolved before the expiration of its full term. 244. The Committee believes that the weight of public opinion is opposed to the holding of separate elections for the two Houses of the Federal Parliament. The Australian people already have to vote frequently because they are also called upon to elect members to the Parliaments of their States, in some States, for two Houses at different times. 245. Separate elections also tend to emphasise the component parts of the Parliament at the expense of the Parliament itself. The work of the modern Parliament is accomplished through the system of political parties. In paragraph 136 of Chapter 4, in dealing with double dissolutions, the Committee observed that the electors customarily expect that the party or combination of parties returned with the support of a majority of electors will form a responsible government. As was observed in paragraph 86 of Chapter 3, the party returned with a majority of seats in the House of Representatives almost invariably obtains most of the Senate vacancies when Senate elections are held simultaneously with the election for members of the House of Representatives. Separate elections for the two Houses may produce results at variance with these customary features of the Australian political scene. Separate elections for senators, for example, do not, in practice, affect the formation of a government, and while, on the one hand, it is possible that Senate election results may give the Government gains in the Senate, it is equally possible that the results may ambarrsas tthe government. It is not conducive to sound government that the future of a recently elected government should depend upon the eventualities of elections for senators which take place during the normal life of the House of Representatives. 246. The Committee concluded, in paragraph 243 above, that an increased number of Senate elections has been avoided by obtaining the dissolution of the House of Representatives before the expiration of its normal life of three years. But the cost of this course of action can be heavy in terms of constructive government. A premature election brought about by the need to synchronise general elections with elections for senators makes it difficult to obtain constructive government. If separate elections for senators are held, work of the Parliament is completely disrupted. Members of the House of Representatives, as well as senators, must devote their energies to the task of obtaining the best possible results for their respective parties at the elections. 247. The disadvantage caused by the allotment of fixed terms for senators, to which the Committee has referred, would be overcome if one-half of the number of senators were required to retire at every dissolution of the House of Representatives.

page 3333

BENEFITS OF SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS

  1. Apart from overcoming difficulties caused by separate elections or the threat of separate elections, the Committee considers that the abolition of six year terms for senators in favour of the rule requiring elections for one-half the number of senators at every general election of members of the House of Representatives would be to the benefit of responsible government in other ways. 249. As mentioned, when simultaneous elections for senators and members of the House of Representatives have occurred, the party or coalition forming the government after the elections has usually won either a majority or at least one-half of the vacant seats in the Senate. 250. The Committee’s examination, in paragraphs 151-177 of Chapter 4, of the operation of section 57 shows, moreover, that usually governments without a majority of supporters in the Senate have found themselves in that position because of the number of senators in opposition who were elected, not Et the last general election at which the government was returned, but on a previous occasion when the opposition enjoyed more success at the polls. The Committee’s unequivocal view was that this state of affairs offered little encouragement to government in accordance with the most recent expression of popular will. The Committee considers that a dissolution of the House of Representatives, which carried with it the retirement of the senators who had held their places for the longer period, would be an inducement not to use weight of numbers in the Senate to bring about capriciously the downfall of legislation first passed by the House of Representatives following a general election for that House. 251. The Committee found no difficulty in agreeing that there was, in view of the Senate’s legal powers, always a possibility of deadlocks occurring but that the chances of deadlock were much greater under proportional representation than at any other time in Federal history. 252. The Committee has recommended, in paragraphs 211-215 of Chapter 4, that, if a deadlock occurs, the Government should have the opportunity to test public opinion at a general election of mem bers of the House of Representatives, provided that the election is held within twelve months of the deadlock first occurring. If such a general election intervenes then, according to the Committee’s recommendation, the House of Representatives may again pass the measure which has been in dispute and if the Senate continues to resist, a joint sitting of the two Houses may be convened for the purpose of resolving the deadlock according to the vote of an absolute majority of the total number of members of the two Houses. The view was expressed, in paragraph 214, that the proposal was likely to enhance the prospects of a government being able to give expression to the confidence which electors have, according to the election results, reposed in it, particularly if elections for one-half of the number of senators, that is the earlier elected senators, were to occur simultaneously with the election for members of the House of Representatives taking place after the deadlock. If the general election following a deadlock should, on the other hand, produce unfavourable results for the government this would also be likely to be reflected in the voting returns for senators. In other words, the retirement of senators on a dissolution of the House of Representatives appears to the Committee to be thoroughly consistent with the principles of democratic government. 253. It sometimes happens that, even though elections for members of the two Houses are held simultaneously, this does not bring together the newly elected members of the Parliament at the same time. For instance, if a general election is held towards the end of a calendar year, it is likely that a new Parliament will be convened some months before the terms of newly elected senators commence. Accordingly, the first weeks or months of the term of the House of Representatives will pass during which the Senate continues to be composed of senators all of whom were elected at either of two previous elections, ordinarily one three years earlier and the other six years earlier. Elections took place in November 1958 for members of the House of Representatives and also to fill Senate vacancies but the senators elected to replace senators whose terms had expired did not take their places until 1 July 1959. 254. The carry-over of senators’ terms into the life of a freshly elected. Parliament, -depending upon the chance of an election date, is, in the opinion of the Committee, anachronistic. It could also fetter the effectiveness of the new Parliament. For example, although the Labour Party, which held office immediately before the general election for the seventeenth Parliament in August 1943, was returned with en increased majority and its candidates also won all the Senate vacancies, it was not until July 1944, that the Government had a majority in both Houses. Although the House of Representatives lasted the full three years allowed by the Constitution, the Government had a majority in both Houses for only the last two years of the three year period.

page 3333

QUESTION

RECOMMENDATION AND DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL ALTERATIONS

_ 255. The Committee recommends that the Constitution be altered to omit the provision now made for senators to be chosen for terms of six years and to provide instead that senators should hold their places until the expiry or dissolution of the second House of Representatives after their election. 256. The Committee’s recommendation will require, in the first instance, an alteration to section 7. This section will, in view of the Committee’s earlier recommendations, need to be amended to make provision for fixing the number of senators. It is proposed that it be further altered by omitting the words -

The senators shall be chosen for a term of six years, and the names of the senators chosen for each State shall be certified by the Governor to the Governor General. and inserting in their stead the words -

The names of senators chosen for each State shall be certified by the Governor of the State to the GovernorGeneral. 257. The Committee will recommend, in Chapter 6 of this Report, the repeal of section 13 of the Constitution dealing with the rotation of senators and its replacement by a new section. It is convenient to provide for the terms of senators in a draft sub-section (1.) of the proposed new draft section. This sub-section would read substantially, as follows: - 13.- (1.) Subject to this Constitution, a senator shall hold his place until -

  1. the expiry or dissolution of the second House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after he was chosen; or

  2. the dissolution of the Senate, whichever first happens. 258. The . implementation of the Committee’s recommendation also involves consequential amendments. 259. The first concerns the issue of writs by State Governors. Section 12 of the Constitution provides as follows: -

    1. The Governor of any State may cause writs to be issued for elections of senators for the State. In case of the dissolution of the Senate the writs shallbe issued within ten days from the proclamation of such dissolution. 260. It is proposed that section 12 be repealed and the following draft section inserted in its stead: -
    2. – (1.) The Governor of a State may cause writs to be issued for elections of senators for the State. (2.) The writs shall be issued -
  3. in the case of elections to fill the places of senators whose places became vacant upon the expiry of a House of Representatives within ten days from the date of the expiry; or
  4. in the case of elections resulting from a dissolution of the Senate within ten days from the date of the dissolution. 261. The second ancillary amendment is to provide for the coming into operation of the Committee’s proposal without affecting the terms of senators who have been elected for fixed six year terms. The draft section set out hereunder is intended to deal with the matter. Sub-sections (1.) to (3.) of the draft do not need particular comment. The reasons for the inclusion of sub-sections (4.) and (5.) are expressed in paragraphs 297-299 of Chapter 7 which deals with the subject of casual vacancies in the Senate. Subsections(4.) and(5.) deal with contingencies which may arise and have been included for the sake of completeness. The draft section is as follows: - 13a. - (1.) Notwithstanding the last preceding sec tion but subject to the other provisions of this Con situation, senators holding places at the commencement of the Constitution Alteration ( ) 1960 shall continue to hold their places until the expiration of their unexpired terms of service. (2.) Senators chosen (otherwise than following a dissolution of the Senate) to succeed senators referred to in the last preceding sub-section shall not commence to hold their places until the expiration of the terms of service of the senators whom they have been chosen to succeed. (3.) Elections to fill the places of any of the senators referred to in sub-section (1.) of this section upon the expiration of’ the terms of service of those senators shall be held within one year before the expiration of those terms of service. (4.) Section fifteen of this Constitution shall apply in relation to a senator to whom sub-section (2.) of this section applies and who dies or resigns his place, or whose place becomes vacant in accordance with section forty-five of this Constitution, before he commences to hold his place in accordance with that sub-section. (5.) Section forty-five of this Constitution shall apply in relation to a senator to whom sub-section (2.) of this section applies as if he had commenced to hold his place forthwith upon his election.

The honourable member for Moreton made one other point that I ought to take up. I think he suggested that the present senators and those to be elected shortly might be at some disadvantage if the provisions contained in this Bill were incorporated in the Constitution. He suggested that they would lose part of their term of office. -Perhaps I misunderstood him, but that is my understanding of what he said. The situation is that should this proposed amendment to the Constitution be carried, those senators who took their seats in July 1971 would retire not at the end of June 1977 but at the election for the House of Representatives to be held in 1978, and those senators who are elected at the forthcoming election and who would normally hold their seats from 1974 to 1980 would retire at the election for the House of Representatives which would be held in 1981 if the normal 3-year terms continue. So there will be no disadvantage to the present senators who normally would retire at the end of June 1977 or to those senators who are elected in 1974.

One laughs when one looks back and sees what has happened. People advance the argument that the will of the people is being expressed through the Senate which was elected earlier, whereas the Government says that the Senate is frustrating the Government’s legislation. Of course, governments and oppositions always talk in these terms. What did the then Mr Menzies say in about 1951 when he sought a double dissolution? That was a quite different matter. He went to the people and said: ‘The Senate elected much earlier is frustrating the current will of the people’. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. I want to see developed a situation in which the elections for both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as far as practicable, demonstrate the current wish of the people of this country. When we get to that situation I believe that we will have good government. Let the people decide.

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

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– Neither in the manner of its presentation nor in the substance of its argument has the Government demonstrated any valid case for the support of this piece of legislation, for its passage through the Parliament nor, I would submit, its ultimate support by the people of Australia when it is considered by them as a question, amongst others, by way of referenda. As far as the passage of this legislation through this Parliament is concerned, I regard it as completely deplorable that the Government has so ignored the significance of constitutional change that it is prepared to introduce the guillotine in order to hasten the passage of each one of these constitutional referendum Bills. Indeed, as was pointed out earlier today, there is a very real and significant change which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) has intimated he will seek to move at the Committee stage. In respect of that motion there will be a total of 15 minutes within which it will be necessary for him to present the substance of the change, the arguments on it and then for a vote to be taken. That. is totally inadequate.

If the people of Australia needed a valid case to reject the referendum, apart from the validity of the question itself, they would need go no further than to refer to the impetuous way in which this Government seeks to hasten matters of substance through the Parliament. If the Government genuinely believed this legislation put a necessary change it would have no fear about hearing arguments. It apparently believes it is not a sufficiently valid case and it is therefore prepared to introduce the guillotine to rush this measure through, thereby denying any real and significant chance to debate the matter either during the second reading stage or at the Committee stage.

The second aspect with which I find myself in complete disagreement with the Government is the character of the change which this Bill proposes. I believe very strongly that the bicameral system of government which is. in operation in Australia has some differences compared with other bicameral systems but our system provides a protection against excesses of authority by the government of the day. Certainly on occasions, be it a government of our political persuasion or a government of Labor persuasion, an upper House is in a position - to quote the words used a few moments ago by the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr McKenzie) who quoted Sir Robert Menzies when he was Prime Minister - to frustrate the will of the government. But the Government already has the option available to it as to which course of action it may take. If the Government believes that it is being frustrated in the exercise of responsibilities of government, it can call for a double dissolution. It can submit itself as a government and the members of the Senate to the electorate. In that way it is able to seek to get another mandate from the people. If it believes that it is being frustrated obviously that is what would happen. But if the Senate or the upper House is representing the views of the people there would be a change In government. In 1961 Sir Robert Menzies said that he believed the Senate was frustrating the will of the people. He went to the people and as a result was given another mandate by them. It is utter nonsense to say that under the terms of our bicameral system there should not be a capacity for the upper House to exercise a measure of supervision over legislation that is hastily put through this Parliament. Again, the very frequency of the introduction of the guillotine, the frequency of the application of the gag and the denial of adequate time for debate in this chamber are all excellent reasons why there is a necessity for a Senate and the preservation of its powers.

The third reason why I am very strongly opposed to this Bill is that it is not necessary. In his second reading speech on this Bill the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said:

But I do fundamentally question the present ‘out of phase’ state of our electoral process, requiring us to conduct in each 3-year period one House of Representatives election and one separate Senate election.

A few lines further on in that speech he said:

The elections were put out of phase in 1963. They have not been brought back.

He himself acknowledges that they could have been brought back. Today as Prime Minister he is in a position to bring them back. He does not have to have a referendum to do so. The power is already there for him as Prime Minister to bring them back into phase. As part and parcel of the exercise of the bicameral system, under our Constitution the Government represents the party with the majority in the lower House and the party with the majority in the lower House at any House of Representatives election need not have a majority in the upper House. For that reason under our Constitution the upper House is able to accept, reject or modify legislation that is submitted to it from this House. The House of Representatives has always had in its power the capacity to go to the people and to synchronise elections if it so desires or if it does not so desire, to call elections out of phase for the House of Representatives alone or to call for a double dissolution subject to the approval of the Governor-General. So there is a flexibility within the Constitution which enables the Government to go to the people and seek another mandate through its majority in the House of Representatives, to go to the people by way of a double dissolution or to go to the people by way of an election for the House of Representatives at the time of the normal 3- yearly election for half the members of the Senate.

In those circumstances, even the Prime Minister acknowledges that there is no substance whatsoever in the suggestion that there is not the power in this Parliament for this Government to bring the elections of the Senate and the House of Representatives back into uniformity again. So it is utter nonsense for the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) to say that this is something to foster and to further the democratic exercise of the will of the people. The democratic will of the people can be exercised as the Constitution is now framed and those who are in government at any time can exercise any of those 3 options which are available to them. They can synchronise elections or they can pull them out of phase if they so desire.

Those were the matters which our constitutional fathers looked at quite seriously because our Upper House is different from other upper houses. For example, under the British parliamentary system the House of Lords lacks the power that the Senate, the Upper House in this Parliament, enjoys; that is, the power to deny the passage of legislation and the power to force the Government to an election. Our Senate has been given additional powers. It has been given additional powers because for all that it is denied by those on the other side of this House I still see the Senate as a States House. Were this not so, and if the Labor Party did not believe it so, presumably in one of the other Bills that we are to consider at a later stage in the course of the next 2 days there would be provision for equality of representation for members of the Senate. But the Government is not doing so. It is prepared to accept the fact that there should be equality of representation for the senators from each of the original States. In other words, it does accept that the Senate is still a States House and that the powers that are there for the Senate should be preserved for it. That is another of the fundamental reasons why I object to this piece of legislation and its acceptance by the people of Australia.

I am quite concerned that there should be no breakdown of the powers and functions of the Senate. I am concerned that there should be no derogation of the power that a senator exercises as a result of his election for a term of 6 years, and that is where it comes in in this Bill. If the honourable member for Diamond Valley had cared I would have been only too prepared to have allowed him to have incorporated in Hansard not only those significant passages from the 1958 report of the Constitutional Review Committee but also the reservations that were expressed by Senator Wright. Those reservations are very material to the passage of this Bill. They set out in detail an analysis made by that learned gentleman of the way in which a senator’s rights and responsibilities are exercised, in part, through his election for a term of 6 years. A 6-year term gives a senator a measure of independence which a relationship between his term of office and a House of Representatives election would deny him.

I believe that a case can be set out for the retention of that independence, related alone to the fact that when elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives are out of phase people register a more meaningful vote for their senators. I believe that when a Senate election takes place at the time of a House of Representatives election the very nature of this chamber, the nature of the election of government, the nature of policies that originate in this chamber and the machinations of power that those who abuse it in the Labor Party seek, are likely to distort the democratic process, and particularly the democratic process that applies to the election of senators. For that reason, I see it as being quite undemocratic and against the maintenance of a bicameral system that this piece of legislation should be either passed by this House or accepted by the Australian electorate.

Honourable members opposite support a unicameral system ; a system which denies the maintenance of the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition referred to that passage of the Prime Minister’s second reading speech in introducing the Bill in which he stated:

Each of these Bills will have the effect of putting into operation proposals contained in the platform of the Australian Labor Party.

Therein lies the rub. There is the essence nf the destruction of the Senate. This is the beginning of the removal of the Senate as a House of this Parliament. It is part of the beginning of the erosion of the power of those who are members of the Senate. It is a piece of legislation which was introduced, according to the Prime Minister - it was he, not I, who used the words - for the purpose of ‘putting into operation proposals contained in the platform of the Australian Labor Party’.

One of the proposals contained in the platform of the Australian Labor Party is the abolition of the Senate. This legislation is a step which must be accepted as a measure towards that end objective. I think it is quite interesting to note that 8 of the 12 members of the Labor Party who are listed to speak on the 3 Bills - I know that the list of proposed speakers is not binding on the Chair - are all in their first Parliament. Presumably, they hold a little closer to the Australian Labor Party’s platform than do some of those honourable members who have developed vested interests in their retention of office in this place. Perhaps it is for that reason that they see this as a piece of legislation which certainly is leading towards the application of a unicameral system of legislation. There can be no doubt in the minds of the Australian people that the Labor Party, in its machinations of power, seeks, through this legislation as a first step, to try to destroy some of the power which is now exercised by the Senate.

Instead of achieving its policy objective in a valid way - instead of turning to section 53 of the Constitution and looking at the exercise of power as it is applied to the Senate in the Constitution - it is seeking to do so in a backhand way. It is using sections 12 and 13 of the Constitution. These sections, of course, apparently innocuously, relate only to the tenure of office of senators. Therefore, the Opposition intends to seek to change the short title of the Bill - a short title which is completely misrepresentative of the substance of the Bill itself. The Labor Party cannot have it both ways. Either it wants to change the Constitution through a referendum according to the form of words which is included in the Bill which we are discussing, or it does not. If it does not and if it wants to achieve its aims as expressed in the short title, I submit that the short title should reflect the contents of the Bill.

I believe that one might well have questioned, at the time of the introduction of the Bill, on a point of order, whether the short title reflected the substance of the Bill and whether it is not even completely inappropriate for this Bill to be considered in its present form. But the Opposition, in order to ensure that honourable members have an opportunity to consider that aspect in the brief period of 15 minutes that has been allotted for deliberation, voting and passage of the Bill through the Committee stage, intends to move that the short title be changed so that the substance of the Bill might be reflected more in the words that are used therein.

On all those grounds there is a fundamental objection to the passage of this Bill. I think that the question whether elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate should be held together has nothing whatsoever to do with the measure. As an individual, I believe that on many occasions there would be advantages in the field of cost. But the very fact that the honourable member for Diamond Valley and the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) have founded the principal substance of their argument on cost reflects the insubstantial nature of their argument. If they believe that to be so, they are now in a position whereby they can call the House of Representatives and the Senate elections into phase again. By so doing, they will minimise costs. Yet, there are so many actions, from the purchase of a certain painting to the taking of various Ministers’ entourages abroad, in which one sees the consideration of cost as minimal in Labor Party thinking. One can therefore be suspicious and see that the matter of cost is no more important in this area - the area of the frequency of elections - than it is in other areas. Rather, it is an excuse in order to manipulate this Parliament and the people of Australia towards the destruction of a two-House system of government containing within the upper House a protection of the rights and privileges of individual Australians.

What utter nonsense it is for honourable members opposite to talk of introducing a charter of rights or responsibilities when they, by the introduction of Bills of this character, are seeking to destroy those rights and the liberties of individuals. I reject this Bill in toto. I believe that the Australian people are unlikely to be hoodwinked by the sorts of arguments that have been presented to this House. I believe that this Bill lacks substance and therefore should be rejected in its entirety.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I rise to support the Bill. Having heard the remarks of the 3 speakers from the Opposition side in this debate, and having attended the Australian Constitutional Convention in Sydney, I am convinced that all that honourable members opposite can present to the House is a whole series of cliches. I would have hoped that we would have heard some logical argument in this debate. Regrettably, we have not.

The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), in introducing the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, supported that legislation on 3 or 4 grounds. The major ground, apart from the fact that what was proposed was Labor Party policy and had been uttered at that Constitutional Convention so that plenty of notice was given of our intention, was that the legislation seeks to carry out a unanimous recommendation made in 1959 by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review. That report recommended that the terms of senators should be changed from 6 years, as they now are, to 2 terms of the House of Representatives so that the elections for both Houses could take place simultaneously. I suggest that the reason for this recommendation is that a government elected by the will of the people on its policies could effectively and efficiently carry out those policies. At the moment, the Government, because of the composition of the Senate, is not in a position to do so.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) expressed the fears and dangers that could result from the adoption of the policy of the Australian Labor Party, which seeks a unicameral system of government. They suggested that it would be dangerous to create this system under our Constitution because such a system would have an adverse effect on the smaller States. I point out to the House that throughout the world there are unicameral systems of government and bicameral systems of government which rely on conjoint elections for both Houses; there are others that do not. Does anybody seriously suggest that any of those systems are less effective or less efficient than the Australian federal system?

Let us look at those countries which have parliamentary systems which function on the basis of conjoint elections for their Parliaments. In the Republic of Ireland there is a House of Representatives and a Senate, and they come out at the same time. Does anybody seriously suggest that they are less effective or less efficient because of that factor, or that the lower House dominates the upper House or vice versa? In Belgium there is a House of Representatives and a Senate, and they have conjoint elections every 3 years. Is the Belgian Parliament less effective or less efficient because of that factor? Italy has a Chamber of Deputies and a Senate, and has conjoint elections every 3 years. Is that country’s parliament less efficient or less effective? Does anybody in this chamber wish to suggest that? I am sure that the ambassadors of the 3 countries I have mentioned would be very pleased to hear such a suggestion about the parliaments of their countries. In Portugal the position is much the same. Mexico has a House of Representatives and a Senate.

Mr Giles:

– Your argument is pretty thin if you have to cite Portugal.

Mr JACOBI:

– Perhaps I would subscribe to that view. But I would certainly say that the Republic of Ireland, Belgium and Italy are reasonably efficiently governed. Let me list the countries with 2 Houses but not having conjoint elections. They are Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, South Africa, Malaya, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Hungary, Cambodia, the United States, Kenya, Iran, Norway, Sweden, France and Northern Ireland. The Federal Republic of Germany has 2 Houses. They are not called out conjointly. But is the Government of that country any less efficient or effective because of that factor? Next I mention Canada. I assume that the only reason the 2 Houses in Canada do not come out conjointly is that the Senate is elected for life, the House of Commons every 5 years. Japan is in the same situation.

Dr Forbes:

– Which side are you on?

Mr JACOBI:

– I am trying to make a case in answer to those people in this House who say that this nation will be doomed if we have simultaneous elections. They suggest that it is neither logical nor sensible; that it is utterly irresponsible. I suggest that the 1959 Constitutional Review Committee recommended what is in fact logical, that is, that the Australian Constitution should be altered to achieve the end which this Bill seeks. I noted that no honourable member opposite took the time to do a little research into what in fact was the attitude of our founding fathers. I have searched through perhaps the most important book on early federation, and that is the book written by Quick and Garran. Whilst I can find plenty of references to the structure of the Senate, the book throws very little light on the question of conjoint elections for both Houses. The official report of the National Australian Convention debates in 1897 contains specific reference to the fact that they ought to be held jointly. It is to be found in the speech by the

Victorian Premier, Sir George Turner. His remarks were made in relation to a clause of the Commonwealth of Australia Bill, which suggested that elections for the House of Representatives should be on a four yearly basis and not a three yearly basis. The clause stated:

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

Sir George Turner had this to say:

The Commonwealth Bill, as it was In the year 1891, limited the duration of the House of Representatives to three years, but the Constitutional Committee, for some reason, have decided to extend that term to four years. Now, I confess that I cannot approve of that alteration, unless some good reason can be assigned for it. To begin with, we have the Senate retiring at three years and six years, and it would be wise, so far as we are able, to keep the elections as near together as may be. If we have a Parliament retiring at the end of three years, unless there happens to be a dissolution at some particular time-

The only way we can bring about simultaneous elections at the moment is to have a double dissolution. We have obviously forgotten that fact. Sir George Turner went on: which is not very likely to happen in connection with the Federal Parliament - we may allow an election for senators and for representatives at certain times to take place together, and by that means save a considerable amount of expense.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr JACOBI:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was referring to the attitude of our founding fathers to the question of the synchronisation of elections for both Houses. I believe that the references that they made indicated quite clearly that in the backs of their minds they thought it both logical and sensible to do so. Earlier I referred to the methods adopted in countries which have bicameral systems of Parliament where both Houses are elected conjointly. From listening to the prophets of doom on the other side it is quite clear that bicameral systems, if both Houses are elected conjointly, work effectively. As I recall it, amongst all his illogicalities, the one logical reason the Deputy Leader of the Country Party (Mr Sinclair) advanced for the retention of the current balance of timing between both Houses was the sheer additional power that the Senate possesses beyond that of upper Houses in other countries where bicameral systems exist. May I suggest to the honourable gentleman that that is precisely the reason, the essence and the kernel of the need for the constitutional amendment.

I am pleased to see that the honourable member for Moreton has returned to the chamber because I recall that one of his utterances was that, if this alteration were given approval by the people, it would mean that the Senate would in fact be a political victim of the Government. May I suggest that the current position is exactly the reverse. We are the victims of the upper House. I am inclined to the view that it was precisely for that reason in 1951 the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, was likewise persuaded. He went for a double dissolution. I have promised to cut down my time in this debate because I think that somebody in the Opposition wants to speak for at least 10 minutes.

Another important factor needs to be taken into consideration. My figures are a little different from those of the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) but the fact is that it is the economic question that ought to be considered when we talk of synchronising the elections for both Houses. Let us have a look at the costs involved. A conjoint election would cost between 55 per cent and 57 per cent of the total cost of separate Senate and House of Representatives elections. In 1970 the Senate general election cost $1,735,122. In 1972 the House of Representatives general election cost $1,980,132. The total cost of those 2 elections was $3,715,254. Therefore, an estimate for conjoint elections would be about 55 per cent to 57 per cent of $3m. In my view it is utterly ludicrous for the Opposition logically, constructively or persuasively to attempt to oppose the alterations sought. I believe that the Bill will receive the overwhelming support of the people. I believe that it will attract support for the reasons set out by the Prime Minister in his second reading speech. I support the Bill.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This Bill is the act of a desperate Government. The second reading speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has a superficial appeal. When the Prime Minister speaks of the democratic process or of too many elections, that has a superficial attraction. I do not know whether it is his view or whether Caucus forced him into it, but when he talks about too many elections or the democratic process who is going to disagree? We all appreciate that there have been too many elections. We are all concerned about the democratic process. Much has been said about the cost of elections and it is significant that the cost of democracy cannot be estimated in terms of dollars and cents. What is the fact? What is the real reason why we have this sort of Bill? Of course, it is the result of the Government’s frustration. The nation will not be hoodwinked by the Government’s frustration. The Labor Government has 2 problems of significance in this Bill. It has a multitude of problems, if one looks across the board. The Government has an obsessional fear of the Senate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There are far too many interjections. The last speaker was heard in comparative silence. I ask honourable members to extend the same courtesy to the honourable member and cease interjecting.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I do no mind, Mr Speaker, because it is a fact that the Australian Labor Party fears the Senate and fears the prestige of the Senate. The Government wants to abolish it but it cannot do that because it knows the nation will not accept that. So in a spurious way the Government has brought forward this Bill which is designed, it hopes, to obtain for the Government sufficient numbers in the Senate to alter the voting procedure and voting structure. There is a solution to the Government’s frustration and that is for its Leader to have the courage to call for a double dissolution. The grounds are there ready for the Government to use. The Opposition is encouraging the Government to use them. Indeed it would welcome a double dissolution. But, of course, the Government cannot take that step because it knows that its unpopularity grows day by day.

Mr Cooke:

– Tell them the figures in Queensland.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The figures in Queensland would embarrass the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Doyle) and the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) and I would not want to hurt them. The Government is unpopular because it has mismanaged the national economy to such an extent that there are industrial disputes which are having an enormous impact upon the inflationary situation. The Government will run away from this matter as the Treasurer (Mr Crean) ran away from the 35-hour week situation this morning. The Government will not take a responsible attitude to wage demands. It produced a Budget which says that wages will rise by 13 per cent but that productivity will rise only between 2i per cent and 3 per cent. Government spending is completely out of control.

The Government has downgraded defence and has had flirtations in the area of foreign affairs. It dares not trust a double dissolution. It is fearful of the outcome, and rightly so, because the nation is uneasy. The nation is concerned about what the next decision of this Government might be.

Despite all that, the Government has to face a Senate election. It cannot put it off beyond 30 June next year. The Government knows that the results of the Senate election will be disadvantageous to it. So the best thing to do is to try to cloud the issue and clutter up the Senate election with referenda in the hope - I believe that the Government will be disappointed - that it can confuse the electorate sufficiently. So we have these 3 referenda. The Government will find that Australians want to maintain the bicameral system. It will find that Australians have such regard for the Senate that they want to see its role maintained unimpaired. It will find that Australians have sufficient intelligence to appreciate that separate Senate elections, should they be a part of the democratic process and they still are, provide some benefits. Firstly, they provide an opportunity for the views of smaller political parties to be reflected. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with the views of the smaller political parties being reflected at a Senate election or any other election. Secondly, they give the nation an opportunity to pass judgment upon a government during its term of office. For those reasons, I believe that this referendum will be substantially defeated.

I can understand the Government’s frustration, but I cannot understand why it has such tremendous concern about the holding of a referenda and why it is concerned about the costs involved. The solution is perfectly simple. The Government has the grounds, if it wants to avail itself of them, for bringing the elections for both Houses together again. It would not take the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) very long to drive to Yarralumla. I am certain that there are members of the Opposition who would help him to get there. Let us have a double dissolution. Let us put the Government’s record to the nation. Let us ask the nation whether it wants to see a bicameral system of government maintained. The Senate’s prestige has grown enormously. It deserves to be protected. The institution deserves to be protected. This Bill, which is the product of frustration, disenchantment and-

Mr Killen:

– Desperation.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I thank the honourable member for Moreton for helping me. This Bill, which is the product of frustration, disenchantment and sheer desperation, will receive the reward that it justly deserves. The proposition it puts forward will be thoroughly rejected by the Australian community.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– In the brief time that I have at my disposal I want to deal with only one point. We have here what must appear to many Australians to be the height of hypocrisy. The supporters of the Government are backing certain moves designed to effect the holding of simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives at any subsequent election. I draw the attention of the House - it is not the first time it has been done, but I think it is worth repeating - to a book dated June 1972 entitled Labor’s Way - A Summary of Information on the Policy of the Australian Labor Party’. On page 12 in section 4, in relation to constitutional matters, it says that Labor’s way is to abolish the Senate. Surely to blazes the people in the Australian community of today who think out these things must think that there is really nothing more pathetic than to see-

Mr Birrell:

– Come around tomorrow and I will give you a copy of the Labor Party’s policy.

Mr GILES:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide does not believe in the right, to existence of the Senate. I ask him whether he denies that statement.

Mr Birrell:

– No, I do not deny it. It is there. I have to put up with it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Adelaide will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Angas will address the Chair and ignore interjections.

Mr GILES:

– I imagine that the honourable member for Port Adelaide is in the same position as 90 per cent of the supporters of the Government in that he does not believe in the right to existence of the Senate. It is written into the Australian Labor Party’s platform that the Senate should be abolished. Of course I exonerate you, Mr Speaker, because of your occupancy of the Chair, but nearly everybody on the other side of the chamber is of the view that there should be no upper House in the federal structure of this country. Despite that they are now trying to line up a method whereby simultaneous elections will be held for both Houses. Nothing can be more pathetic in the eyes of the people of Australia than that. A little earlier in the debate a phrase was coined which I rather appreciated. This move was referred to as a permanent solution to a temporary situation. What could be closer to the truth than that? Previous governments, including governments of a different political complexion from the present Government, have had to put up with the same situation as the present Government. Any government that is worth its salt can certainly prune its legislation to meet the circumstances of an upper House, particularly an upper House, might I add in the 30 seconds left to me, that is different from, say, the upper House in the New South Wales ParliamentI am not going to debate it in that it is elected by the people of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for the second reading of the Bill has expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 62

NOES: 46

Majority….16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce Leader of the Opposition

– I want to move an amendment to the long title of the Bill. At present, the long title reads:

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate Elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives Elections.

Of course, the fact is that that is not the purpose of the Bill. It may be an incidental result of the Bill, but it is not the purpose of the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill proposes that the Constitution be altered by omitting sections 12 and 13 and substituting new sections 12 and 13. The existing section 12 of the Constitution provides:

The Governor of any State may causerights to be issued . . .

The existing section 13 of the Constitution provides that senators shall hold their offices for 6 years. The proposed new section 13 will alter that provision and the senators no longer will hold office for 6 years; they will hold office for the period of 2 Houses of Representatives. As the long title of the Bill is the question that will be put to the public, it is absolutely imperative that the question on the ballot paper on which the electors will be asked to express a yes or no view be actually the question involved in the Bill. I implore the Government that, if it is to be taken seriously in its wish to alter the Constitution for the good of the Australian people and not for the good of the

Australian Labor Party, it should put the question in its proper form. I therefore move:

In the Title, omit all words after ‘Constitution’, substitute the words ‘to provide that the term of service of a Senator shall expire upon the expiry or dissolution of the second House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after he was chosen, or upon an earlier dissolution of the Senate’.

Mr Reynolds:

– That is a bright amendment.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I heard an interjection to the effect that it is a bright amendment. It appears to me that the interceptor has not read the Bill.

Mr Killen:

– He would not be alone.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I doubt whether there are too many on the Government side who have read the Bill. If honourable members opposite have not read the Bill, I will refer them to the words I propose to omit. I am referring to clause 4 of the Bill, which proposes to substitute a new section 13 in the Constitution. Although the clause is too long for me to read out, it can be seen quite clearly I am sure that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) who is now sitting at the table will agree with me - that the amendment to section 13 of the Constitution which will result if this Bill is approved will provide that senators shall hold office for a term of service which will expire upon the expiry or dissolution of the second House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after he was chosen’. For these reasons, I think that in all honesty that ought to be the long title of the Bill so that the people will have before them the question which is really involved and not a spurious question.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa Prime Minister · ALP

– The Government does not accept the amendment. It is not a question of being honest

Mr Snedden:

– Mr Chairman, may I interrupt for a moment? I have moved an amendment and I have a seconder available.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– No seconder is required in Committee.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Government does not accept the amendment. It is possible to conduct an argument on the merits of the amendment without using words such as ‘honest’ and spurious’. The Government’s use of the term simultaneous elections’ in the short title, for instance, has stemmed from the report of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in 1958 and 1959. Every member of the Parliament and all interested members in the public have known for very many years what was meant by the term ‘simultaneous elections’ for the Houses in the Federal Parliament of Australia. But the substantial objection to the amendment is that it is much longer than the terms which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) seeks to replace.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The time allotted for the Committee stage of this Bill has expired.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the title.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 50

Majority…… 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question put:

That the Bill be agreed to and that the Bill be reported without amendment.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George Minister for Science and Minister for External Territories · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Wentworth:

– 1 rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Leave was not asked.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Leave is not required. The question has been put.

Bill read a third time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There must be a division on the third reading. Although there is no dissentient voice and a division has not been called for, it is desirable that the names of those honourable members present agreeing to the third reading should be recorded. (The bells having been rung)

Mr Snedden:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did the Clerk read the Bill a third time?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes.

Mr Snedden:

– If the Bill has been read a third time, how can we divide on it?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It must be established that the Bill is carried by an absolute majority. There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Killen:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will state the position again in case somebody did not hear me previously. Although there is no dissentient voice and a division has not been called for, it is desirable that the names of those honourable members present agreeing to the third reading should be recorded.

Mr Killen:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 193, which states that a division shall not be proceeded with unless more than one honourable member has called for a division. No honourable member, I submit, has called for a division.

Mr Morrison:

-I called for it.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– You did not.

Mr McMahon:

– That is a lie.

Mr Killen:

– It must be called for at the relevant time.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Mr Speaker, this is an illegal division because the question has already been put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Mr Speaker, this is an illegal division. It is a complete and absolute defiance of any parliamentary practice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Mr Speaker, the question cannot be dismissed merely by saying that there is no substance in the point of order. The question has already been put.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; IND LIB from Oct 1977

– Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 192.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved. I have given my ruling.

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; IND LIB from Oct 1977

– I repeat: I draw your attention to standing order 192.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Killen:

– I draw your attention to strangers in the House. No member of the gallery is entitled to interject. I draw your attention to strangers in the gallery. No member of the gallery is entitled to interject.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. The question is:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The ayes will pass to the right of the Chair and the noes to the left.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I raise a point of order. Your attention was drawn to strangers in the House and you are proceeding with an illegal second division after the third reading of the Bill by the Clerk.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order involved.

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I raise a point of order. Will you give your ruling as to whether the Bill now being put for the third reading has previously this evening been put to the vote and been declared by you to have been carried? If this is so, will you explain to the House why we are going through this repetitious procedure?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Constitution provides that the Bill must be carried by an absolute majority.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– It was not carried by an absolute majority.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have given my ruling on this matter. I warn the honourable member for Wannon. If he keeps interjecting, I will name him.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I raise a point of order. Under what authority is the question that a Bill be read a third time put twice? It has already been put.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Constitution, I repeat, provides that the Bill must be passed by an absolute majority.

Mr Viner:

– On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Stirling will be quiet.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Speaker, may I draw your attention to standing order 314.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is that this Bill be now read a third time. The ayes will pass to the right of the chair and the noes to the left. I appoint the honourable member for Wide Bay and the honourable member for Bonython tellers for the ayes, and the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) and the honourable member for Calare (Mr England) tellers for the noes.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I raise a point of order. Under what standing order or practice is the third reading of a Bill put twice?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have given my ruling. The Bill can be carried only by an absolute majority. I will not accept any points of order on that matter.

Mr Sinclair:

– This is not democracy.

Mr Anthony:

– Why not wait 5 minutes and get a bit of order?

Mr Lynch:

– This is a farce.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– What remark.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Wannon will be quiet. I am asking the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– What remark?

Mr SPEAKER:

– He knows what he said. He will withdraw it or I will name him. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ha- not withdrawn the remark, I name him. We will deal with that after the division.

Mr Sinclair:

– This is supposed to be a matter involving a referendum under the Constitution.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The ayes will pass to the right of the chair and the noes to the left.

Mr Snedden:

– On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will not take any points of order now. I am naming as tellers for the ayes the honourable member for Wide Bay and the honourable member for Bonython, and as tellers for the noes the honourable member for Henty and the honourable member for Calare.

Mr Snedden:

– On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! No point of order is involved. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Do the tellers for the noes refuse to act? If the tellers refuse to count, every member in the House will be recorded as voting aye. The tellers for the noes will be the honourable member for Henty and the honourable member for Calare.

Mr Killen:

– On a point of order. I drew your attention to the fact that there were strangers in the House, and I draw your attention further to standing order 314 which is quite specific. It allows you no discretion.

Mr Wentworth:

– That is right: Standing order 314.

Mr Killen:

– I submit that it is highly improper

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Killen:

– I submit it is highly improper for people in the gallery, no matter what their views may be, to offer commentaries on the views expressed by any member of this House. This is a parliament; it is not a gathering in the street.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Moreton will resume his seat. There can be only one motion before the Chair at a time. The question is that this Bill be now read a third time.

Mr Killen:

– I shall move that your ruling be disagreed to.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Wide Bay and the honourable member for Bonython will act as tellers for the ayes.

Mr Killen:

– Mr Speaker, on a point of order

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The ayes will pass to the right of the chair and the noes to the left.

Dr Forbes:

– The Prime Minister cannot approach the Chair like that. He is acting like Hitler.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Prime Minister is not a dictator yet.

Mr McLeay:

– He is not allowed to do that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Prime Minister wished me many happy returns of the day. It is my birthday today.

Mr McLeay:

– It is not your birthday.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Question put:

That this Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 0

Majority . . . . 64

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative, by an absolute majority.

Bill read a third time.

The proposed law for the alteration thereof -

This is in regard to an alteration to the Constitution - must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses . . .

Motion (by Mr Morrison) proposed:

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

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce - Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, you have named the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser). What has disturbed him is that he raised a point of order and he believes that you have not given a ruling on it. He raised the point of order because he believed that the Bill was read a third time by the Clerk and therefore, according to the Standing Orders, the Bill had passed the House.

I am making. If you would give the ruling so that we can hear it, then I believe that the problem would be solved.

An honourable member - You are not going to be insulted by that ape.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 49

Majority…. 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be suspended from the service of the House.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 64

NOES: 48

Majority . . . . 16

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The proceedings in relation to the third reading of the Food and Drugs Bill (Lords), 1938, were declared null and void, and the bill was recommitted to a committee of the whole House in respect of a particular clause.

The opening sentence of that part of May relating to recommittals states that there are 2 subsequent stages which afford an opportunity for the recommittal of a Bill. It goes on to state:

When the House has ordered a bill to be read a third time the order may be discharged and the bill recommitted.

In order to prevent its being thought- and probably quite rightly thought too - that the third reading is null and void, surely the re sponsible and wise course of action to take is to have the Bill recommitted on the third reading, in other words, to have the order that the Bill be read a third time discharged and the Bill recommitted from the stage when it was moved that the Bill be now read a third time. Following that, a vote can be taken legitimately and properly, and the proceedings can be made to accord with the provisions of the Australian Constitution relating to an absolute majority, and there will be no doubt whatsoever that the Bill is then legitimate and valid. This is so easy to do, so much common sense, that unless pride is involved I believe we should take this action.

Whenever the third reading of a bill by which an alteration of the Constitution is proposed to be made has not been carried by an absolute majority of the House, the bill shall be forthwith laid aside and shall not be revived during the same session.

The third reading had to be carried by an absolute majority, because it would not otherwise have been in conformity with the Constitution. There is no point of order involved.

page 3351

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

- Mr Speaker, with the greatest of reluctance I move:

I would commence by joining with you, Mr Speaker, in referring to standing order 263, which states that no Bill that seeks to alter the Constitution shall be carried unless on the third reading the motion is carried by an absolute majority of the House. No honourable member on either side of the House is in doubt about that point. There is only one way in which it can be tested that there is an absolute majority, and that is by dint of a division.

Mr Sherry:

– What about a count?

Mr KILLEN:

– I am indebted to my friend for asking about a count. You cannot have a count unless a division is called for. This is the dilemma in which this House finds itself this evening. Mr Speaker, may I posit this assumption to you: Assume that there were 58 members of the Parliament sitting here prior to the third reading and the question was put by yourself: ‘That this Bill be read a third time. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, and there was then a chorus of ayes, 58 of them, and you then said: ‘Of the contrary “no”’, and there was a deathly silence. How do you satisfy the requirements of standing order 263?

Mr Sherry:

– Come off it.

Mr KILLEN:

– This is not a matter of coming off it, my dear chap, and rules are to be obeyed. This is the position, Mr Speaker, in which you found yourself, and 1 say this with unfeigned affection for you. You come to standing order 193, which deals with divisions. We are dealing with a very serious matter. We are not dealing with the rules for the hillbillies from the outer Derwent.

Mr Sherry:

– You would know more about that than I would.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will be heard in silence.

Mr KILLEN:

– Standing order 193 provides that a division shall not be proceeded with unless more than one member has called for a division. Mr Speaker, the only way in which you can test standing order 263 is for a division to be called for. You cannot proceed on the assumption that because no person calls No’ there is an absolute majority. There is no ambiguity in standing order 263 which says that there shall be an absolute majority of the House. How do you know, Sir, that there is an absolute majority unless there is a division? That is the first and the dominating fact to be met. The second one is that no division was called for. One honourable member alone cannot call for a division. There must be more than one voice. This is the difficulty in which you find yourself, but I submit that as the caretaker and the protector of the rights of every honourable member of this Parliament irrespective of which side he sits on, you are bound to heed the requirements of standing orders 263 and 193.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I second the motion. The point that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) made is an important and a serious one. The requirements of section 128 of the Constitution are that in certain cases Bills for alteration of the Constitution be carried by an absolute majority. It says: ‘If either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority’. The Constitution requires the House to pass such a Bill by an absolute majority. The House cannot pass the Bill unless the Standing Orders of the House are obeyed. If this matter went to the High Court on the question of fact I think it would be at least likely that the High Court would rule that since the House had not obeyed its own Standing Orders, the absolute majority had not been obtained.

Mr Speaker, we are trying to help you in this because we do not want the position to arise, as it may well arise from tonight’s proceedings, that the High Court would be held to rule on a question of fact as to what happened in this House. There are precedents in May and other places, I understand, for legal rulings of that character, especially on a constitutional point. I know, Sir, that you were in difficulties because there was no call from this side. You may even have been in difficulties because no tellers were appointed from this side. I recognise these difficulties, but under the Standing Orders of the House there is a proper way to get over them. I am trying to be helpful, and I am prepared to tell you the proper procedure which would put this matter beyond doubt. I warn you and I warn the House that the proceedings that we have just been through do not conform to the Standing Orders of the House, and since they do not conform to the Standing Orders of the House it cannot be said that the House has passed this Bill by an absolute majority. If that cannot be said, certain legal consequences follow from the terms of the Constitution. Those legal consequences would have to be tested as a matter of fact in the High Court.

I appeal to you, Sir, to put this matter beyond doubt, to go through the proper procedures, because proper procedures are available to the Government on which I will be willing to instruct the Government if necessary. I think that the Government probably knows what they are. There are proper procedures to go through if a matter of constitutional law is involved. The matter of the alteration of the Constitution is a most delicate point. It is provided for under section 128 of the Constitution. Where the High Court has as its supreme function the interpretation of the Australian Constitution I submit to you, Sir, that this House and you should play safe, that we should go through the proper procedures and that we should deal with this Bill in accordance with the proper procedures of this House as laid down in the Standing Orders.

The honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has drawn your attention to a matter in which the Standing Orders have been violated. The honourable member for Moreton has drawn your attention to another matter in which the Standing Orders have been violated, ft may be that the Standing Orders are wrong; it may be that they should be changed; I do not know. But while the Standing Orders are in print this House has to observe them and you, Sir, are not in a position to rule in absolute defiance of the Standing Orders. I am not a lawyer but I put it as a point of substantial law, I appeal to you even at this stage and I appeal to the Government to get on the right foot, to do this thing in the right way and to see that the legal forms of the Standing Orders are observed so that the requirements of the Constitution can be properly met without challenge in the High Court.

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

– In opposing the motion I just want to carry the arguments put forward by the Opposition to their logical extension. In the first place honourable members opposite are saying that unless somebody from the Opposition calls for a division on a constitutional amendment the vote cannot be counted.

Mr Killen:

– Not at ali.

Mr Wentworth:

– Not at all.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Moreton and the honourable member for Mackellar were heard in comparative silence. I ask them to extend the same courtesy to the Minister for the Capital Territory.

Mr BRYANT:

– I have been here long enough and I have watched this kind of operation often enough to know what the Opposition is attempting to do. The facts are that, a proposal for an alteration to the Constitution having been put and the Opposition not having called for a division, honourable members opposite are therefore claming that we cannot be counted. If one takes that to its logical extreme one will say that as only the people who are opposed to the matter can call for a division, unless somebody opposing the motion calls for it there cannot be one. Let us take that to its limit. Honourable members opposite are saying that if members of this House were unanimous on a question they could not be counted because no one would be entitled to call for a division and therefore the Speaker would not be entitled to count them. That is arrant nonsense. That is the point honourable members opposite have put tonight. The Speaker is in command of the situation. There have been occasions in the past when tellers would not come forward from the opposite side, and the divisions were counted. There are ample precedents in this Parliament for that. It is the Speaker’s duty to ensure that the numbers are counted in accordance with the constitutional requirement. There are Standing Orders and there is common sense. Common sense is to count them and record them. That has been done. Therefore, the Speaker is in order, and the dissent motion ought to be cast out.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) has quite misunderstood the arguments put forward by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). There is a very simple proposition here, that there are 2 things which govern the passage of this Bill. They are, firstly, the Standing Orders and practice of the House and, secondly, the Constitution. The Constitution comes after the procedures in this House. In order to determine whether this Bill has been validly passed in accordance with the Constitution, it is necessary to determine whether it has been passed by this chamber. In order to determine whether it has been passed by this chamber, it is necessary to look to the procedures of this House. Mr Speaker, I direct your attention to standing order 1, which reads:

In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by sessional or other orders or practice of the House, resort shall be had to the practice of the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in force for the time being, which shall be followed as far as can be applied.

Having observed standing order 1, Mr Speaker, you have then to determine whether there were any sessional or other orders of this House in operation at the present time - at the time when this Bil! was debated - and, as has been pointed out by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), standing orders 193 and 263 are in operation at the present time. Therefore, in order to test whether there has been an absolute majority in favour of this Bill, you must look to those 2 standing orders, Mr Speaker. I am sure that Hansard will record that the motion ‘That the Bill be now read a third time’ was put and declared carried on the voices and that the Bill was read a third time by the Clerk. That having been done, the Standing Orders of this House were completely carried out and put into effect. There was, therefore, no opportunity whatsoever for a division to be called for or put into operation and for the tellers to be asked to count the votes.

Mr Innes:

– Rubbish. You were here.

Mr VINER:

– Of course I was here.

Mr Innes:

– Why did you not stand up?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Stirling is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr VINER:

– If the honourable member for Melbourne has anything better to say than I have, I invite him to get on his feet afterwards and say it. The Minister for the Capital Territory said in his argument that our proposition was that the only members of the House who could move for a division were those on the Opposition side of the chamber. I suggest to the Minister that he is completely wrong. The Leader of the House (Mr Daly) was caught with his pants down - the most unedifying spectacle we have yet seen in this House. Had he been sitting at the table, rather than the Minister for External Territories (Mr Morrison), he would have realised what had happened. What had happened was that there was no call from the Opposition side of the House for a division and no honourable member on the Government side called for a division. Therefore, the motion was put on the voices, carried on the voices and declared to have been carried by the Clerk of the House. That, Mr Speaker, in my most respectful submission, is the end of the matter.

Had you observed the procedures of the House, we would not have had the position where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) was called upon to withdraw a remark and expelled from the House and there would have been no cause for the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to be called upon to withdraw and to be quite improperly and unjustly treated, as he was by the supporters of the Government.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is a reflection upon the Chair.

Mr VINER:

– Not upon you, Mr Speaker; upon the supporters of the Government, because they knew that they were in error and they were trying to get an expulsion from this side of the House in order to save their own skins. Mr Speaker, the matter, in the end, is very simple. If the House looks at the procedures of this House and then looks at the Constitution it will see that the answer is straightforward and clear. I suggest, Mr Speaker, that there is every reason why the motion of dissent from your ruling should be carried. The matter is clear. The supporters of the Government know that they are in the wrong. They know that they have messed up what this afternoon was declared by them to be a most vital matter of constitutional importance. It may be that the matter would have gone through properly if the Leader of the House had been on the ball, but he did not pay the attention that he ought to have paid to this very important matter. He was, as I have said, caught with his pants down. That is where he stands at the present time.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I point out to the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) that I have pulled up my pants. The more I hear the remarks of lawyers from the other side of the Parliament, the more I agree with Mr Justice Bowen that they are not only incompetent but also overpaid. Let me bring the honourable member up to date on the Standing Orders. He is a comparatively new member of the House and a slow learner. Mr Speaker, the situation is that you called for tellers and, with complete disrespect for the Parliament, honourable members opposite, acting like larrikins, refused to respond. Let me bring the eminent lawyer who has just resumed his seat right up to date. To do so, I quote from the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives for the First Session of the 26th Parliament in 1967. On 1 March 1967, at page 28, the following is recorded:

Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill 1967: The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question - That the Bill be now read a second time-

Debate resumed-

Question - put and passed - Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Mr Holt (Prime Minister) moved- That the Bill be now read a third time. Question - put.

No division being called for and there being no dissentient voice, Mr Speaker drew attention to the constitutional requirement that the Bill must be passed by an absolute majority and directed the bells to be rung.

The bells having ceased ringing, Mr Speaker again put the question and declared it in favour of the Ayes’. No division being called for and there being no dissentient voice Mr Speaker directed that the names of those Members present agreeing to the third reading be recorded, and appointed tellers.

Among the honourable members agreeing to the third reading were: The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), a former Prime Minister, the fighting champ from Boothby, an honourable member who is the quorum king and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). The eminent lawyers on the other side of the Parliament who have been arguing against tonight’s vote sat up and voted under entirely the same procedures. Let me continue this wonderful story. The votes and proceedings continue:

Mr Speaker declared that the question That the Bill be now read a third time ; had been resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority.

Bill accordingly read a third time.

Then we come to the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Bill 1967. The Votes and Proceedings state:

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question - That the Bill be now read a second time -

Debate resumed.

Question - put and passed - Bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Mr Holt (Prime Minister) moved- That the Bill be now read a third time. Question - put.

No division being called for and there being no dissentient voice, Mr Speaker drew attention to the constitutional requirement that the Bill must be passed by an absolute majority and directed the bells to be rung.

The bells having ceased ringing, Mr Speaker again put the question and declared it in favour of the Ayes’. No division being called for and there being no dissentient voice Mr Speaker directed that the names of those Members present agreeing to’ the third reading be recorded, and appointed tellers.

Lined up again were the wizard Rhodes Scholar and others. They have all the brains in the world, but they could not understand a standing order if they read it for 3 months on end. A total of 113 honourable members agreed to the motion for the third reading and, like tonight, there were only 2 tellers, the honourable members for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) and Ballaarat (Mr Erwin). The Votes and Proceedings continue:

Mr Speaker declared that the question That the Bill be now read a third time - had been resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority.

Bill accordingly read a third time.

Where do honourable members on the other side of the Parliament stand now? I have done a bit of reading in my spare time because one has plenty of time to read while one is waiting for honourable members opposite to think. Let honourable members look at the fourth edition of ‘Australian Senate Practice’ by Mr J. R. Odgers, an eminent authority, the Clerk of the Senate, one of our most notable public servants and a man skilled in the standing orders on constitutional matters. Do honourable members opposite deny his knowledge and background? I quote now from page 286, where it states:

If the Senate does not divide on the third reading of a Constitution Alteration Bill, it is nevertheless the practice to ring the Bells and to record the names of those Senators agreeing, or otherwise, to the third reading. This serves the operation of section 6a of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act which provides for the issue of a pamphlet containing the arguments authorised by Members who vote (a) for, and (b) against, the proposed law.

Having given honourable members a lecture on constitutional procedure, let me take them back to the Standing Orders and remind honourable members opposite that the tools of trade of a parliamentarian are the Standing Orders. Honourable members opposite have plenty of work to do on their tools. Standing order 263 states:

Whenever the third reading of a bill by which an alteration of the Constitution is proposed to be made has not been carried by an absolute majority of the House, the bill shall be forthwith laid aside and shall not be revived during the same session.

Even if Mr Speaker has the wisdom of Solomon, how does he know that the third reading has been carried by an absolute majority unless he asks for a division and counts honourable members? The standing order is simple and clear. When one reads between the lines, it precisely lays down that that is the procedure to be followed.

Having completely demolished the spurious and delaying arguments of honourable members opposite, I mention before I conclude that these are the gentlemen who said that they had no time to discuss the measure; these are the time wasters who refused to debate great constitutional issues, who tried to embarrass Mr Speaker, who were educated at all the A grade schools in the country and who are behaving in the national Parliament like second class larrikins. That statement goes for everybody, from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) down to the rank and file members.

I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your Solomon-like wisdom and judgment tonight.

You are a credit to the Parliament and you behaved with great dignity in the face of organised disruption against you. 1 would say that your judgment on this issue is in line with judgments made by all the great Speakers who have occupied that office. Tonight, therefore, I put on record that we have great confidence in your ruling. Having said so much and the time being so late and the Opposition not wishing to debate constitutional matters, I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 62

NOES: 46

Majority . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That Mr Speaker’s ruling be dissented from (Mr Killen’s motion).

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Honourable J. F. Cope)

AYES: 46

NOES: 64

Majority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3357

ADJOURNMENT

The Parliament: Personal Explanations - Constitutional Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill - La Balsa Expedition - Illawarra Regional Health Centre

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being past 15 minutes past 10 p.m. in accordance with the order of the House I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FOX:
Henty

– Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr FOX:

– Yes - by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly). A few minutes ago the Leader of the House accused me and the teller from the Australian Country Party of acting irresponsibly when a division was called for by refusing to act. Mr Speaker, you will recall that while the present Government was in Opposition and when the honourable member for Sydney was one of the tellers, he, on at least one occasion, refused to act. I am quite sure that you would agree with me that the honourable member for Sydney did not act irresponsibly. The second point I want to make is that the Leader of the House suggested that some of my colleagues and I should spend some of our spare time in reading. Could I suggest, with respect, that he ask the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to do some reading. If he reads the ‘Parliamentary Handbook’ and Who’s Who’ he will learn that the honourable member for Sydney has a birthday on 26 November and not on 14 November.

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

– Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr DALY:

– Yes. The honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) made some allegations that he had been misrepresented. I pointed out in the course of my remarks that on this important constitutional matter, which is of great moment to the Australian people, I did not think that an honourable member of such high standing as the honourable member for Henty would treat the matter with scant respect and as a joke and refuse to act in the important capacity of teller on a matter that could change the lives of many Australians. It is regrettable that the Opposition Whip should refuse to fulfil his high office for which he is paid a considerable sum of money.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister can make his explanation only in relation to the remarks in which he has been personally misrepresented.

Mr DALY:

– I finish on that note. But the honourable member tonight has betrayed the trust that he has been given. He is taking money under false pretences and, what is more, he cannot count.

Mr McLeay:

– Mr Speaker, you will remember that about half an hour ago the honourable member for Casey called the honourable member for Wannon an ‘ape’. I find that remark highly offensive and I ask for it to be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! A point of order cannot be accepted unless it is raised at the time of the occurrence to which objection is taken.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– Mr Speaker, I now speak to the motion for the adjournment of the House. It may be that you would be inclined to rule me out of order for I am going to refer to a debate that has just taken place. I do it in a spirit of making this Parliament appear to be what it ought to be and what, given the opportunity, it is and will be. I believe that tonight an error was made. I believe that it was an error of procedure. But whether it was an error for whatever cause-

Mr Reynolds:

– I rise to order, Mr Speaker.

Oppostion members - Oh!

Mr Reynolds:

– I do not intend to be intimidated by any kind of interjection.

Mr Bourchier:

– Mr Speaker, is the honourable member in the right seat?

Mr McLeay:

– He is out of his seat.

Mr Reynolds:

– This is typical of the frivolousness-

Mr Bourchier:

– Oh. sit down.

Mr Sherry:

– Stand up.

Mr Reynolds:

– It is the time of honourable members I am taking so I am quite patient about the interjections. Mr Speaker, my point of order is that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, with due respect, are a reflection on your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have not considered them to be a reflection on any ruling as yet.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I believe an error was made and in the shortest compass I will say what it was. I heard the Clerk read the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill the third time. My understanding is that that having been done, the procedure on the Bill was at an end. When you, Mr Speaker, called for a division because, as you put it, it was desirable that an absolute majority should be recorded, that was the point at which the Opposition was saying: ‘What is the authority for calling for that division?’ That is what caused all the dissention tonight. We have had that dissention and, if I might say so, I believe that the Opposition acted properly. I think that at all times it was trying to make this point. It has taken until now for me to get the call to make this clear. Because I believe in what I do and because I heard what I heard, in my opinion it must be accepted by this House that there is a real doubt as to whether the constitutional provisions have been satisfied for this question to be put to the people. It is no part of the wish of the Opposition to take advantage of any technical breach and because there is no desire on our part to do that, we will oppose the referendum as vehemently as we have. But we do not want this technical error - as I consider it to be - to result in the raising of any questions as to the validity of the legislation. What I wish to say is that the Opposition will give leave to the Government to re-commit the Bill in order simply to take the third reading and to eliminate any question of doubt as to the validity of the matter. If pride were dropped by the Government - there is no doubt that people sitting on this side of the House heard the Clerk read the Bill a third time.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Do not include me in that.

Mr Nixon:

– The old grey mare!

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Now please-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is a serious matter. I hope that the House will treat it as such.

Mr SNEDDEN:

- Mr Speaker, I will not be put off by the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron). The fact is that in reality the simplest course to take is to re-commit this matter for the third reading and to put the matter beyond all doubt. There could then be no doubt if it were re-committed by the will of the House. I have no doubt that the Government can assemble its absolute majority. It would be counted and it would satisfy the con stitutional requirement. I make that clear statement.

I think it would be necessary to look at the Standing Orders if this course were adopted because the Bill was under guillotine and the time for the guillotine having passed, I believe that there would have to be a lifting of the guillotine in order to have the re-commital We will co-operate in every way necessary for this purpose. If it is the wish of the Government not to proceed with this course but to maintain that we were taking a point of order which is not the point of order we were taking at all - if the Government persists in doing that - there is nothing I can do about it. But it will remain forever in doubt, not only in relation to this Bill but also in relation to every Bill that passes this House, whether or not when the Clerk reads the Bill a third time, when he actually utters the form of words for the third reading, the Bill has actually passed through this House. I have been in this House for a number of years and I know it has always been the crucial point in the passing of a Bill when the Clerk reads it a third time. Now that the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) has moved as he has, and all of us on this side of the House clearly heard the words, I hope that the course I suggest will be taken. Whatever is necessary for that purpose, whether it be done tonight or tomorrow morning, there will be total co-operation from the Opposition.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– The speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) sounded to me like a deathbed confession. All night the Leader of the Opposition sat here while those around him attempted to disrupt and to stop the proceedings of the Parliament on this issue. Now, with all the pathos and drama of a saviour of the nation the Leader of the Opposition comes forward and says, ‘We will cooperate’. Let me tell the honourable member that we do not want his co-operation. Government supporters attend- the Parliament. They can suspend Standing Orders without his assistance and, unlike members of the Opposition Parties, when it comes to voting on great issues we do not have only 46 members here; we have our full complement.

The Leader of the Opposition revived an earlier debate. I read out the speech that he made in that debate, and showed how what he said on that occasion exploded his own theory. He now argues: “There is a constitutional doubt about the passing of this Bill, but we will help to save the Government. Will you re-commit the measure?’ He was trying to save something from the wreck caused by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) this evening when they came in here - one of them a second grade lawyer and the other a disrupter - and tried to disrupt the whole proceedings.

Mr Speaker, you have the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job and the effectiveness of a machine gun in certain circumstances. The Opposition found that out tonight. Now they are trying to introduce a suggestion that what happened was not right. On a great constitutional issue earlier today the Opposition demanded more time for debate, for time to be made available right up till Christmas, but by acting in a completely unparliamentary way it showed it was not willing to debate this issue in the Parliament now. This is all subterfuge. Members of the Opposition are ashamed because they will not let the Australian people decide the issue. They are afraid. They will not let the Australian people hear the various views on the matter and express their own opinion on it.

Now honourable members opposite slink out of the House like mangy dogs, unwilling to stand up and take their medicine after throwing inuendoes at you, Mr Speaker, and at members on this side of the Parliament. Who leads them out? The prospective Prime Minister of Australia, they tell me. He threw mud all over the Government a moment ago, and now will not stand here and take his medicine. Why did not the Leader of the Opposition take part in this debate and try to stop his own supporters from disrupting it in every way? I do not intend to read again the earlier proceedings of the Parliament which proved that what I said is right. A division must be called for by the Speaker. That was done on the motion for the third reading of the Bill, and 64 members voted for it. As far as I am concerned, the Opposition can take the matter to any court in the land. All that the court will ask is: ‘Was there an absolute majority of the Parliament in favour of the Bill?’ The records will show that 64 members voted in the affirmative.

I am just about sick and tired of second class lawyers in the Opposition trying to tell the people of this country what the law is and what it is not. Undoubtedly if an inquiry is wanted, it is into how lawyers get their fees. After hearing the lawyers opposite tonight, it is no wonder that the gaols of Australia are full. I should imagine that the Leader of the Opposition would have more clients in gaol than any Queen’s Counsel in the history of this country. He cannot understand the records of the Parliament; he will not take notice of them; he will not take notice of the Senate proceedings; he will not take notice when he reads his own name in the list of those who voted on a previous occasion as I have indicated. Yet the Leader of the Opposition now comes into the House and suggests that the Bill be recommitted. He says: ‘We will co-operate; we will be good.’ It would be the first time ever if the Opposition did that.

The situation is that the Government does not beg for mercy from this Opposition. By God, we will be desperate if we ever want its assistance. We will be right down. Let members of the Opposition go out and tell the people that they are going to challenge this Bill constitutionally. Not only in the Parliament do they oppose it, but also outside the Parliament they seek to prevent the Australian people from having a say on these issues. The Opposition will not let the people who sent them here decide a particular question. They have taken every tactical and rotten point in an endeavour to stop them from doing so.

Mr Street:

– We want it decided properly.

Mr DALY:

– The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) reminds me of the mouse that roared. He has been silent all night. Now at the last minute he is awake. Why do not members of the Opposition come into this Parliament and vote on the Bill? Tonight they said that no honourable members called for a division. They know well that members who intend to vote for a motion cannot call for a division. Mr Speaker, in your wisdom you did what every Speaker before you has done. You called for a vote on the matter and then decided that the votes of those who were in favour of the motion would be counted. Thus the constitutional requirement was fulfilled.

I am completely unmoved by the Leader of the Opposition’s saying that he will co-operate. Let me tell him again - we do not want the co-operation of the Opposition to suspend Standing Orders, for members of the Australian Labor Party in this House do what they are paid to do. They come here and vote. They are not squirming away to their businesses, their interests and to those they protect, unlike the result opposite with a miserable turn-up of the Opposition benches of only about 45 members out of a possible 58. Every member of the Opposition ought to have been in his place tonight, because they are all pretty well paid to be here. Therefore, this business of the Leader of the Opposition’s coming in late with a great, dignified approach does not move me. His own Deputy Leader insulted the Speaker tonight. This is the Deputy Leader who aspires to be Deputy Prime Minister. He would not apologise to the Speaker for his conduct. Also tonight a former Minister acted like an over-educated larrikin and had to be put out of the House. What sort of conduct is this that has been going on all night? Sitting opposite me at the moment is a member of the Country Party, a former Minister who, I have no doubt, will get up in a moment and say that honourable members have not had enough time to debate the Bill. Yet for the last hour and a half the Opposition has wasted every available second of the time of this Parliament in a disgraceful display.

I have suggested to the Prime Minister in all seriousness tonight that in future when we are entertaining distinguished guests in this place, in order to protect the Parliament from the sort of conduct that we have seen tonight he had better make it an apple juice show, because we cannot put up with this kind of thing. It is bad enough that members of the Opposition acted as they did this evening, but the worst thing is that the Government bought it. I do not hide the fact. I know what steamed up the members of the Opposition. I know what caused their conduct tonight. I know also how reprehensible it was. It was disgraceful the way members of the Opposition went on, and I repeat that I am completely unmoved by what has been said.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

– I want to take the opportunity as a backbencher to bring a matter to the attention of the House. I think it is a matter of great historical importance. Honourable members might have read that just off the coast of Mooloolaba at the moment are 3 balsa rafts forming what is known as the La Balsa expedition. This is rather an interesting expedition in that 12 scientists are making a trip by raft from Ecuador to Australia to show that it is not only possible but also probable that in primitive days such a trip was made. A similar trip was made some years ago by one raft.

The leader of the present expedition is Vital Alsar. He is leading a multi-national expedition, with 5 nationalities represented in it.

I do not want to take a lot of time on this matter, but I should like to bring it to the attention of the Government, for I believe that this is an historic occasion. The members of the expedition mortgaged their homes and sold everything they had in order to pay for the construction of the rafts to enable them to make this important journey in the interests of science and history. Having made it, and Australia having been associated with it, they would like the rafts to stay in this country. I know that many overseas governments and persons are interested in acquiring these rafts because of their historical value. However, as the members of the expedition would like the rafts to stay in Australia I ask the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Government to consider well the question whether these rafts should be acquired. It has been suggested to me that one raft could be placed at Mooloolaba, where the landing will be made, one could be placed perhaps in Sydney, and one in the national museum.

An interesting fact is that on the mast of one of the rafts is a painting that was painted for the expedition by Salvador Dali. It depicts a dolphin towing these 3 rafts. That painting also is for sale. I suggest that this is a national effort. It has some historical and scientific value. As the Prime Minister has told us that the ‘Blue Poles’ painting that has been bought by the Australian Government has now increased in value because of the controversy surrounding it and the time lapse, I suggest that this painting and these rafts also could increase in value because of their historical value.

I suggest that the Government might well watch the progress of this expedition, and that the Government and the Parliament could send a message of congratulations to the men on the rafts when they land on the beautiful Sunshine Coast in my electorate. I think that the Government could well consider the historical and scientific aspects of this experiment and the question whether the 3 rafts should be preserved for Australia. I hope that the Prime Minister is listening, because I told him that I wanted to raise this matter this evening. I think that it is an important matter. I think that it is something that is very significant in Australian history. I hope that the Government will consider what I have said tonight.

Mr KERIN:
Macarthur

– Last Thursday night I spoke for 2 minutes in the adjournment debate, mainly in support of the Illawarra Regional Health Committee and its contentions regarding the report of the Australian Universities Commission Committee on medical schools - another Karmel committee. I was debating some of the findings of the report of this Karmel Committee. The main reason why I raised this matter was that some very good principles were inherent in the scheme which the Illawarra Regional Health Committee put to the Universities Commission for evaluation. The Committee suggested a community based medical training scheme. Under this scheme people in the various medical areas could receive training for 4 years and then they could receive a higher degree of training for a further 4 years. This applied particularly to general practitioners.

Since that time the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) has announced that certain grants will be made to the States to develop mental health, alcoholism and drug dependency centres. I am pleased to say that much of what the Minister said regarding the aims and objectives of these various centres supports very much my contentions and the contentions of the Illawarra Regional Health Committee with respect to the sort of medical training that it proposes for the Illawarra area.

I shall refer briefly to what the Minister proposes for the Illawarra area. In the field of mental health, for Wollongong he proposes the establishment of a main community centre which will provide front line community service for assessing and treating areas of psychiatric morbidity. It is proposed to establish at Warrawong a community-based psychiatric facility to relieve the extreme stresses on the Port Kembla hospital. In Warilla-Shellharbour the objective is to provide facilities for a rapidly expanding area with sparse health and welfare facilities. In Cringila it is proposed to provide psychiatric facilities in association with other services. Probably no other area on the South Coast, or no suburb of Wollongong needs this facility more than Cringila. In Dapto it is proposed to establish a shop front centre which will initiate a mental health service in a rapidly expanding area. In Corrimal it is proposed to initiate a mental health service in the social centre of a large area.

In the field of alcoholism, in Wollongong the proposal is to provide a major central ser vice for the assessment and treatment of alcohol problems. In regard to drug dependency, it is proposed to establish a ‘drop-in’ centre in Wollongong for counselling, evaluation and diagnosis, and program treating, The total amount of the grants for the Wollongong area is $2 13.000. The reason why so much emphasis was placed on the Illawarra region in the Minister’s announcement was the degree of the problems that exist in the area. This is why I am so pleased that further emphasis is being given to my contentions with respect to the very detailed and vigorous work that has been carried out by the Illawarra Regional Health Committee. The schemes which the Committee suggested were similar to those that are operating in Leiden in Holland and in Nottingham in the United Kingdom.

The Committee recommended the concept of a 4-year course for a diploma of medical education. It was to provide a common training ground for general practitioners, specialists, nursing teachers, hospital administrators, health officers - both public and industrial - teachers college lecturers and various paramedical staff. The course was to have introduced the concept of co-ordinated community health services, such as geriatrics, mental health, rehabilitation, industrial health, community nursing and minimal care, drug dependency and alcoholism centres. A bachelor of education degree in health services could have followed from the diploma of medical education, but for general practitioners a further 4 years of in-depth vocational training selected by the diplomate would have followed, and it would have been to world standard and science based.

The autonomous University of Wollongong was to have been the academic centre for the 3 local hospitals, for industries and for community organisations and it was to provide training facilities. The populaton in the area is sufficient to provide all the raw material, if I can put it that way - the people needed to train others in these medical areas. I have always been disturbed to find that the Wollongong-Port Kembla area, which is the seventh largest city area in Australia, seems to miss out on so many governmental measures. Honourable members cannot understand the problems of the area unless they have been there. It is a cold, blunt fact that there has been less expenditure per head on most public services in this area.

There is always heavy unemployment in the area, poverty is widespread, industrial accidents are common, migrant and youth problems are acute, public transport is woefully inadequate and roads are hopeless. I join with the Illawarra Regional Health Committee in its contention that insufficient attention was paid to its submissions. There would have been a unique opportunity for the proper integration of health education with the health service needs of the community. The involvement of the trainee with the community from an early stage and the type of curriculum proposed would have ensured that the great majority of trainees would have entered general practice. The undergraduate course for the training of community nurses and clinical psychologists which also was proposed would have had common aspects with the medical course so that all people in it could have worked as a team. These innovatory projects would have made the proposed medical school of world interest.

The particular needs of the region were carefully considered, and ways to offer appropriate migrant health centres and other community services were proposed. The probable amalgamation of the University of Wollongong and the teachers college offered an exciting possibility to involve teachers more in the health needs of the community so that effective health education and meaningful human relations leading to better mental health could have been fostered in all of the schools. The Karmel Committee identified a need for more general practitioners, yet I think it ignored the advice of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners which, because of the better community orientation of the Wollongong hospital and the nature of the proposed curriculum, supported the Wollongong submission over that of Newcastle. The policy of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners is against extensive hospital out-patient departments which have tried to replace general practice. Research done over the last 7 years by the Research Fellow of the New South Wales Faculty of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has indicated that the replacement rate of general practitioners in Australia needs to be more than 400 per annum - approximately 140 in New South Wales. In Australia at present there is an overall shortage of 1,200 to 1,500 general prac titioners - approximately 400 in New South Wales - and this is further accentuated by maldistribution.

The Illawarra region is undoubtedly a growth centre. It is lacking in many health and other services because of its rapid growth, and it is likely to become a disaster area. Already the savage crime rate is 50 per cent higher than the rate for the rest of New South Wales. The large migrant population and the problems of industrialisation offer a special challenge. The fact that Townsville is also a growth centre, that hospital facilities and health services are needed to be developed there and that some tropical diseases are endemic were the 3 main reasons given by the Australian Universities Commission why Townsville should have a medical school, and I do not dispute the reasons. But surely those same reasons, with migrant, urban and industrial problems substituted for tropical diseases, exist in the Wollongong area, together with a far larger population, and this justifies the case for Wollongong.

The failures of the medical profession today are largely human failures - substitution of drugs for proper consultation; over-use of operations; unwillingness and inability to become sufficiently interested in prevention, rehabilitation and chronic care: not sufficient interest in the great social issues of our times: and unwillingness to work with other people. There is also an unwillingness to practise in the areas of greatest need. To overcome these problems we need a new approach to medical education. This applies not only to medicine but also to nursing and other members of the health team.

In the final minute remaining to me in this debate I would like to refer to some of the specific objections raised in the report that I and the Illawarra Region Health Committee disputed. The report said that at one stage obstetric services were not large, 40 per cent of deliveries occurring at Port Kembla. In fact there were 3,598 deliveries from July 1972 to June 1973 in the 2 hospitals, Wollongong and Port Kembla. Both of these obstetric units will be used as a complex for undergraduate training in obstetrics. With the expected rise in population of approximately 70,000 in the region by 1980, obstetric deliveries should rise significantly.

Another finding of that Committee was:

  1. While there is a similar range of services for a non-teaching hospital, there is a general lack of related sophisticated specialist services. Considerable development would be needed to bring the hospital to teaching hospital standard. In general, hospital services are not yet developed to the extent necessary for an undergraduate clinical school.

To my mind this is good reason for investing money there to make sure that it does come up to standard. That Committee said that consistent with evidence given by representatives of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, most modern thinking favours the community type of hospital.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

page 3363

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MATHEWS:

– Yes. Earlier this evening the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) said that I had called the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) an ape. That is not true, Sir. I made no observation whatsoever about the honourable member for Wannon.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I should like to say before I call the honourable member for Paterson that interjections of that nature are completely out of order. If I had heard it and knew who had said it I would have certainly asked that it be withdrawn.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– On Monday of this week I attended the opening of a new bulk terminal at Werris Creek in my electorate. This terminal, which cost $2m, will have a storage capacity of 5i million bushels of wheat. At that function I met many members of the Wheat Board and the Grain Elevator Board and also farmers who are very concerned with the problem of weevils in wheat. There is an urgent need for assistance to be given to a grain disinfestation scheme. At the present time the wheat harvest is taking place in New South Wales and in other parts of Australia. We will have a very big crop this year. This crop will be required not only for home consumption purposes but also for stock feed purposes. We will have to cater for the huge export market which Australia has developed. We have established a splendid wheat trade right across the world. We have been responsible for setting a reputable standing with our clients in the supply of quality wheat.

The wheat coming off at the present time requires protection. With the heavy rains we have been experiencing in the wheat belt the quality of the wheat has deteriorated slightly. It is difficult to understand why this Government has refused assistance to State governments to combat the weevil menace which is most prevalent at the present time. Urgent remedial measures are required and this matter should be given a high priority. I know that the State governments are very concerned about this problem. They are prepared to play their part financially but this Government has not agreed to help them. Experts have informed the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture that the infestation could become acute within 12 months. This Government has refused to assist by making available $lm to protect an industry which brings in to this country some S600m a year from the export market. This is ridiculous when $lm spread amongst the States would save this $600m export industry.

I understand that one shipment from Australia has already been refused because of weevil infestation. We have Ministers coming back to this country from overseas making great statements about new orders coming in for wheat. In spite of this they apparently will do nothing about the weevil problem. We know that the Government paid over $lm for a painting called ‘Blue Poles’. We see the Government spending money in other areas which are of much less value to this nation than is the production and storage of wheat. This action is another attempt by the Government to penalise primary industries and in so doing it is also penalising the economy of Australia because a big wheat crop and big wheat markets mean much to this country. They mean much to our secondary industry. Right across the board they put money into people’s pockets and into many industries. Farmers should be shown how to eradicate weevils. Weevils are undoubtedly a pest that can cause millions of dollars worth of damage. When a male weevil and a female weevil get together in a silo there are millions of their progeny within a matter of weeks. They breed very freely. This is one of the problems with weevils.

I ask the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Cabinet to have another look at this serious omission to grant assistance. An amount of only $lm is needed to do the job. The States are prepared to pay their share from State funds. Surely this is not too much to ask. We believe that the protection of this very important industry is a vital matter. I repeat my suggestion that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet should reconsider this matter and make this money available to the States to enable them to do the job. I know that State Ministers for Agriculture right across Australia are very concerned about this matter. Having spoken with officials within the New South Wales Department of Agriculture on Monday and with the Minister himself I know that they arc very concerned. As a matter of fact in his remarks at the opening of the grain terminal the Minister concentrated much of his speech on this problem. I ask the Government to give full consideration to solving this problem to the benefit of this country.

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · Riverina · ALP

– The honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) referred to the propensity of weevils to multiply. I had thought that they demonstrated that earlier this evening. Tonight in the few moments left to me in this adjournment debate I want to refer to the matter that has been raised by the honourable member. In the first instance the proposal to control weevils in wheat is a most important one for consideration. The proposal before the Government was in fact a limited proposal to appoint an additional 44 inspectors to be paid for not only by the Australian Government but by imposing a levy on wheat growers. So the wheat growers would in fact pay for 44 more inspectors. The interesting point is that according to the agreement - the very limited agreement - reached within the

Australian Agricultural Council inspectors were to be precluded from doing anything other than looking at silos handled by the various State grain elevator boards. I might say that those silos are already very carefully examined by the staff members of those boards. So those inspectors were going to be limited in doing a job which in fact they expected was to be carried out in the first instance.

The decision by the Australian Government was simply to refer this matter back to the Agricultural Council to have it properly examined again to ensure that the wheat growers were not being asked to pay a further tax or to make a further contribution to appoint additional people to run around the countryside with the status of inspector whilst at the some time being prevented from doing the job. I suggest that the situation is not quite in the terms referred to tonight by the honourable member. It should be clearly understood that there is concern. It should be clearly understood that there is an opportunity for the Agricultural Council to have a look at this proposition again to ensure that wheat growers are not in fact being called upon to pay a further tax which will be used to appoint an additional 44 inspectors who will be operating in a severely restricted way and who would not in fact be able to do the job that I think the industry would like them to do. This is the position at the present time. I welcome the opportunity to put the record straight.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 o’clock the House stands adjourned till 10 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, 15 November 1973.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3365

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Aged and Handicapped Persons: Public Transport Systems (Question No. 1047)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Are any studies being undertaken by his Department concerning the provision of public transport systems suitable for the specific needs of the handicapped and the aged, such as low-fare taxi services or mobile/flexible destination mini-buses.
  2. If not, will he authorise his Department to undertake studies to establish the need for such specialised services and the desirability and cost of their introduction.
Mr Charles Jones:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. No specific studies are presently being conducted by my Department into the provision of public transport systems suitable for the special needs of the aged and the handicapped. However, these groups are but two who have been disadvantaged in the past in regard to access to public transport. Others, for example, are residents of particular areas and shiftworkers. The Bureau of Transport Economics has commenced a study of the needs of these broader sections of the community.

The honourable member will be aware that one of the first measures announced by the Government and brought into effect in the Budget was a substantial assistance program for urban public transport projects proposed by the States. This program will have a marked effect upon the levels of service, comfort and convenience which will benefit the community as a whole. I would expect that due regard will be paid to the specific needs of groups such as the handicapped and the aged in the development of plans and specifications for projects to be supported under the urban transport program and also in the design of the Australian Passenger Train.

  1. I would remind the honourable member that, of the $32.09m to be appropriated by the Australian Government in 1973-74 for assistance to the States for urban public transport,$1m will be specifically allocated for research and planning. The research projects to be supported under this scheme have still to be determined in conjunction with the States, but I can assure the honourable member that I would be prepared to approve studies of the type he has in mind.

Papua New Guinea: Volunteer Organisations (Question No. 369)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Can he say how many persons sponsored by volunteer organisations were employed in Papua New Guinea in (a) 1970, (b) 1971 and (c) 1972.
  2. If so, from which countries did they come.
  3. What was the contribution of the Australian Government towards the agencies sponsoring the volunteers.
  4. What is the basis of this contribution.
  5. Who employed the persons referred to in part (1).
  6. How many of them were employed by the Papua New Guinea Administration.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. (a) 154, (b) 211, (c) 280.
  2. Volunteers serving in Papua New Guinea have been allocated by organisations based in Australia, Austria, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Details are set out in the following table:
  1. and (4) The Australian Government’s contribution to Volunteer programs in Papua New Guinea is confined to the Australian Volunteers Abroad Scheme, operated by the Overseas Service Bureau. The Bureau was selected to receive government financial assistance in 1965, when it was decided that the Australian Government should contribute directly to a program of voluntary overseas service by Australians.

Assistance takes the form of an annual grant to the Bureau to cover the operational expenses of the Australian Volunteers Abroad programs in Asia, Africa and the Pacific as well as in Papua New Guinea. The Government’s contribution towards the Bureau’s operations in Papua New Guinea (which comes from a Department of External Territories vote) totalled $32,800 in 1969-70, $38,007 in 1970-71 and $34,930 in 1971-72.

  1. and (6) See answer to question (2) above.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 November 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19731114_reps_28_hor86/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant