29th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.
page 2029
– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That whereas the natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as pan of the World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations.
Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry, Mr Jarman, Mr Keogh, Mr Kerin, Mr Mathews, Mr Morris, and Mr Oldmeadow.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that implementation of the Report on Housing by the Priorities Review Staff will not ensure that the Australian community can secure living accommodation of its own choosing appropriate to its needs; that many of the proposals positively discriminate against home ownership; that the proposals if implemented would not encourage thrift and initiative but would further advance the philosophy of dependence upon the Government for basic services; that the proposals are concerned with redistribution of income than providing accommodation for the Australian community.
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to take no further measures which will make home ownership unattractive to those who have a home and unachievable for those who have not.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodges, Mr McLeay, Mr McVeigh and Mr Eric Robinson.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.
That there is no certainty than any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.
That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.
Your petitioners therefore pray that the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Corbett and Mr Jarman. Petitions received.
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned students and staff of the Prahran College of Advanced Education and citizens respectfully showeth:
That the undersigned believe that:
The freezing of capital grants by the Victorian Institute of Colleges, as a direct result of education expenditure cuts in the 1975 budget, will stop the Prahran College of Advanced Education maintaining even the present standard of education.
We believe the Prahran College of Advanced Education is in jeopardy.
The minimum requirement to save this situation is that the Number Eight building project proceed as planned.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Crean. Petition received.
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:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that (1) an independent radio station, funded by public revenue and managed by a committee elected by ethnic minorities, be established in each major city in Australia to broadcast daily in the languages of ethnic minorities and (2) that those stations currently making ethnic language broadcasts be assisted to do so daily and to involve ethnic minorities fully in programming and management where they do not now do so.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received. by Dr J. F. Cairns. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the undersigned persons believe that-
The $300 limit on income tax deductibility in respect of personal residential land and water rates is unrealistic and is a discriminatory income tax penalty.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,
Petition received. by Mr Connolly. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,
Petition received. by Mr Connolly. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry respectfully showeth:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received. by Mr Macphee Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Kerin. Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who. worked in more than one State in any year would-
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not reintroduced.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Morris.
Petition received.
Petition received.
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:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take steps to-
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever prayby Mr Nixon.
Petition received.
Petition received.
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the decisions of the Australian Government-
Your petitioners are impelled’ by these facts to call upon the Australian Government as’ a matter of urgency to review the above-mentioned decisions (a) and (b), and to determine
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,
Petition received. by Mr Oldmeadow. Petition received.
Why alia: Recreation Facilities
To the Honourable, the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take such steps as may be necessary to provide a properly maintained roadway to Point Lowly, to ensure basic recreation facilities for the citizens of the city of Whyalla.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received. by Mr Wallis Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australian respectfully showeth:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will withdraw its confidence from the present Prime Minister, in order that there may be a speedy election and that the people of Australia may be given their proper opportunity to pass judgment on the Government responsible for the present level of unemployment and other national losses.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Wentworth. Petition received.
page 2031
Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa-Prime Minis ter-Mr Speaker, I inform the House that this morning His Excellency the Governor-General accepted the resignation of the Hon. R. F. X. Connor as Minister for Minerals and Energy. His Excellency subsequently directed and appointed Senator the Hon. K. S. Wriedt to hold the office of Minister for Minerals and Energy. In this House the Minister for Minerals and Energy will be represented by the Minister for Overseas Trade, Mr Frank Crean. I also inform the House that in the absence of the Minister for Administrative Services and Leader of the House, Mr Fred Daly, the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, Mr Lionel Bowen, will represent him and act as Leader of the House.
page 2032
page 2032
– I ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the events which led first to his former Treasurer, Dr J. F. Cairns, being dismissed and now his former Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, resigning, does the Prime Minister now consider his own participation in the same events obliges him to resign also? If not, why not?
-Mr Speaker, no.
page 2032
-Has the attention of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development been drawn to recent reports that the Victorian Minister for Conservation attaches great importance to the elimination of the sewerage backlog in Melbourne as a means of reducing pollution in Port Phillip Bay? In view of this, can the Minister say what assistance he intends to give to the Victorian Government in this program?
– My attention has been drawn to the reports. Of course the pollution into Port Phillip Bay was a legacy inherited by this Government. As honourable members know one in 6 families in Melbourne lives in unsewered areas and most of the flow from the catchment area of Melbourne goes into Port Phillip Bay. In regard to assistance, this Government made $13m available in the first year. In the last financial year it made $34m available. In this financial year it has allocated $35m. In that legacy of neglect, a debt burden has been built up by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. The authority pays 58c of every dollar in servicing the debt loan. Therefore the solving of this problem will take a considerable period but this
Government will do everything in its power to co-operate with the of Government to try to overcome the legacy that we inherited.
page 2032
-Why did the Prime Minister mislead the House on 9 October with an assurance that all communications of substance between the Minister for Minerals and Energy and the original Government intermediary were tabled on 9 July.
– I regret to say that I myself was misled.
page 2032
– Has the Minister for Education seen recent criticisms of the amount of money to be made available for Victorian Government schools in the calendar year 1976? Is it valid to refer to $9.2m capital being available for the first 6 months of 1976? What is the share, capital and recurrent, for Victorian Government schools from the $465.2m to be made available by the Australian Government in the year 1976? What was the Victorian State schools’ share of the $784m, capital and recurrent, available from the Australian Government for Australian schools in the 2 years 1974 and 1975?
-The persistent line of discussion of the Victorian Minister for Education is to suggest that if a report is made to this Parliament, as was the Schools Commission report, he is entitled to receive all of the money referred to in the report as assigned to Victoria and that there is some compulsion on the Australian Parliament to adopt the report. The only expenditures that Mr Thompson was entitled to assume he could make out of Federal grants were from the funds for the biennium recommended by Professor Karmel and enacted by this Parliament. Of the $784m the Victorian State schools received $81m in capital and $69m in recurrent funds. His reference to $9.2m being made available in the first 6 months of this coming year seems to me to be a kind of mystic suggestion. In the cash flow of funds the initial payments for capital will usually be about one-third of the final amount. In point of fact, Victorian State schools will be receiving $29,250,000 in the calendar year 1976. In addition recurrent funds for Victorian State schools will be about $56m, making $85m in all. In this present calendar year and the last calendar year, therefore, Victoria received $ 1 50m for State schools and in the coming year it will receive $85m.
I am completely at a loss to know how an responsible Minister of the Crown can somehow or other call a grant additional to the expenditure of the State a cut. What the Victorian Minister means is that he expected to get more if the Federal Parliament had adopted in its full force the report of the Schools Commission. What he is getting is an addition to the State’s effort. He is getting something in the vicinity of $235m over 3 years for his State schools as an addition to the State’s effort. His comments on this as a cut is an example of skilful misrepresentation to the electorate and to the public of Victoria.
page 2033
– I ask: Why did the Prime Minister mislead the House when he replied to a question on 2 September that there were no further negotiations with the Government’s principal intermediary after 20 May 1975 when the Executive Council authority was revoked?
– Because I was so assured.
page 2033
– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory has before it today a report sent to it by one of his Ministers which would, if adopted, make incest legal in the Australian Capital Territory if committed by adults over the age of 18 years? Who was the twisted mind responsible for this draft of the working party on territorial criminal law? Are there no depths of degradation to which his Government will not descend?
– I was not aware that there was any matter of this nature before the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory today. I did answer a question on this matter last month from the honourable member for Fraser. I pointed out that my Government, like an earlier government, had in fact received a report on codification of the criminal laws of the mainland territories. I believe it was AttorneyGeneral Bowen who received the earlier report about 5 years ago. My Attorneys-General have also had a committee look into codification of the criminal laws of the mainland territories.
I pointed out in answer to the honourable member for Fraser last month that the difference between the 2 governments, and therefore in the handling of the 2 reports turns on this: That 5 years ago the laws of the Australian Capital Territory and very often of the Northern Territory were made by ministerial Ordinance. It is due to the initiative by my Government- an undertaking which I made in anticipation of the election of my Government- that there is a Legislative Assembly in both Territories. Accordingly, the making of legislation on this criminal code or any other matter is now primarily a matter for the elected representatives of the 2 Territories. Accordingly they are entitled to make whatever Ordinance they see fit. It is not for me to express a view on incest or any of the other features of the criminal law as it has been or as it is proposed. I do not believe there can be any doubt that the criminal law of the Australian Capital Territory is very much in need of review and reform. It is basically the criminal law applying in New South Wales before the Australian Capital Territory was accepted from New South Wales in 1909.
Whatever my views may be, whatever the views of my acquaintances may be, about incest or other matters, it is not, I believe, a matter for this Parliament primarily to say what the criminal law shall be in the mainland Territories. That is something for the elected representatives of the mainland Territories to do. They can change the law. They can abolish the present law. They can introduce a new law. They can say that there will be no penalties. They can say there will be more severe penalties. But it is up to them to do it. The people of those Territories are entitled to elect those who will take this responsibility. I do not believe that our Parliament should be preoccupied with laws for the mainland Territories which they now have the option to deal with themselves.
When this matter was raised under a previous government- the Gorton Government- by Attorney-General Nigel Bowen nothing was done about it. I do not blame the AttorneyGeneral of the day; I blame the government of the day. But nothing was done about it. My Attorneys-General received a report. There should be a report. That report is going, as I said a month ago to the honourable member for Fraser, to the people who have the responsibility of legislating in accordance with it or in disregard of it.
page 2033
-Can the Prime Minister now assure the House that the former Minister for Minerals and Energy did not mislead the House in relation to the ACTU-Solo affair? Will the Prime Minister now accept the assurance of the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Souter, that the Government was not deceived over the price being paid by the ACTU?
– I have to repeat yet again that I have heard or read nothing that would change my view about the findings of Mr Justice Collins, the royal commissioner on petroleum, in respect of this matter. If the right honourable gentleman or any other honourable gentleman has views or still more facts on this matter it is, I believe, his duty to put them to the royal commissioner. I have no reason whatever to doubt the accuracy and the wisdom of the findings of the royal commissioner.
page 2034
-I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture. In view of the sudden, dramatic and disastrous fall in the price of milk powder, on overseas markets from $400 a tonne to $250 a tonne with the consequent reduction of 10c per lb to our dairymen, will the Government consider financial assistance in some form to the affected sector of the dairy industry if an official application is made to the Government by the industry with a detailed submission as to the extent, and the effect of the setback?
– I do not carry these figures in my head but I doubt that what the honourable member said about -the world price dropping from $400 a tonne to $250 a tonne is correct. I think the honourable Member will find that that is the figure in respect of the equalisation interim value. This has been due certainly to the fall in world prices for skim milk powder, which is causing concern to some sections of the dairy industry, particularly those producing that type of product. A problem could develop as many dairy farmers could perhaps turn to the supply of alternative products to companies making condensary products. I will raise this matter with the Minister for Agriculture. The second part of the question asked by the honourable member refers to a matter of policy. I will raise those matters with the Minister for Agriculture.
page 2034
– Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why he appears to have consistently failed to control the activities of his Ministers? Does he accept responsibility for this failure?
– The question is based on a false premise.
page 2034
-I ask the Prime Minister: Has the Australian Government been advised that European based banks which provide financial investment services to Arab investors have a vested interest in seeing that loans are not arranged from Arab nations outside those banking channels? Has his attention been drawn to discussions in Europe between the financial advisers of those banks and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition?
– I have seen suggestions that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on his overseas visits this year- I think there have been two- has been making inquiries of this character. I cannot vouch for them and I have not pursued them.
- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.
Government supporters- He is back.
– At least I will be back after the next election.
-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.
– I have a point of order.
-The honourable gentleman may have had one. He decided to debate. He will remain in his seat.
page 2034
– I ask the Prime Minister: Does he recall how former President Nixon sacrificed one subordinate after another in an attempt to maintain the fiction that he had no prior knowledge of their misdeeds and that he was not involved in the Watergate affair? Has the Prime Minister as yet -
- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think you are aware of the Standing Order. I submit that when a person’s name is mentioned in a critical sense the question must be placed on the notice paper.
– I will hear the question.
– I ask: Has the Prime Minister, as yet, taken any steps to destroy or suppress any evidence which would show that he had personal and prior knowledge of the activities of the former Treasurer and of the former Minister for Minerals and Energy? Is he confident that none of the scapegoats will spill the beans?
– I ask that the question be placed on notice.
page 2034
-I ask the Attorney-General whether he can inform the House of the number of community groups, such as the environmental interest groups, which have used the present facilities of the Australian Legal Aid Office.
-The honourable gentleman’s interest in legal aid and environmental matters is well known and appreciated. The Australian Legal Aid Office has been very helpful in this regard. I can inform the House that to date some 20 cases have been the subject of legal aid applications. Without going into too much detail I shall mention some of them. There was the Black Mountain tower case in the Australian Capital Territory. In Queensland there was the Rochedale Citizens Committee case which was an appeal to the Local Government Court against approval given to PGH Industries Limited by the Brisbane City Council to permit clay mining. There was the well-known case of Fraser Island. The Queensland Conservation Council was given legal aid in regard to the Meeandah matter. There was also the application concerning Mount Etna caves in Queensland. There was the case of Round Hill Head in Queensland, Quinkan Caves in Queensland, Mt Elliott in Queensland and Baysfield in Queensland. In New South Wales there was Cooks River Valley where legal aid was approved to obtain counsel’s opinion on the validity of certain proposals to site oil pipelines through recreation areas from Botany Bay to Rosehill. In Victoria legal aid was granted in respect of the Newport power station matter. In that case legal aid was granted to the Williamstown Conservation and Planning Society and the Port Phillip Conservation Council in their appeals to the Environment Protection Appeal Board. There was also the matter of Lanark Terrace in Victoria where legal aid paid half the costs incurred by the Emerald Hill Association in lodging a certain appeal in the Supreme Court. In the Dandenong Ranges legal aid matters were instrumental in achieving significant results. Westernport and Ballarat in Victoria also were the subject of legal aid in environmental matters. In Tasmania there was the Precipitous Bluff case and Mt Nelson which benefited in this way. In Western Australia the Kwinana freeway extensions were also the subject of a legal aid application.
page 2035
-I ask the Prime Minister whether he has ever met Mr Khemlani. If so, where and when? What matters were discussed?
- Mr Speaker, no.
page 2035
Mr MATHEEWS Is the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture aware of the interest potato growers took in having a potato industry panel established at the earliest possible stage? Can he tell the House of the progress made in this matter?
– I am always very pleased to answer a question on potatoes from the honourable member for Casey because, as everybody knows, he represents Kinglake which produces the best potatoes in Australia.
Honourable members- Oh.
– There are 25 members disputing that statement.
– I assure honourable members that hardly a week goes by in which he does not remind me of that fact.
– Has the Minister ever heard of Bungaree potatoes?
-Yes, they are second best. I have paid my respects to the honourable member for Ballaarat but they are the second best. That National Potato Panel was set up by the Federal Minister for Agriculture in July of this year following some years of turmoil in the Australian potato industry due to very large imports of french fries, mainly from the United States of America and Canada. As honourable members know, no raw potatoes are imported into Australia except from New Zealand, in some cases. This Panel, which consists of representatives from the growers, the merchants and the processors, has met once after the Minister set it up. Its main purpose is to discuss current issues and to bring to the Minister for Agriculture some of the pressing problems, such as imports of processed french fries, if that occasion arises. The Panel now will have an additional member as the Minister for Agriculture has agreed to an additional processors’ representative being appointed. There now will be 1 1 full-time members. We believe, and so does the industry, that this is a very good move. The Panel will be able to discuss current issues and at the same time keep the Government informed of problems in the industry, particularly with respect to imports of processed potatoes.
page 2035
– I ask the Prime Minister: What inquiries did he make after the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs told the House on 9 July that the loan raising efforts by the former Minister for Minerals and Energy were being continued? What efforts did the Prime Minister make to inform himself on this matter?
– I ask that the question be placed on notice.
page 2036
– My question to the AttorneyGeneral deals with insurance law. In a comment on a recent English case on insurance law the Modern Law Review stated:
If the law relating to Consumer Credit can be rationalised, it is difficult to see why the law of insurance should continue to rest mainly on a jumble of unjust precedents.
The Minister will further appreciate that there is widespread recognition in legal circles that standard form contracts of insurance and other features of the law in this area are badly in need of overhaul. He will further note that there is a hotch-potch of legislation in Australia and uniformity and updating are badly needed. Therefore, with this in mind, will the Attorney-General be prepared to give a reference to the Law Reform Commission, either in the form of a broad reference to report on desirable changes to the law of insurance, or, alternatively, to report on the reform of the law on the contract of insurance?
– It is true, as the honourable member said, that the state of the insurance law is unsatisfactory. It is true that the Modern Law Review made the statement that he quoted dealing with consumer credit being rationalised in the United Kingdom. I wish that the same could be said of consumer credit law in Australia, where it is not being rationalised and where the States still seem to be proudly going their own proud but different, irrational ways. The honourable gentleman also referred to the growing incidence of standard form contracts. That has been a feature not only of insurance law but also of many other branches of the law for many years. There are advantages in the standard form of contract. The principal comment I would care to make about it is that the standard form of contract detracts from the notion of contract itself. The dominant position of the insurance company that imposes or lays down these conditions is in effect legislating for the relationship between insured and insurer in much the same way as this Parliament might seek to legislate for a certain relationship. That is a growing tendency in the law where under the name contract relationships are governed but where the relationship increasingly has little to do with contracts.
The honourable gentleman also asked me whether I would consider giving a reference to the Law Reform Commission on the subject of insurance law. The Law Reform Commission is still engaged in preparing its second report, which will deal with criminal procedures as they relate to the jurisdiction or the work of the Australia Police. That report has not yet been received. It is expected shortly, and a decision will have to be made on the second reference. One of the subjects under consideration is defamation law. Australia badly needs uniformity in this area as it does in other areas. I will be happy to keep the honourable member’s suggestions in mind.
page 2036
-Does the Prime Minister now accept that the facts alleged in Mr Khemlani’s statutory declaration are correct?
– All that I accept is that Mr Khemlani did dispatch the telexes which have been published and which were sent to me by solicitors- Messrs Con and Corr- last night.
page 2036
-Is the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs aware of continued concern expressed by individuals and organisations about metric conversion? Since the program of metric conversion began, has a reassessment of the program been made particularly with respect to difficulties experienced in such industries as building and shoe manufacture? If a reassessment of the program has not been made, would the Minister be prepared to call for a report on this matter?
-Metric conversion has been going on now for a couple of years. It has not been pushed beyond the pace which the public can accept. It is true that there are still pockets of resistance to it but, generally speaking, metric conversion has been accepted and is now being understood by more and more people. The honourable member referred to metric conversion in relation to the building industry. Those people in the building industry who have worked with both systems now generally accept that the metric system is a more accurate system of drawing plans and of working to plans than the old system. It is true that people of older generations will find it difficult to transfer to the metric system or to accommodate themselves to it. I can recall when older people thought that they would never be able to understand decimal currency. They have done so, and now that it is here they accept it as being a much simpler system of currency than the sterling system. I have no doubt that the younger generations will very quickly come to understand and accept metric conversion. At the same time I can tell the honourable gentleman that the Metric Conversion Board, with which I met in Adelaide on Friday, has told me that it is receiving tremendous support from the public Metric conversion is being accepted. The Board is being very sensible about the rate at which it pushes metric conversion and it intends to continue to keep the rate at a level that the public can understand, accept and accommodate.
page 2037
-Mr Speaker, the honourable member has a question on this matter on the notice paper.
page 2037
– I ask the Prime Minister the following question: Will he for the first time make a full statement to this House on the Government’s overseas loan negotiations and in particular the circumstances surrounding the resignation of his former trusted colleague the Minister for Minerals and Energy? Will the Prime Minister and the Government for the first time throughout the whole of this issue now table all relevant documents?
– I have tabled all relevant documents of which I am aware. I made a very long statement on 9 July. I have answered some scores of questions.
page 2037
-My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Will he inform the House of the extent of capital expenditure on technical colleges by the States over the past 2 years? Is it true that the Victorian Government’s contribution to these capital works has decreased rapidly?
– I regret that I cannot give the honourable gentleman details of capital expenditure by all States over the last few years, but they are set out in the Technical and Further Education Committee report. I want to make this observation on capital expenditure in Victoria. A few years back out of its own resources it spent $ 1 ,960,000. In the next year expenditure was cut to $1,400,000. Next year it was cut to $728,000. Over that same period Commonwealth grants for technical education buildings rose from $3.5m to $6.5m and they have risen further in the current Budget. It is a fact that the greater the grant the Commonwealth gives to Victoria for the building of technical colleges the lower is the State’s expenditure out of its own resources. If the Victorian State Government set out deliberately to offset the value of Commonwealth grants for improving technical education in Victoria by way of constructing buildings it would do, I think, exactly what it is doing.
page 2037
-I ask a question of the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs. Was it for the purposes of science that the Minister said on 9 July that his then colleague, the Minister for Minerals and Energy, would shortly be coming into the House with $4,000m in his hand and that he would be vindicated? What were these purposes? Was this knowledge that his former colleague was continuing to engage in loan raising activities exclusive to himself, Mr Connor and the Prime Minister or did others also know?
– It has nothing to do with consumer affairs, I can tell the honourable gentleman. It was wishful thinking on my part. I was hoping that he would be able to come into the House and say that he had been able to get a loan of $4,000m because I can think of a lot of projects that we could very usefully spend that sort of money on instead of allowing foreign investors to come in and rip off the cream of our natural resources- our mineral resources and our energy resources.
I can never understand how people who claim to have the interests of Australia at heart object to a government’s trying to borrow money to develop Australia’s mineral and energy resources so that the benefit of those resources will reside with the Australian people but prefer to allow the multinational corporations in foreign countries to come into this country and spend the same amount of money to get a stranglehold on Australia’s mineral and energy resources. I am very disappointed that the Minister for Minerals and Energy was not able to come into the House with $4,000m to make it possible for us to develop our own natural resources in minerals and energy. When I said that I hoped he would be able to come in with that money I meant it.
page 2037
-Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of concern over the investigatory techniques used by police in the Northern Territory? Can he say what measures the Government has in mind to overcome the difficulties? Is he in favour of a royal commission to look into the subject?
-I am aware of the recent disclosures about police investigation techniques in the Northern Territory. I am concerned about them and I am similarly concerned with the whole question of Aboriginal-police relations. The Government has a commitment to the holding of a royal commission in the Northern Territory and I am currently engaged in consultations with the Attorney-General as to the terms of reference of that royal commission.
page 2038
-Does the Prime Minister recall having informed the Parliament on 9 July that if the opportunity presented itself with a reasonable chance of success further efforts to raise overseas loan funds would be made? Will the Prime Minister now tell the House how this could be interpreted in any other way than as an endorsement of the continued loan raising activities of the former Minister for Minerals and Energy?
– There were no continued loan raising activities by the former Minister.
page 2038
-Will the Minister for Health inform the House how many Australian Government health centres have been built throughout Australia? What services are available at these health centres and at what cost to the patients?
– I do not have the exact figures of the number of health centres in Australia but there are some hundreds. When this Government came to power, as I said in response to a question on hospitals earlier this week, there was no concerted effort at the national level to integrate hospital facilities. Indeed, the States were floundering in attempts to integrate services. We had the spectacle of things like baby health centres, immunisation clinics, marriage guidance services and all kinds of activities trying to sustain themselves in isolation. All sorts of voluntary organisations were making initiatives to help autistic children or spastic children or whatever. There was no integration, no attempt even to evaluate the services or the need for services. We have set about following the guidelines in the first report which was brought down in the first 6 months of this Government’s office by the interim committee of the newly formed Hospitals and Health Services Commission. We had a signal success in achieving integration, a new direction in health care, a new concern on behalf of the States and a new integration of their efforts and ours and those of voluntary organisations. We had a signal success in upgrading the job satisfaction of doctors and other professionals who work in this area, a significant success in involving the community in what is increasingly a matter of community responsibility- to take responsibility for its own health and not leave it to professionals in ivory towers, to move health care out of the highly expensive area of institutions and hospitals and into the community. This success will continue.
page 2038
– I ask the Prime Minister: If there were no continued loan raising activities by the former Minister for Minerals and Energy, as he has just told us, why then did the former Minister for Minerals and Energy resign?
– I advised the GovernorGeneral to accept the Minister’s resignation because I do not believe in the accuracy of the assurance which the Minister gave me that all communications of substance between him and Mr Khemlani were tabled by him on 9 July last. Nobody knew that there were these telexes which Messrs Con and Corr delivered to me yesterday and which were published in yesterday’s and today’s Melbourne Herald. I do not believe that one can say that those telexes were not communications of substance. They did not amount to negotiations.
page 2038
-Will the Prime Minister inform the House what action the Government proposes to take in respect of the report tabled in the House recently of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament?
-The Government has decided to introduce legislation and a resolution into the Houses to implement the unanimous recommendations of the Committee. We believe it is proper that as long as the member concerned is informed that inquiries are being made, people with a legitimate interest in his affairs, his associations and his motivations -
– Overseas.
-. . . whether those associations, motivations or interests are domestic or overseas, should be able to ascertain them. It is important that the public should know why members of Parliament are voting or lobbying as they do. It was remarkable and heartening that the Joint Committee brought in unanimous findings in this regard. I would hope that the legislation is passed by both Houses and that the resolutions are adopted by both Houses.
page 2039
– Pursuant to section 29 of the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929-1973 I present the interim annual report of the Australian Wine Board for the year ended 30 June 1975.
page 2039
– Pursuant to section 15 of the Universities Commission Act 1959-1974 I present the Universities Commission’s recommendations for 1976 together with a statement by me relating to those recommendations. Due to the limited number available, reference copies of the recommendations have been placed in the Parliamentary Library,
page 2039
– For the information of honourable members I present the reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on assistance to the beef industry and superphosphate production (tariff revision).
page 2039
– For the information of honourable members I present two reports entitled ‘An Exploratory Study of Canberra-Goulburn Airport’ and ‘An International Airport in the Canberra-Goulburn Region to Serve the City of Sydney- Assessment of Likely Effects on the Environment’.
Due to the limited number available reference copies of these reports have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.
page 2039
Assent to the following Bills reported:
Customs Tarrif (Coal Export Duty) Bill 1 975.
Customs Bill (No. 2) 1975.
page 2039
Motion ( by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to:
That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Luchetti) on the ground of public business overseas.
Motion (by Mr Anthony) agreed to:
That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for Calare (Mr England) on the ground of public business overseas.
page 2039
-On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation I bring up the report of the Committee on development pressures on Jervis Bay
Ordered that the report be printed.
- Mr Speaker, I ask for leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– The Jervis Bay Territory, which is part of the Australian Capital Territory, is of immediate interest to this Parliament. Furthermore, the Beecroft Peninsula, which was formerly leased from the New South Wales Government for defence purposes, was purchased by the Australian Government late last year. These areas of Australian Government land have remained substantially undeveloped and the only noticeable intrusion on the landscape of the Bay are the Jervis Bay Village, naval college and associated faculties of HMAS Creswell in the Jervis Bay Territory. The balance of the Jervis Bay area is within the Shoalhaven Shire and approximately 60 per cent of the New South Wales land adjacent to the foreshores is zoned by the Shoalhaven Shire Council for village development.
Despite this development the Bay has generally retained its natural appearance, and its white sand beaches, clear waters, and spectacular headlands form an embayment of outstanding scenic amenity only 70 minutes drive from Wollongong and 2Vi hours from Sydney. Housing in the Jervis Bay area has been predominantly for holiday purposes or for the permanent residences of retired people. Increasingly, the area is attracting residents who work in the Nowra-Bomaderry district but prefer to live on the coast, while there is an increasing demand for tourist and recreation facilities both on a day-use and longer-term basis. Two announcements made in 1969 generated public interest in and reaction to planning by government on the future use and development of Jervis Bay. They concerned suggestions that Jervis Bay might become, firstly, the site of a major steel works and associated development, and secondly, the site for Australia’s first nuclear power station. The Committee’s inquiry provided the first open public forum on the problems of Jervis
Bay and between March and August this year over 1000 pages of evidence were taken from 45 witnesses.
Although the Committee’s findings and recommendations are an attempt to translate into practical terms some possible solutions to the land-use problems of the area, with particular emphasis on ensuring that the needs of future generations are not compromised, there are also wider ramifications. For example, the Committee found that the effective management and preservation of Australian coastline resources is hampered by the lack of co-ordinated national coastal land-use policy developed by the Australian and State governments in consultation with local government. Members of the Committee hope therefore that not only will the Australian and New South Wales governments closely study the report and act to implement the recommendations we have made, but that all levels of government will fully consult and coordinate to ensure rationally and environmentally responsible land-use management. I commend the report to the House.
-Mr Speaker, I also seek leave to make a short statement.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– The report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on development pressures on Jervis Bay is concerned with areas of the electorate of Fraser, capably represented by my colleague, Mr Fry, and my electorate of Macarthur. I was pleased to act as chairman of the sub-committee which dealt with this reference, and I express my gratitude to the other members of the subcommitteethe honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) and the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). I am appreciative of the work of the Committee staff, particularly Mr Phillip Bush. I take this opportunity to congratulate all the local conservation groups who kept this issue before the public at their own expense. I would like to name the Jervis Bay Planning and Protection Committee, the Shoalhaven Conservation Society, the Jervis Bay Anti Pollution Commitee and the various progress associations.
The Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Lamb), has informed honourable members of the reasons for this inquiry. Jervis Bay is a gentle area and its attractions are rapidly apprehended by anyone fortunate to visit the area. The report of the Committee should act as a guideline for future development of the Bay. I particularly emphasise the recommendations regarding co-ordination between all levels of government and also the future role of the local council, which is a very competent body requiring only funds to carry out desirable development.
-I seek leave to make a short statement.
– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– The Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has reached agreement on findings and recommendations which have been presented to the Parliament and if implemented will ensure that at least that part of our coastline in the Jervis Bay area will be available for the use and enjoyment of the community. Although the report concerns a specific localised area with its own particular problems, the Committee has attempted to set down guidelines which could give a lead to land use planning in other areas, particularly where conflicts have occurred or are possible between environmental and various other interests.
The report highlights the need for government at all levels to be increasingly aware of the priceless heritage represented by the many beautiful parts of our Australian coastline. It also stresses the requirement for the effective management and preservation of Australian coastline resources which are currently hampered by the lack of a co-ordinated land use policy developed by the Federal and State governments in consultation with local governments.
page 2040
– I have received a letter from the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The misleading estimate of the deficit contained in the 1975-76 Budget.
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)
-Australia faces a Budget deficit this year which threatens to bring on a renewed economic crisis and which is a further reflection of this Government’s monopoly of disaster and deceit. The Budget presented to the Australian people this year is a dishonest and grossly misleading document. On 19
August the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) told this House that, immediately before the Budget, the Australian economy had faced a deficit nearly double that of 1974-75- in other words, a deficit of about $4 billion. The Treasurer said quite explicitly that such a deficit would be a prescription for accelerating inflation and, to use his words:
Its acceptance would have been tantamount to abandoning concern with inflation, discarding our wages policies, condemning the corporate sector to an attack upon its profitability and threatening the future jobs of thousands of Australians.
This is the circumstance which this country now faces. This Budget is no longer a credible document. The figures which it contains are phoney and inaccurate. There will be a short fall in receipts and a substantial degree of overexpenditure. These 2 factors combined will lead to a deficit in excess of $3.5 billion and, in all probability, to a figure approaching $4 billion.
This country at large can have no longer any confidence whatever in the ministry or in the Treasurer’s capacity to hold the present Budget deficit figures. The Budget is nothing short of a prescription for economic disaster. But the Government has sought to suppress this fact as it has consistently sought to suppress many other aspects of its rather lurid, bizarre and scandalous financial transactions. The experience of last year is to be repeated. Last year the Government budgeted for a domestic surplus of $23m and yet, because of its financial mismanagement, turned its domestic surplus into a domestic deficit of $ 1,949m. The overall deficit ended up at $2,567m- $2 billion more than estimated in the Budget and $2.3 billion more than the previous year’s Budget. The highest recorded deficit in Australia was $709m in 1972-73. Last year’s deficit was almost four times the previous record. This year’s deficit W111 be almost six times that level.
The trend in this year’s deficit is already evident in statistical information.
The statement of Australian Government financial transactions, released by the Treasurer on 30 September, makes this point very clearly. In the first 3 months of this financial year government outlays have totalled 22.5 per cent of the Budget’s full year estimates compared with 21.3 per cent in 1 974-75 and 2 1 .7 per cent in 1 973-74. Receipts, excluding company tax, were only 15.1 per cent of the full year total compared with 1 8.8 per cent in 1974-75 and 16.8 per cent in 1973-74. The net result is that the Budget deficit is running in excess of Budget estimates by an amount greater than $ 100m a month. These statistics are clear evidence of the trend. There is no point in the Federal Treasurer accusing the Opposition of multiplying statistics by four. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a detailed table which I have had prepared on this question.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
– Already the deficit is being financed in a highly inflationary manner. There has been an extreme use of borrowings from the Reserve Bank- $848m alone in the month of September. I challenge the Treasurer during the course of debate to deny that this does not have serious inflationary consequences in the longer term. But the Treasurer has claimed that the increase in this year’s deficit is to be welcomed if it arises from a shortfall in receipts. He has himself indicated that earnings will increase at a rate less than estimated. Regrettably the Treasurer is apparently incapable of separating the monetary consequences from the fiscal consequences and he is unprepared to inform the House as to the magnitude of the changes involved. If earnings increase at 1 7 per cent to 1 8 per cent- a rate consistent with the indications given to this House by the Treasurer- there will be a shortfall in receipts of around $400m to $450m. This of course will be a direct addition to the deficit.
The Treasurer has made it clear that the Government will not reduce outlays to compensate for the shortfall in receipts. This has been confirmed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) and I quote what the honourable senator said in answer to Opposition questions on the Loan Bill:
Apart from the Budget proposals themselves, there will be no new fiscal measures during 1975-76.
What that means, of course, is that this Government will continue to do nothing whilst inflation continues’ to mount, unemployment continues to soar to even more unprecedented records than previously and the whole of the corporate sector is subject to complete stagnation. If the estimates for receipts are faulty those for expenditure are completely out of line. It is clear that the Government has been deliberately holding down its expenditure during the supply period for political purposes. This has gone to the extent of refusals in some areas to pay bills, and I do not mention here the examples because that would provide some difficulties for the companies which are owed money at the present time. In other words, the Government has been reneging on its financial commitments.
There are many areas in the Budget figures where there are under estimates of the real costs. A clear example is the payment by Government departments of postal and telephone charges. The Budget estimates provide for an amount of $75m to cover these charges. But the Treasurer ought to be the first to understand that these estimates are based on charges as at June this year. This was pointed out in evidence to the Senate Estimates Committees. The recently announced increases- 50 per cent in telephone and 80 per cent in postal charges- have of course been effective as from 1 September. The additional expenditure of these items will be of major significance even if there is a substantial reduction in usage.
There are further areas of expenditure which demand attention. First of all is that associated with Medibank. On evidence available to the
Opposition it is clear that the estimated expenditure of $ 1,437m on Medibank will be substantially exceeded and I challenge the Treasurer to deny that. Medibank claims are running at a rate well in excess of that predicted. The original staff estimates have been more than doubled and additional personnel are being employed to meet current demands. Even a brief examination of the Canadian health care system would demonstrate the total absurdity of the Medibank estimates.
Another major area of concern is related to unemployment and sickness benefits. Expenditure under this head is based on an increase of approximately 25 per cent to 30 per cent in average unemployment for 1975-76 compared with 1974-75. Yet trends in unemployment- confirmed by the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland)- indicate that average unemployment will be around 40 per cent higher this year than during 1974-75. If this is the case the Government will be committed to an additional expenditure over and above the Budget estimates.
Similar comments can be made in respect of education spending. The education estimates presented in the Budget statements contain an allowance for adjustment for cost escalation in education grants of $20m. This allowance- not included in a specific appropriation- would permit additional cost increases to around 6 per cent only. If cost increases occur at a more realistic rate there will of course be a requirement for greater funds to be spent on education.
The Opposition has already pointed out the way in which the present Government has used the Treasurer’s Advance as a means of providing for additional expenditure. There is every indication that, by using the Treasurer’s Advance, the Government will add to its aggregate spending estimates. There is no doubt that the Budget estimates are wildly inaccurate. This is not just the view which prevails on this side of the House. The Australian editorial of 13 October had this to say: . . . The Budget deficit is going to be much higher than Mr Hayden implied last week. It is going to be somewhere near the alarming figure of $4,000m. Such a deficit will be highly inflationary. It is a figure from a fantasy world. Australia has never had a deficit of this level in its history. Even in the good old days- and they were but a few years ago- there were rarely any deficits in our Budgets. Anything in the area of $2,000m was looked upon with the gravest anxiety . . .the Prime Minister and Mr Hayden cannot possibly maintain that a still higher budget deficit will be acceptable.
The implications of the deficit which we now face are extremely serious. If the Government adheres to its stated monetary target of 20 per cent growth in M3 during 1975-76 there will be a dramatic squeeze on the availability of private sector finance and a consequent increase in interest rates. This could have a catastrophic effect on private enterprise. It is completely inconsistent with any attempt to revive the private sector or to restore employment opportunities. The only other option available to the Government is of course to abandon its monetary target and once again to fuel the fires of inflation. In other words, that option is the option of printing money. I again challenge the Treasurer to deny the inaccuracy of this year’s Budget figures. The fact is that this is simply pan of the fabric of dishonesty and deceit which now surrounds the present Government. Deception and duplicity have been principal weapons of the Whitlam political machine. This Government has become increasingly enveloped by scandal and the suspicion of corruption. Who, in fact, can believe a Prime Minister who said in 1972: ‘Labor’s first priority will be to restore genuine full employment without qualification and without hedging’? Who in fact can believe a Prime Minister who said in May of 1974: ‘In Australia alone there is no unemployment; in Australia alone unemployment and inflation do not march side by side’? Who can believe a Prime Minister who claims a major tax reform when income tax is to rise by 34 per cent in a single year? Who can believe a Prime Minsiter who tells Australia’s middle-income earners that they will be better off under the new tax system when they will be paying more tax than ever before? The single taxpayer on an average income will pay tax of $3,410 this year compared with $2,300 last year. This taxpayer’s average tax rate will be 28 per cent this year compared with 23 per cent last year. The married taxpayer, with children, earning an average income will also pay substantially more tax. To claim otherwise is of course to be grossly irresponsible.
This Government cannot expect the public or the Parliament to have faith in this year’s Budget. It is clear that members of the Whitlam Ministry have been prepared to tell untruths to this House consistently on financial matters. Two Ministers have been dismissed, but the facts indict the total group and in particular they indict the Leader of that group, the present Prime Minister. This Budget is discredited. It is an inaccurate document. It is a phoney document. There is no basis to be found in that document for the economic recovery which Australia so desperately requires. The simple fact is that a deficit approaching $4 billion will lead to the breakdown of the Australian economy. Both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are very much aware of this fact. But regrettably for the national interest it is inconceivable that they are not now prepared to take corrective action. The Government stands condemned.
– The Opposition’s spokesman on economic affairs, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) has, as is characteristic for him, painted a rather grim picture about the state of the economy. Even the most encouraging indicators encourage the worst sorts of predictions from him. He paints his pictures with pitch all the time. I rather gathered from the way in which the Deputy Leader was speaking todaythis is an observation in passing- and from the comments that he has made on other occasions that it is his intention to campaign at any future election on the basis of the slogan: ‘Eliminating Government waste, no matter what that costs ‘. If I may take up the point about costs to which I will return a little later, it is all very well for an Opposition to indulge in the luxury of saying what should not be and what ought to be, but there is a bridging between the two, and that is where the proper course lies. This is a discipline which the Opposition must face up to as much as anyone else in this community. We have to explore the possibilities of bridging the two, what ought to be and what ought not to be. Unless there is a statement of the general purposes which will be followed in trying to bridge these 2 areas, statements such as that which we have just heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are perilously close to being stigmatised as empty moralising.
Let us have a quick look at some of the proposals made by the honourable member. Let us look first of all at the gist of the line that he has been developing. The Deputy Leader says that I have not recognised the difference between fiscal and monetary effects in economic management. Well, I will not waste time saying ‘Yes, I do’, while the honourable member replies ‘No, you do not’. What I would like to point out is that the weakness of his assertion is obvious by the line which he consistently takes, a simple monetarist’s line. All he ever seems to do is to look at the financial statement for each month, study the deficit, make some very rough- crude, if you like to use a more appropriate term- calculation and draw a conclusion about the effects of money supply. This is a very simple- misleadingly somonetarist ‘s line. He does in fact ignore possible fiscal effects. He does in fact ignore wage push. He does in fact ignore external account effects.
Most of all, even in the monetary sector, he ignores the velocity of money movement, which is very important at present. The velocity is rather slack. On the projections, as I interpret them, it will remain that way for some time. So, looking at a deficit at a certain level, in certain circumstances, and then comparing with a deficit at another time under different circumstances is totally misleading, if one ignores the velocity of money movement, which is something that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has done.
Let us go back over what the Deputy Leader said today and what he has said on other occasions because what the honourable member has raised today is an unwilling old horse that he tries to flog to life every two or three weeks. He is undeterred by the fact that all the responsible Press- that is, with the exception of the Rupert Murdoch group- has been critical of this simplified and misleading line that the Deputy Leader is absorbing from his advisers. He started off a little earlier in this session multiplying the monthly deficit in July by twelve. He obtained quite dramatic headlines through this simple arithmetical exercise by pointing out that 12 times the July deficit meant that there would be a deficit of more than $9,000m at the end of the financial year. Along came the figures for the August deficit. If the deficits for July and August were added together and multiplied by six, the result was an annual deficit of a little more than $6,000m. The figures were on the way down. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition felt a little uneasy about that figure. Although some of his colleagues used it, I do not think that he quite did.
Well, the honourable member can multiply the figures for the September quarter deficit, if he likes, by four and he will get an annual deficit of a little over $7,000m. He can do that if that is the way he wants to work. This is as useless as his general statements on economic affairs and his particular statements when he multiplies the deficit in July by twelve to achieve the deficit for the financial year. Such an exercise ignores the seasonal movements in the general fiscal monetary picture in this country, particularly the budgetary picture.
The fact is that the deficit for the September quarter last year was higher than the deficit for the September quarter this financial year. But what is the more relevant measure is the September quarter deficit as a proportion of total deficit. If one looks at this figure, one gathers a clear impression of the way in which the budgetary measures are working and the general fiscal monetary measures are operating. On that basis there has been a fairly consistent pattern and historical bahaviour with respect to these factors. For instance, the September quarter deficit this year as a proportion of total deficit is 0.7.
– What will the end of the year deficit be?
– Last year the proportion, which was a phenomally low one, was 0.4. In the previous year for the same period it was 3.4. But in 1970-71, when the Deputy Leader’s Party was in government, the figure was 43.2. These comparisons are quite misleading because they do not indicate what the picture will be at the end of a 12-months period.
I really do have to repeat what I have already pointed out in this House on an earlier occasion in the past couple of weeks. There is no conspiracy on the part of this Government in its statement of budgetary management measures and their effects. In the second-last paragraph of Statement 2 in the Budget papers attached to the Budget Speech, at page 2 1 , is set out quite clearly the fact that there is a possibility that the increase in average weekly earnings will be less than was projected when the Budget was drawn together and that, if this occurs, receipts will fall short obviously of what we are expecting and with expenditures held at the proposed levels the deficit will be greater.
– How much greater will it be? How much will receipts fall short?
-The document continues:
Of course, a greater deficit in those circumstances . . . would not carry the same policy implications as it would in other circumstances.
But the honourable member, through confused and muddled thinking- no doubt from the confused and muddled advice from his advisers- is trying to extrapolate from this statement to a statement which I made in the Budget Speech that if we had budgeted for a deficit of approximately $5,000m on the basis of the framework that we had drawn together and enunciated in the Budget speech, this would have been a prescription for quite dangerous inflation. It would have been possible for a deficit of a higher order than we proposed in the Budget to arise if receipts fall short of what we had expected. This could occur if we were being successful on the wages front. A higher deficit than the one that we have set in the Budget would result in that situation. A lower level of receipts than we set would have a higher level of costs which in turn would create a completely different context in which budgetary operations or management must take place. Surely that is an obvious and simple proposition that even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can understand.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has interrupted on several occasions asking exactly what level of deficit will arise. He has done this on previous occasions, always demanding to know exactly with the finest degree of precision how the deficit would be funded. I pointed out to him then that it was not possible to give that sort of precision. His Government reached that conclusion when it was in office. We have reached that conclusion as a matter of sensible economic management. Any government subsequent to this one will reach the same conclusion for similar reasons. I do not care to say that the deficit will be of a certain order at this point merely because the rate of increase in average weekly earnings has shown a considerable abatement. That trend may well reverse. I will be disappointed if that occurs. But it may well reverse. We will do everything we can to restrain that trend.
All I can say at this point is that we have been significantly successful in restraining the rate of increase in earnings. Some problems arise in economic management because receipts fall short of what was expected. But that is a far better situation for economic management than the one we outlined in the course of the Budget. These conditions are well known. I have previously mentioned that at page 40 of the statements attached to the 1969-70 Budget Speech a similar sort of warning was given to that which is expressed in statement No. 2 of the papers attached to the current Budget Speech. In 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, at pages 45, 11 and 10 respectively, similar warnings were expressed. I cannot understand how a simple economic proposition, such as this, persists in eluding the understanding of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the man who proposes that he should be the alternative economic manager of the affairs of this country. How can he be taken seriously when he so consistently makes foolish statements in this House, exposing a total ignorance of the simple fundamental principles of economic understanding? How can he be taken seriously when he does not understand these simple propositions? If he does not understand them it means that in no time at all he would cease to be- if he ever were- a man of independent judgment and of independent decision making in the economic management of this country and in the hands of his advisers.
I move on quickly to a couple more points. For instance, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the use of financing from the Reserve Bank of Australia to fund the deficit. I would have thought that that was a perfectly obvious sort of measure to use when one is deficit financing as we must at the present time. I believe he stated a figure of borrowings from the Reserve Bank of $848m. What he forgot to mention was that $795.7m in treasury notes was withdrawn from circulation in that time. That amount was retired. This is further evidence of the honourable member’s confused efforts to try to understand how the balancing goes on in the financial transactions of the nation’s affairs.
But let me move from that matter to the more important point. The honourable member proposes that he should be taken seriously as the economic manager of the affairs of this country. He proposes that the Liberal-National Country Party coalition should be given the opportunity to administer the economic affairs of the nation. What sort of economic management do those parties propose? We heard during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on the Budget that it would be the proposal of the Opposition as a government to cut government expenditure, to minimise the level of money supply, by $ 1,000m or 5 per cent. That does not sound too bad on the surface but there are a few arithmetical exercises the Opposition did not go through to show how severe that cut would really be. Let us not stop at $ 1,000m because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had lifted the deficit to around $4,000m before he finished. To be charitable, let us settle at $3. 5m as the level the honourable member is talking about. That is another $700m. We are therefore talking effectively of a cut of about 8.5 per cent to control money supply their way. The cut, however, becomes much greater than that. It becomes about 12 per cent when allocations of finance to the States are withdrawn from the Budget because those amounts cannot be reduced. They are about 38 per cent of the total budgetary outlays.
So we are talking of a cut of about 12 per cent on Australian Government outlays. Where are those cuts going to fall? The Leader of the Opposition outlined some $500m in this area. On the figures stated today by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at least another $ 1,200m has to be accounted for. Let us take a cut of some 12 per cent and look at education. What would this cut mean to education? It means that the cuts have to fall on recurrent expenditure largely because capital expenditure has been cut back to the bone. It also means that these cuts would have to fall in the second half of this financial year. The total outlays for the 3 commissions, universities, colleges of advanced education, schools and for the commission on technical education this year are of the order of $1,4 10m. A cut of the order of 12 per cent is about $ 169m which must fall in the second half of the year on recurrent expenditure. That, however, represents a cut of some 24 per cent on recurrent expenditure. It would represent the most massive lay-off of teachers imaginable. It would be somewhere of the order of 3000 school teachers or from 7000 to 7500 academic and non-academic staff members being sacked from universities. It would represent some 800 academic and non-academic staff members being sacked from colleges of advanced education. It would mean that at universities some 25 000 fewer entrances would be offered or at colleges of advanced education some 10 000 fewer full-time entrances would be offered.
I ask the Opposition to come clean. Let us have a clear statement as to what is its economic policy because it is proposing to cut back expenditure levels. The Opposition is proposing to reduce that Budget deficit not by $ 1,000m as it originally indicated but by something like $ 1,700m. That represents a cut of some 12 per cent on Australian Government outlays. In the area of education alone it represents a cut of some 24 per cent.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The Minister ‘s time has expired. .
-After that performance by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) we now know whose thinking is confused and muddled. He has no idea of where the Government is going. He is obsessed with the the Opposition’s economic policies. He does not seem to be able to understand them. He asks: ‘Where are you going to make the cuts?’ Then he admits that in our response to the Budget we specifically put down areas in which cuts in Government expenditure would be made. Now the Treasurer is having another go at his arithmetic. He costed the matters out once and he had to admit belatedly that he was all wrong. But he has no answer at all. How long will he hide behind such vague generality as ‘seasonal fluctuations’ and ‘it will all come right tomorrow’. The question is: What will the deficit be. The Treasurer has indicated that it will exceed the Budget figures, conceivably by a very large amount. But he dodges an answer as to what it will be. He uses lots of words and splendid rhetoric. He says we ask for precision but he will not be precise to within one billion dollars. No wonder he is feeling insecure.
In terms of this matter of public importance I accuse the Government of massive and unforgiveable deceit. Indeed, hardly a day passes without a major instance of deceit and dishonesty being exposed to the Parliament and to the people of Australia. Not a statement made by the Government and not an assurance given by it can be accorded credibility for tomorrow that can well be revealed as yet another completely dishonest act, compounding a continued and never-ending succession of dishonest acts which are a blatant deception of the Parliament and the nation. Surely there was no greater, more wicked or contrived deceit to surpass that which we saw in last year’s Budget. But it is now completely overshadowed in this year’s Budget. The people and the Parliament of this nation have every right to expect that the Budget documents will be precisely constructed, completely honest and a solemn contract in which we can repose some trust. It becomes a farce and an act of fraud if its estimates of expenditure are patently and demonstrably massively understated, and if its estimates of revenue are based on premises so demonstrably false that they amount to a confidence trick of mammoth dimensions.
The announced estimated deficit has absolutely no meaning. It is not even an honest estimate. It is a mere figure plucked out of the air and impossible of attainment by this Government. Indeed, there was never any expectation or intention of containing the deficit to that figure, nor, I believe, to anywhere near it. We have had presented to this nation documents that defy every principle and every purpose of budgeting. As Estimates they are totally deficient and patently deceitful. As the operative plan against which the year’s operation should be measured and compared, the Budget is absolutely and transparently irrelevant and worthless. If these principles were employed by the directors of any Australian company in order to issue a prospectusand surely that is an appropriate comparisonthe directors would be committed to a very long term of imprisonment, and justifiably so. Surely a government which engages in that sort of deceit merits even greater condemnation for it deceives not only the Parliament but also the nation and every person in that nation.
As we have seen by the latest figures, the Government stands discredited, dishonoured and despised by the Australian people and the world. Internationally our stocks and our credibility have never been so low and have never been so completely destroyed. The man who must accept that blame, the man who must accept responsibility for the shame and dishonour which is revealed again in these documents, is the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) who stands at the head of the most disgraceful, most bungling and most dishonest government in the history of this nation. All too often he attempts to escape that blame by making someone else the scapegoat, by shifting the blame to some other person. He seeks the adulation, the plaudits and the kudos, so on him must rest the blame and the condemnation.
Knowingly, this Government has presented Estimates of expenditure for the Budget year 1975-76 based on salary levels of March to June 1975. The act of deceit is that there has been totally insufficient adjustment, if indeed any, for increases throughout the Budget year. There has been an understatement of a magnitude of something like $80m to $100m. It has based postal and telecommunications expenditure, as my colleague said, on June 1975. Postage rates have risen by 80 per cent and those increases were announced before the Budget. Although the Budget presented took some account of the extra revenue, it ignored the cost in its expenditure estimates. Similarly, with telephones, the same almost unbelievable deceit is evident. It is not just cavalier budgeting; this Government regards the people of Australia as unbelievably stupid and gullible and treats them as being beneath contempt. This is so in regard to Medibank, where payments to the hospital side are in the Estimates although these payments will not commence, I believe, until about February next year when the deficit will accelerate further. It applies also in regard to unemployment benefits in respect of which the Budget takes no account of unemployment benefits or other administrative expenses. The same .deceit and the same dishonesty in estimation is demonstrable right through.
A deficit, already something like $ 1,887m at 30 September, is lauded by the Treasurer as reflecting the success of wage indexation. How naive and how stupid does he think the Australian people are? The people who have dropped out of the ranks of taxpayers because they have lost their jobs, because their businesses have collapsed or because they are in a loss situation may have a little to do with the decrease in taxation revenue.
A report in today’s Courier-Mail states that Government borrowing from the Reserve Bank may now have topped the $ 1,000m mark, by a wide margin, and that this massive overdraft has been run up in the last month to help finance the
Government’s heavy spending. But the Government says that things will be all right tomorrow. The newspaper report said that the expansion is likely to continue for some time. As close to the presentation of its Budget as mid-September the Government began its Treasury bills financing operations with the Reserve Bank. It went into massive overdraft with the Bank for the first time since early 1972. A person, even a nation and a Parliament, perhaps could regard with some sympathy, if not absolutely condone, an honest miscalculation based on extraordinary unforeseeable events, but we cannot and will not condonewe will utterly and completely condemnoutright deceit, transparent dishonesty, contempt for the people and practices which surely would border on the criminal if employed by private enterprise.
Right from the outset of the Budget the deficit had absolutely no credibility. Never for a single moment was it a statement of honest accounting to the nation. It was never expected to be any guide or outline of the economic course to be pursued. Never for a moment did it merit the title of a Budget. It was always a form of rhetoric and words. It was a mass of figures in profusion which could not stand up to honest examination and scrutiny, as the Senate Estimates committees found out. The basic principle of a budget is that it is the yardstick with which the year’s operations should be continually compared so that adjustments can be made, variations measured and action instituted to bring our course back to the guidelines and framework of the Budget contract. Not for one moment was there any intention by this Government to observe that propriety or principle. The announced deficit was always a figure plucked out of the air which the Government felt the nation might accept. It was never the result and, we see today, it is not the result of responsible calculation of a realistic expectation of expenditure over income. Already, before the Senate has received the Appropriation Bills, the frightening and alarming mounting deficit has become so rapidly massive that the deceit of the Government and the enormity of its betrayal stands nakedly and clearly exposed.
We will no longer accept that things will be all right tomorrow and that we have turned the corner. That statement has been made many, many times in this House by this Government and on the morrow we have been led to even greater disaster, greater irresponsibility and greater shemozzle. It will not be enough to pour out clever and vitriolic rhetoric. Australia has had a surfeit of that. Without one single proposal more than is in the Budget, the deficit is understated by perhaps $ 1 billion.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
– The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) referred twice rather picturesquely to something being rhetoric and words. With all respect, I have heard nothing but rhetoric and words in the 2 speeches made by members of the Opposition. I recall, for the benefit of the House, that the title of this urgency debate is the misleading estimate of the deficit contained in the 1975-76 Budget. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser), as spokesman for both parties on the Opposition side, has said that had he been the Treasurer or had his Parties formed the government on this occasion he would have been budgeting for the same order of deficit as that in this Budget, $2,800m in round terms or, to be precise, $2,798.4m. That at least, is a common starting point. I have heard some curious arithmetic this afternoon to try to turn that deficit of $2,800m. It has varied from $3,300m to $3, 500m, and the last honourable member who spoke said that it was going to be more than a billion dollars out. He has given absolutely no information to justify that statement. I think it is appalling that people should get up and make outrageous statements which throw doubt upon the accuracy and integrity of the figures.
Let us consider what seems to me to be the figure on which the Opposition is basing this horrendous calculation. It is found in this document which is circulated month by month by the Treasury, for the last 30 years or so to my knowledge, and which is still known rather colloquially as the Niemeyer statement. It shows figures for the 3 months ended 30 September 1975 and there is no camouflage of the figures. It is odd sometimes what the Opposition will accept as accurate, when is suits it, and then pour out rhetoric and words to suggest that the rest is false. The document shows that to 30 September 1975 there is a deficit of $ 1,887m. That is the difference, to the end of September 1975, between government expenditure and government receipts. To begin with we must all acknowledge that government expenditure goes on fairly evenly all the year but receipts do not. At least this is one reason why there is a deficit as early as in the first eight or nine months of the financial year. If we were to do our arithmetic by four, as honourable members opposite do when it suits them, we would find that on the outlay or expenditure side the expenditure for the 3 months ended 30 September 1975 is $4,948m as against a Budget estimate for 1975-76 of $21,915m. The period to 30 September 1975 is one quarter of the financial year, but to date, in the first 3 months, there has not been a quarter of the total expenditure.
– What about the sundry credit?
– The honourable member claims to be an accountant. He claims to be an analyst of financial statements. At least in the first 3 months the Government has not spent as quickly as the projected outlays would suggest. One other difference that honurable members opposite might have noticed had they wanted to- the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann), as an accountant, ought to be aware of this- is that on the receipts side under the item of company taxation, in the first 3 months of this year the Government collected $504m as against $50m for the same 3 months of last year. Had that not been the case the deficit would have been even greater than honourable members opposite suggest. At least they know that the reason is that last year the Government deferred the collection of company tax on a quarterly basis. That simply indicates how false it is to make comparisons unless one compares like with like.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) pointed to the figure to which my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has drawn attention. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition took out of the air the one figure- borrowings from Reserve Bank- $848m. He did not look at the other items which are quite different, such as the use of cash balances, where the Government has used $600m more in these 3 months than in a previous year. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition drew attention to the change in Treasury Notes. The only reason why there has been resort to the Reserve Bank is that there has been a drain-down of liquidity on the score of company tax. I think that the Opposition concedes at least that. There has been some variation because Treasury bills, instead of having been collected, have been withdrawn.
Another item that has been carefully ignored is that the Government has received $67 lm in the 3 months as proceeds on loans raised whereas in the previous year the sum was only $61m. There is a difference of about $600m in the figures. Surely to goodness there have to be some acceptable parameters from both sides of the House when we are trying to analyse the nation’s accounts. Expenditure and receipts do not coincide month by month. Trying to have explained now how the deficit will ultimately be financed is a lot of nonsense. Honourable member opposite should look at the tables in the Budget papers that show how the deficit has been composed. Table 6 on page 144 of the statements attached to the Budget shows a summary of Australian Government Budget sector financing transactions from 1965-66 to 1974-75. Honourable members should look at the miscellany of items which go to make up a deficit- the pluses and minuses in a multitude of things. They should look at another sort of compilation of the Budget deficit on page 12 of the statements entitled ‘Formation of the Volume of Money’. A Budget deficit is part of that. Again there is a variety of items- international and national, taxing and non-taxing, loan and revenue- that go to make the figure what it is.
I am appalled by this kind of attack. It has been perpetrated in the debate on the estimates of the Department of the Treasury. The Opposition has been given all sorts of answers in the Senate Estimates debates about the nature of the deficit and so on, and honourable members opposite are still prepared to initiate the shabby debate that we have witnessed today. They did not demonstrate in what way the Budget Estimates are dishonest. They sought to do so. With all respect, I think that they failed to do so. In failing to do so they have done a great deal of damage to the confidence of the nation in the presentation of these national accounts. Of course, it is all part of the whip-up to let the Senate do what no Senate has dared to do before, what no Senate should ever try to do. The one Bill in which there is a difference is a money Bill. It can originate only in this place. It cannot be amended in the Senate. Intelligible political usage would show that it cannot be rejected in the Senate without bringing the processes of constitutional government into disrepute and disarray. When it suits honourable members opposite they are the people who claim to be the espousers of sound constitutional principle and democracy. In the numbers game they will do anything to bring into disrepute any government that is not a government of their kind. We won here in 1972. We won again in 1974. We have never been defeated on the floor of this House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The Minister’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.
page 2049
Debate resumed from 28 August on motion by Mr Daly:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and Electoral Bills (Nos 3 to 7) as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 6 Bills to be discussed in this debate.
-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these Bills?
- Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition has no idea why there are 6 Bills. Six second reading speeches were made. Therefore, leave is not granted.
-Leave is not granted.
-The Opposition has considered these 6 Bills and finds that they are identical with a Bill which was introduced into this House and which has been debated in some detail on 2 separate occasions. It was supported by the Australian Labor Party and opposed by the Liberal Party and the National Country Party of Australia. That being the case, it passed this House but did not pass the Senate on either occasion. The first point one must make is that it is surely a surprising and disturbing thing to see the Government engaged in this basically futile exercise when it has such great matters and great problems- mainly caused by itself- with which to concern itself. They are matters which affect the people. Opposition members are particularly concerned because we see a continuance of that endeavour to change the electoral laws of this country in order to suit the Australian Labor Party and nobody else. We had a Bill in front of us before- the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill- which contained a whole package of proposals. I have spoken on it twice before and so has the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly), yet it is brought back to us today dissected into 6 pieces.
I hope you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will permit me to say very early in this debate, because apparently it is likely to be a long one, that the Opposition- and I believe I speak for all honourable members- wishes to express condolences to the Minister, the honourable Fred Daly, on the recent and sudden death of his wife and for that reason we understand fully why he cannot be here today. I might add that although I did not have the honour, I believe, of meeting Mrs Daly many have mentioned to me that she was highly regarded by all who knew her.
Nevertheless, we have in front of us serious matters and I must on behalf of the Opposition do my duty in speaking somewhat bluntly about them. I have already said some blunt things. I believe deeply that this Bill is one of a number of Bills by which it is intended to gain political advantage for the present Labor Government and the Australian Labor Party as a whole. They know that without the proposals in these Bills which seek to change electoral boundaries in this country they have very little hope of retaining at the next election many of the seats now held by Labor supporters. It is not a question of needing these proposals to win. They need them to survive. We only have to look, I suppose, at things like the scandalous overseas loans affair, the Government running out of money and how it has mismanaged the economy to see how great is its need to rig the electoral laws. Look at the example we had quite recently of the changes of boundaries which were included in several Bills, one for each State. Why is it that this legislation is before us again? We know that had the proposed boundary changes been agreed to the Labor Party would have won a greater percentage of seats in certain States and its percentage of votes -
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! I think the honourable member will realise that I allowed him some latitude in his introductory remarks, but a request for a cognate debate has been refused and we are specifically dealing with Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1975 which deals with optional preferential voting. I would ask the honourable member to get to the subject of the Bill very quickly.
– Yes, I certainly take your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that this Bill is a part of that package of proposals to which I referred. With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say that it is part of the motives of the Government and it is part of a total package which needs to be mentioned if one is to explain fully the views of the Opposition in respect of it. I would like to add that- this was said in the last debate on this legislation- considering our opposition to a number of points but our agreement to others, we looked forward firstly to some sort of consultation. After all, would it not have been sensible to try to get some measure of agreement among the parties on electoral changes rather than to come here and present a confrontation situation now for the third time?
– Bulldozing.
– Yes, bulldozing. That is very true. That is exactly what the Government has tried to do.
-Order! The honourable member for Griffith has no special privileges in this House. He is interjecting from the floor of the chamber. If he does so again I will take action. It is too frequent an occurrence.
– Secondly, no reason has been offered as to why the electoral proposals were divided into 6 Bills. I am disappointed about this division. The Minister took the opportunity of speaking 6 times- to the inconvenience of a large number of honourable members- on various aspects of the legislation. Each of the Bills contains a number of issues. The division is bad anyway. Instead of having 6 Bills we could have had 2 Bills, one covering proposals on which there was common ground and one containing proposals about which there was known to be disagreement. This division is bad because even having divided the proposals into 6 Bills there are still some points in some of the Bills that I will refer to later which the Opposition can find acceptable and others that it cannot.
This Bill refers to optional preferential voting at Senate elections. The Minister, in his second reading speech presented to this House on 28 August, and which appears at pages 709, 710 and 71 1 of Hansard, made a very partisan party political speech. It was not the calm, rational speech of one who is really after reform, as he said in one passage. It was a speech which expressed a great deal of intended confrontation. He spoke at one point about it being a more realistic and less cumbersome voting procedure. He spoke of it as being a non-partisan objective in spite of the abuse that he sprinkled liberally around in that speech. He said that the proposals are in no way designed to favour a particular political party. It is extraordinary that he should say this, knowing the opposition that has been expressed to this measure on so many occasions. He referred to certain assemblies- he mentioned them- which have this system, but for entirely different reasons. So I must say I was disappointed with the arguments he put up; one would have expected them perhaps to be stronger. I just mention reasonably briefly what the Opposition’s view on this is, having referred to the motives which clearly exist and incidentally are to be heard discussed frequently in the corridors in this place among members of various parties.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide for optional preferential marking of ballot papers at Senate elections. As I said, this proposal was a part of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill. The principal clauses of the Bill under discussion deal with how ballot papers are to be marked, what constitutes an informal ballot paper and the scrutiny of votes. Under the Government’s proposal a voter at a Senate election will be required to indicate on his or her ballot paper preference for at least the number of vacancies to be filled. The voter may extend his preferences beyond the minimum, but this is the voter’s option. The Opposition, of course, opposes this because it is the first step by the Government towards its aim of first past the post voting. That is what is really sought in this Bill. This was a compromise when the Labor Party, whose policy originally was for first past the post voting, decided that it was not saleable and that it would have to retreat from it.
What is intended in this Bill is to try to create a situation in which people are encouraged, if not at the first election then at a later election, not to go down the list of preferences and not to express a view about those candidates that to them are less favoured. That is, of course, the whole point of our traditional preferential system. The point and the fairness of it is that each person expresses a preference for each candidate on the ballot paper. He does not in fact have to mark the last one because clearly that candidate will come last, but he may do so. The basic fairness of that is this: If he votes No. 1 or No. 2 for candidates who, as it turns out when the votes are counted, are less favoured candidates, then, if he has to fill in the whole of the ballot paper, ultimately he has a say in determining which of the two most favoured candidates comes last or, in the case of the Senate, the two most favoured teams. That is the inherent fairness of that system and that is why Australia, which when its electoral systems were being set up was naturally interested in trying to achieve the fairest system- by the way, Australia was one of the first countries to give the vote to women and also to provide for secret ballots- adopted the system of full preferential voting. That system was fair and most likely to result in having the real wishes of the electorate recorded. Of course the Australian Labor Party does not worry much about fair systems. Its interest is in getting the maximum number of candidates elected whatever the system may be, particularly at the moment. So members of the Labor Party come along here with a lot of spurious arguments about the percentage of informal votes and so on. In one section of his second reading speech the Minister for Administrative Services said:
Of course there will always be a number of electors who fail to record a valid vote irrespective of the voting system.
That was ground out of him after about 6 columns of Hansard. I suppose that he felt that the rest of his speech had to be balanced up a little bit. Of course that is quite right. The percentage of informal votes is a factor but nevertheless it will never be extinguished.
Let me refer to this matter of the average informal vote in Senate elections. Let us all agree that because of the large number of candidates for Senate elections and perhaps in many cases because of the number of candidates whose names are not well known, there will be a significant number of people who will vote informally either unintentionally or intentionally. The average informal vote at Senate elections is about 10 per cent. I have in front of me the percentages of informal votes recorded at Senate elections since 1949. They are: 10.76 per cent, 7.13 per cent, 4.45 per cent, 9.63 per cent, 10.29 per cent, 10.62 per cent, 6.98 per cent, 6.10 per cent, 9.41 per cent and in May last year, 10.77 per cent. In spite of the fact that one State had, I think, 73 candidates, the fact of the matter was that the overwhelming majority of electors were able to work out quite easily how to vote formally. Of course the Australian people are quite intelligent enough to number a ballot paper if they want to. Anybody who has scrutineered and seen ballot papers being counted will know that quite a number of them are blank. A blank ballot paper shows that it is not a question of somebody making a mistake and having his vote ruled out; he does not want to vote. There will always be a percentage of those deliberately informal votes.
So an argument which attempts to encourage people into a first past the post system, which the Government hopes will aid its candidates, is of course a very weak argument. No doubt when this Bill gets to the Senate and perhaps this afternoon in this House others will continue to expose this argument. We are for a full preferential system which provides for each elector the right to express a preference in favour of every candidate on the ballot paper. After all, the Government cannot complain. The percentages of votes it has received in Senate elections have been represented pretty closely by the percentage of senators it has had elected. But I point out that the Australian Labor Party has not had great success in getting a majority of senators in the Senate. That, of course, is the real reason why it wants to change the system. The system does not suit it. It is not getting enough senators elected. That is the motive behind this legislation and every honourable member in this House privately knows that that is so.
Of course the argument in favour of the first past the post system is that it will aid the Labor Party. As I said, the Labor Party had that as a policy. It now tries to meet any opposition in the middle. Who can say, with the Government’s interest in promoting propaganda in its own direction, what campaign would be waged, if that system were adopted, in favour of greatly simplifying the system, as the Government would say, and encouraging people just to vote for the Labor Party team and for no one else? The people do have rights and they must be protected. I say in respect to this Bill, and with more relevance in respect of a Bill to be dealt with later, it is important that individuals have the right of full expression of their vote and also the right to nominate. That nomination is part of their right. For the Government to criticise an election in which there happened to be more candidates than before and to say that that is a bad thing and confusing and so on is only to say that it does not want the system to proceed as it is. The Government wants to change it and to tighten the system in its interest. I believe that that is wrong both immediately and certainly in the long term.
In brief, that is why the Opposition takes this view. This Bills deals specifically with optional preference voting on ballot papers for Senate elections. The next Bill to be discussed deals with the House of Representatives. I conclude by saying that all the legislation is part of the one package. The principles embodied in this Bill were in the package of the Bill that was before this House on 13 November last year, again on 10 April this year and now in separated form we have it before us again. What an idea of priorities! The other and linked attempts to change the system are those electoral boundary alterations which now are embodied in Bills, though they were not previously, and also the attempt to bring in provisions in respect of donations plainly have emerged in the debate as an effort to improve part of the electoral process in favour of the Australian Labor Party. The Opposition opposes the Bill.
-I thought we were coming here this afternoon to take part in a debate on the electoral laws. One could hardly say that the contribution just made by the spokesman for the Opposition, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), would provoke any debate. It might provoke a fair bit of amusement but it would hardly provoke a debate. His contribution, as all the contributions that have been made from the Opposition both here and in the Senate, added up to nothing at all. I think one could sum up the mentality of the Opposition by referring to what Senator Withers said on its behalf in the Senate last year on 28 November. This demonstrates the mentality of the Liberal-National Country Party coalition. He said:
It is a fact of political life that governments do not alter electoral Acts to advantage their opponents. That is a fact of political life. Therefore, the corollary of that fact is a suspicion- I did not put it any higher than that- that when a government seeks to amend the electoral laws it is doing so for its own advantage. I put it only as a suspicion because I am trying to keep this debate on a fairly low key.
Senator Withers, of course, was echoing what had been the basis of the contributions made in this House by spokesmen from the Opposition, that in no circumstances would the Opposition, whether it was in regard to the redistribution Bills or the electoral laws amendment Bills, look at the legislation in any way seriously to bring about what may be a fairer and a more equitable system of electoral laws in Australia
Of course the Opposition says: ‘We have to maintain the present system because the Labor Party is after a system of first past the post’. To the benefit of the Government on this occasion, by the Opposition refusing a cognate debate on these Bills we are able to look specifically at the question of the Senate elections. The present system most assuredly can be made inoperable. The number of nominations received in New South Wales in 1974 was an indication of how Senate elections under the present system could be made inoperable. Firstly, it must be stated that there has never been any suggestion from this side of the House that first past the post voting would be introduced. What a tragedy, what a calamity if it were! We would be following all those dictatorships like the United States of America, France and Great Britain which have similar systems. Secondly, it is stupid to argue that the present system should be maintained because people want to vote with all the preferences that are made available to them. Can anyone here from New South Wales tell me how he voted at the last Senate election after the double dissolution in 1 974? Can he in aU honesty tell me the order of his preferences from one to 73? He could not tell me and he would not be honest if he attempted to do so because he just does not know. All he knows is that he voted for his own party first and that his first preference was the coalition partner. From then on he would not know where they went. So it is ridiculous to suggest that the present system allows everybody to exercise their rights as far as preferences are concerned. A preferential voting system is a good system. It can work within organisations in which people know everyone, but it is ridiculous to ask the people of New South Wales or of any State in this country seriously to vote from No. 1 to whatever number of candidates there may be in a Senate election.
If people want to exercise their rights and to extend the situation which occurred in 1974, in the not too distant future we will see in New South Wales three hundred or four hundred candidates. At the last Senate election in New SouthWales there were about 40 party representatives and there were 30 additional candidates who nominated for the sole purpose of trying to manipulate the system because they worked out that the more candidates there were the more chance there was of defeating Labor candidates and that the informal vote would rise in the Labor-held electorates. That proved to be true.
– Why would it?
-Because if you look at the figures for informal votes in New South Walesyou have looked at them, which is why you are trying to consolidate the present system in its present form- you will find that in the electorates where there was the highest number of informal votes the people who have been penalised are, to be a very large extent, the migrants, the disadvantaged groups and the groups which may have some difficulty in voting from one to seventythree. I wish to cite the informal vote in some of those electorates: Banks 14.1 per cent; Barton 10 per cent; Chifley 14 per cent; Darling 16 per cent; Cunningham 11.6 per cent; Grayndler 16 per cent; Hunter 15.2 per cent; Kingsford-Smith 13 per cent; Lang 12 per cent; Prospect 14 per cent; Reid 16 per cent and Sydney 20 per cent. Those extra 30 candidates in New South Wales, which made a total of seventy-three, contributed to giving Australia the highest informal vote we have ever had in a Senate election under the present system. I put it quite seriously to the House that not only will the system be made inoperable but also we will never be able to count the votes.
If people want to exercise their rights to prove a point- I would not suggest that honourable members opposite should laugh- and there are 300 or 400 candidates for the Senate in New South Wales, it will take 6 months for the Electoral Office to count the votes. That bastion of democracy, the Legislative Council in South Australia, which introduced for the first time at the last State elections a decent system of voting, has now adopted optional preferential voting by which one can vote for one’s own team and can then vote for all the other teams in order of preference, if one wishes. But it is incumbent on one to vote only for the team one knows. That is obviously the system that will have to be introduced for Senate elections. Honourable members opposite smile to themselves and say: ‘It will never happen; people will not try to twist the system so that we cannot get a result and so that we will have to wait 6 months’. We saw the fiasco of 1974 when it took 6 weeks to get a result.
If the system is so fair, and if it reflects the will of the people, I suggest to the House that the majority of the Senate ought to be members of the Australian Labor Party, because the Government of this country is in the House of Representatives and the majority of people who were returned to this House in 1974 were members of the Labor Party. So if we want to reflect what the people wanted, the majority of the Senate should be of the same political persuasion. If we look at the number of the candidates for the Senate in 1970 and see that that number more than doubled in 1974, 1 put it to the House that we are likely to see that escalation continue in years ahead to the extent that the system will become completely inoperable.
We have not only this area to consider. Although this is hot a cognate debate we must look at all the other areas of amendment that the Government is proposing for these Bills. Otherwise the opposition will continue to try to convince, persuade or con the Australian people that this is the best system. As we are now going to speak on all these Bills individually it rests with me only to suggest that an optional preferential system for Senate elections is one of the most important amendments to be put before this House. It is a system which people can more easily understand. They do not have to vote for people of whom they have no knowledge. They do not have to vote for teams of which they have never heard. They will vote for their political party. It has been the tradition in this country that, apart from the 20 per cent or 25 per cent of the people in the middle who change their votes from election to election, people vote out of political persuasion; they vote for their political teams and not for individuals. They will recognise their teams and vote accordingly. To suggest with any seriousness at all that people vote in all conscience from one to seventy-three, as we asked them to do in New South Wales, is absolute rubbish. The people of New South Wales will tell you that if in future Senate elections there is a ballot paper of twice the size as the one in 1974 the system will just not work and we will be forced from outside to change the present preferential system which applies to Senate elections.
– I wish to correct the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and to remind him that this is not a cognate debate. I thought Mr Acting Speaker was very lenient to him in allowing him to wander all over the ship as far as the Electoral Bill (No. 2) is concerned. I wish to raise the question of the counting of votes in accordance with the amending Bill. As all of us in this House appreciate, as far as a Senate election is concerned, you work on the principle of a quota. In arriving at that quota you take into consideration the number of formal votes cast and also the number of candidates who are to be elected. The Bill also states that a vote will be classified as formal providing the ballot paper is filled in with the total numbers in accordance with the number of senators to be elected.
The honourable member for Port Adelaide talked about 300 or 400 candidates, which to me is absolutely ridiculous. If that were the case and we were to elect, say, 5 senators it would be obvious that a number of people could vote for candidates who were not even in the final running for election. That would automatically disfranchise those people who would cast a vote for the candidate in which they would be interested. Over the years the Government has always talked about equalisation, a fair go for all, one vote one value and that sort of thing. In previous debates not one member of the Government has said- I hope the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan), who is at the table, understands the matter and will give me an explanation- what will eventually be the quota after the first three senators or even the first 4 senators out of a team of five are elected. It would appear to me that whilst No. 1 would be able to fulfil a quota and Nos. 2 and 3 might be able to fulfil a quota, when it comes to Nos. 4 and 5 there is every possibility that no formal votes, or very few, would be left. If that were the case the senator who was appointed to be No. 4 or No. 5 would be elected with fewer votes than those who would be elected No. 2 or No. 3.
I do not wish to say anything more about that matter other than that I hope that the Minister will be able to give me a firm assurance that senators so elected under this scheme will be elected on the same number of votes as Nos. 1, 2 and 3 could be elected on. I would like an assurance on that, because after all this is to my mind a discriminatory provision of the Bill. I do not know whether the honourable member for Port Adelaide had any justification in suggesting that a lot of migrants- I think that is what he saidcast informal votes at the last Senate election. All I can say to that is that the electorates he read out were returning basically Labor or Government members and it would appear as a result of that that those people who support Labor members must be less intelligent than those who support members on the Opposition side of the House.
-Mr Deputy Speaker, the first thing I want to say about this Bill-
Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put: That the question be now put The House divided.
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
AYES
NOES
That the question be now put The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)
AYES: 59
NOES: 56
Majority……. 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put-
That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)
AYES: 59
NOES: 56
Majority……. 3
Original question so resolved in the affirmative.
AYES
NOES
Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.
Bill (on motion by Mr Riordan) read a third time.
ELECTORAL BILL (No. 3) 1975 Second Reading
Debate resumed from 28 August on motion by Mr Daly:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-This Bill and Electoral Bill (No. 2) have the purpose of providing for optional preferential marking of ballot papers. Electoral Bui (No. 2) dealt with elections for the Senate and this Bill incorporates a similar principle for House of Representatives elections. If this Bill were enacted a voter would need to mark only one preference. This would apply also in an election to fill a single Senate casual vacancy, as outlined in Electoral Bill (No. 2). So voters may indicate more than one preference if they wish to do so but it is not necessary.
The Opposition opposes this measure on very similar grounds to those on which it opposed Electoral Bill (No. 2). When speaking to Electoral Bill (No. 2) earlier I mentioned that this Bill is one of six into which the previous Electoral Laws Amendment Bill has now been divided for presentation to this House for the third time. The Bill is part of a package of proposals to change electoral boundaries and electoral laws purely in the interests of the Australian Labor Party. I repeat that the Government certainly needs to manipulate this system and has shown dogged determination to change the electoral system in its own favour, because it realises that if the present fair system continues it will be thrown out of office for its mismanagement of the economy and for other matters.
This Bill is put forward with the basic argument that the present system is unfair, unwieldy and so on. It is a specious argument. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) made separate second reading speeches on these Bills. The speeches contained a certain amount of invective. Of course we do not agree with the principle at all. We are convinced that this is an effort of the Labor Party to change the electoral voting system to a first-past-the-post system, a system under which a person need mark a ‘ 1’, or an ‘X’ if the law permitted, against one candidate no matter how many candidates there are. That is enough to record a valid vote.
This is a departure from the long held principle in this country that every elector should express a preference for every candidate. That is important because an elector cannot know- he may have some idea- who will be the most favoured candidates. He may well vote for somebody who in the event receives few votes and has little hope of being elected. If the elector votes initially for a minor candidate and gives a preference to the full number of candidates on the ballot paper ultimately his preferences will be distributed. He will ultimately have a say in the election of the last person and in particular between the 2 last and most favoured candidates. I suppose one would need to qualify that by saying that if a candidate has an absolute majority- that is 50 per cent of the votes plus one- the preferences are not necessary but in most elections they are necessary and in all elections they may be necessary. This is an old principle.
I said earlier- and these remarks are just as applicable to this Bill as to Electoral Bill (No. 2)- that when Australia was forming its electoral laws and procedures it was very keen to do better than the systems overseas, many of which contained a number of unfair provisions. Australia was one of the first countries to introduce universal franchise, votes for women, secret ballot and full preferential voting. We have held to that system by and large. One or two smaller assemblies use the other system. In most cases, perhaps in all cases, they had a special reason- which is not applicable to elections for the House of Representatives- for adopting that system. So our first and primary point in advocating that Australia should retain the full preferential system is that it is a fair system which results in each elector having a say in who is to be elected. All the POllS and predictions aside, one cannot know who is going to win until the votes are counted.
One of the specious arguments used is that the optional preferential system would reduce the number of informal votes. One only has to look at what we are talking about to see that that is not a very powerful argument. I have a list which shows the percentage of informal votes cast in elections in this country since 1949. They are 1.99 per cent, 1.9 per cent, 1.35 per cent, 2.88 per cent, 2.87 per cent, 2.56 per cent, 1.82 per cent, 3.1 per cent, 2.54 per cent, 2.17 per cent, and in the election last year, 1.92 per cent. Between 2 per cent and 3 per cent of voters vote informally. Some electors do so deliberately. If one scrutinises the ballot papers when the votes are being counted one sees that some are blank, some are spoiled in other ways and some are amusingly not blank.
– Some of them are rude.
– Some of them are very rude. I said that some were amusingly not blank. But the point is that some people do not wish to vote. Of course, there is no law to prevent them from failing to vote. What they must do is present themselves at the polling places and have their names marked off. There will always be some people who will vote informally. I suppose it is part of their democratic right to vote in such a manner. But it is a specious argument to try to claim that optional preferential voting is an important advance in this respect.
Of course, the motive behind the whole package of the proposals being put to this Parliament now for the third time in under 12 months is that the legislation if passed would greatly help the Australian Labor Party get more votes, and in the present political climate preserve more of its members when we next go to an election. Really, the argument that the Australian people cannot mark a piece of paper one to three or four or five -
– Or seventy-three.
– The Minister is in the wrong debate. He is talking about the last Bill. Is the Minister telling me that we are going to have a ballot paper with 70 names on it for a House of Representatives election?
– You could have.
– Well, you could have. But I believe that the Australian people would be able to work it out as they did in respect of the ballot paper for New South Wales Senate candidates at the last election. But this has never happened before in respect of a House of Representatives election. So what the Minister is putting to me now is as specious an argument as was put by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) when he introduced the present Bill recently and similar Bills on 2 previous occasions. The Government just is not on firm ground. The Government really wants to produce a situation in which it can get from a few votes some sort of preferential treatment. It hopes that some people who vote for minor candidates ultimately will not have any preferential say because if this legislation were passsed the Government would further amend the law to provide for first past the voting. The Government would then be able to split the votes of its opponents even though those votes in total might exceed the votes for the Government candidate. The Government seeks to implement a system whereby fewer nonLabor candidates are elected to this place.
That is what the legislation is all about. The Government proposes to introduce an optional preferential system. Once it has encouraged people not to vote fully on the basis of a preferential system it will come back and say: ‘Well, people do not want to use this system; we will change it to a first past the post system’. Of course, the Australian Labor Party had a policy of first past the post voting. However, it had to abandon this policy because it was found to be very unpopular. In fact, compaigns were conducted in this country in respect of such a system. Quite a big campaign was conducted a few years ago to try to get people to respond to this system. It was actually an attempt to say to people: ‘Look, you do not want to have to go through this performance every two or three years of actually having to make the big effort of putting 5 marks on a ballot paper when you need make only one mark’. But the Australian people showed what they thought of such a proposal.
They reacted very adversely to such a suggestion. Some polls taken on the subject showed that Australians were very firmly in favour of a full preferential system.
The Labor Party realised that it would have to go around this matter in a more devious way. It decided that the change to first past the voting would have to be undertaken in 2 stages, the first of which would be to promote the principle of optional preferential voting. The motive behind all the attempted changes to the boundaries and the electoral laws to which I have referred is the Government’s attempt to keep itself in power.
The present system is not really unfair. If one compares the percentages of votes that are cast for the Australian Labor Party with the percentages of Labor Party candidates who are elected one will find that the percentages are pretty close. I think that that is not a bad test of whether or not the system is working fairly. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) earlier said: ‘Oh well, that cannot be right because after all in the last election for the House of Representatives Labor got a majority’. He did not say that it was a narrow one- but it was narrowand in the Senate it did not get a majority. One can see just how weak the Government’s case is if the honourable member has to resort to arguments of that kind. In the first place, Senators are elected State by State. It so happens that some States are very antagonistic to the Labor Party and if they had not had equality of votes in the Seante they would never have joined the Federation in the first place. Secondly, so long as we are to have boundaries anywhere we will not have an exact representation of the percentage vote for a party across the whole State. There have to be variations, but what I am arguing is that the variations should be minor.
Not even the Australian Labor Party is suggesting a system for the House of Representatives such as exists in Tasmania where for a large area, or I suppose, to follow the logic of the honourable member for Port Adelaide, the whole State, you elect everyone on a proportional representation basis.
– Even the Minister would agree.
– Yes, I am sure that even the Minister would agree with that. They are in brief the reasons why the Opposition puts forward in opposing the legislation again. I remind the House that this is the third time that legislation of this nature has been introduced in less than a year. It shows a very strange order of priorities when we have to involve ourselves in contesting a principle which has been contested so often before and about which our views are so completely known, when there are matters of great moment before the Australian people.
If the Minister is to introduce a former Bill which has been split into 6 segments and make 6 highly political speeches about them, of course the Opposition has to explain to the Australian people why it takes the view it does in opposing most of the measures. A pity it is that there could not have been right from the beginning some attempt to get agreement. If the Government was really genuine in this matter I believe it should have attempted to initiate a round table conference to try to get some agreement in respect of these electoral matters. I am at a loss to understand why the Government could not have done this and then put the matters on which agreement had been reached into one or more bills which could then be passed. The House could then debate those Bills which contain matters in respect of which the Opposition is opposed.
I just want to touch on one argument which seems to keep reappearing, though strangely not in the Minister’s second reading speech on this occasion, namely the argument that the optional preferential voting system will be greatly beneficial because votes will be counted more quickly. Surely what we want to get is the right result. We want to know what is the feeling and the view of the electors. If that takes another few hours of counting obviously the exercise is worthwhile. We do not want to cut off certain votes and, as is proposed in later Bills, place other restrictions on the rights of people simply because it helps the Labor Party which argues that under such a system the result could be known by midnight of the day of counting. Perhaps it could help some of the commentators to be a little more accurate than they have been in the past. The important questions are: What is the will of the people? What is their real intention? How can we get the best result in accord with what they wish? This is not a question of machinery and I believe that the saving, certainly in respect of the election of the members of this House, is not worth considering. Nor is it worth considering in terms of the national effort and the system that we have set up in order to try to create the fairest possible parliamentary representative democracy. That is the view of the Opposition in respect of this Bill. It will oppose the legislation.
-We have heard from the previous speaker, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), simply a droll repetition of his earlier remarks on 2 previous occasions. I think that the pertinent words in his contribution are to be found in this short sentence: ‘What we want to get is the right result’. The addendum to that sentence should be ‘for the Opposition’. That is the reason why Australia has probably the most outmoded and most complicated electoral laws of any democracy in the world. The system that we have is deliberately designed to make voting difficult for people who have sight difficulties or who have difficulty in filling out a large number of squares in consecutive order. Even members of the Opposition cannot do that at times. This is really a system designed to militate against an expression of choice by those people with lesser ability with numbers and with pen and paper. The Opposition seeks to continue that system for its own electoral advantage.
– Cynical.
– It is a cynical attitude as the Minister for Housing and Construction says. It can be best described only as that. In his earlier remarks, the previous speaker said that the Opposition was against rigged electoral boundaries. The boundaries that Australia has at present are the electoral boundaries that the Opposition when in government rigged. The system that we have is the system that it rigged. It is designed to favour the Opposition Parties. The Opposition is really saying this: ‘We are all in favour of democracy as long as we can control it’. This is the very same thing that colleagues of honourable members opposite are saying in another place at the moment. They are saying: ‘We are all in favour of the people of Australia electing a government to the House of Representatives so long as it is a government of which we approve’. That is supposed to be guided democracy. That is reflected again in this legislation.
If honourable members want an accurate determination of the effect of informal votes on a large number of candidates and of the difference that the optional preferential system will make, it can be found in the figures for the House of Representatives and the Senate in 1974. On an Australia-wide basis, the number of informal votes cast for the House of Representatives was 1.92 per cent of total votes cast. For the Senate, the informal rate of voting was 10.77 per cent. The position is even worse in New South Wales. The level of informal voting for the House of Representatives was 1.6 per cent in New South Wales. Informal votes for the Senate were 12.3 per cent of the total Senate vote. That is a difference of 10.71 per cent. This means that 10.71 per cent of those who voted in New South
Wales in the Senate election last year were effectively disfranchised; they were prevented from expressing their choice because of the complicated method of voting.
The Bill now before the House seeks to reform the electoral law of this nation so as to ensure a greater political equality for all Australians as individuals as well as for party candidates who aspire to participate in the parliamentary process. The Opposition makes much noise about its version of equality and its concept of the divine right to rule, but what this Bill and ensuring Bills are all about is the equality of political opportunity. The legislation seeks to provide that people who do want to participate in the parliamentary process have equal opportunity at the ballot box. What the Opposition ought to be doing is to support this legislation. This is what members of the Opposition would be doing if they were genuine in their expressions about equality at the ballot box and equality in legislative matters.
As I said, this legislation seeks to enshrine in the statute book equality of political opportunities for all Australians. The complicated system that we have at present operates only to prevent Australians casting their choice and expressing their view on who ought to represent them. Optional preferential voting was referred to by the previous speaker as some type of stage 1 introduction of first past the post voting. That claim is completely untrue. I do not know whether the honourable member knows it to be untrue. In a first past the post system, the voter simply expresses a choice for one candidate possibly, as in the United Kingdom, by placing a cross against a candidate’s name on the ballot paper. It is possible under that system for a candidate who obtains a minority of the votes- that is, 40 per cent of the total votes cast or even 35 per cent of those votes- to be elected. The legislation now before this House proposing an optional preferential system embodies a provision that requires that a successful candidate must have 50 per cent of the votes at the stage of counting when the result for each seat is declared. The successful candidate must have a majority of the formal votes cast at that stage of the counting. What really astounded me in what I heard from the other side of the House -
– What happens if the candidate does not get 50 per cent of the votes?
-I know that the honourable member has invented a new National Country Party creation- the regressive barn dance. I pay the honourable member credit for it. I think that it is a very, very good thing that he has done for the National Country Party. It is something that he has never done before.
– Will the honourable member answer my question?
– I will come to the honourable member’s point at a later stage. In the week before last the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) referred to the reduction in the number of polling booths in rural electorates and how by this so-called electoral reform the Government was depriving country people of the right to vote. The honourable member said that we should not try to contain expenditure or to limit the expenditure of public money. He claimed that we should provide polling booths, like public toilets, on every corner. He alleged that we were disfranchising people. But if we look at the high percentage of informal votes cast in country electorates, we find that the National Country Party, and the Opposition in general, are supporting a system which deprives far more country voters of an expression of choice for a candidate than that system of voting does in respect of city voters. Let us have a look at the figures in the electorate of Mallee in Victoria. In the last Senate election 13 per cent of voters there voted informally. In the electorate of Paterson in New South Wales, 15.6 per cent of voters cast informal votes. The percentage of informal votes in the electorate of Lyne in New South Wales was 16.1 per cent. I compare that level of informal voting with the number of informal votes cast in the electorate of Berowra, a city electorate, which was 7.3 per cent. More than twice as many country voters cast informal votes in the Senate election last year than were cast by city voters in the electorate of Berowra.
Dealing with country informal voting again, in Calare, 14.1 per cent of total votes cast were informal. In Hume the figure was 14.8 per cent. Where are the members of the National Country Party who are the champions of the people living in country areas who want to express their choice and also to register their approval of candidates? Honourable members opposite subscribe to legislation that places those people in the highest category of informal voters. They are discriminating against country voters in favour of city voters. I am shocked and surprised that members of the National Country Party have not seen what they are doing. The situation can be understood if one looks at the membership of the National Country Party. The Opposition discriminates against country voters; yet the Opposition wants to argue against this electoral reform.
There is a history of optional preferential voting in Australia. The paradox is that the Opposition when in Government supported the optional preferential voting system. In fact, it introduced this system for the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council elections. As a Government, it introduced that system for elections in Papua New Guinea. When in office in Tasmania it endorsed the optional preferential system known as the Hare-Clark system.
Let me deal now with the interjection which came from my friend in ‘cockies’ corner’ who asked about the optional preferential system and exhausted votes. In New South Wales, under the Liberal-Country Party Government, all local government elections are conducted on the optional preferential system. Voters are required to mark their ballot papers consecutively from the number ‘ 1’ to a number which is equal to twice the number of vacancies plus one. Those Parties have been in office in New South Wales for 10 years. I find it hard to understand that honourable members opposite endorse that system of voting in New South Wales but oppose it when it is proposed for operation on a Federal basis. Clearly they must make up their minds. The truth is that honourable members opposite are opposed to this system of electoral reform because they think that it may bring in from the cold those people who are at present being disfranchised by the extremely complicated system that we have for elections.
If we look at the history of the Opposition Parties, we find that in 23 years in office they made no effort whatsoever to introduce electoral reform with the exception of the introduction in 1 97 1 by the honourable member for Gwydir ( Mr Hunt) of 26 amendments to the legislation, which were not proceeded with. Some of those matters which were the subject of amendment then are covered in legislation to be debated later today.
The Opposition reacts hysterically to any suggestion of the introduction of optional preferential voting. I make the point again that the optional preferential system is not a first past the post system. It is totally different from the first past the post system. Looking at the history of Australia we find that the optional preferential system was the form of voting used at Senate elections in the period 1919 to 1931. It is the same as the system now used by New South Wales in local government elections. I draw the attention of the House to the remark made in 1919 by the honourable member for Brisbane, Mr Finlayson, when a debate on an election Bill was before the House. He stated:
The purity of public life depends on the purity of the electoral machinery. It is unfortunate that the electoral law should be the plaything of party politics.
It has been the plaything of party politics on the other side of the House for the past quarter of a century. The amendments which are proposed to enable people properly to express their choice ought to be carried unanimously by both sides of the House. I draw the attention of the House to the situation in 1970 when candidates stood for the National Socialist Party. People did not want to express a choice for those candidates, whether there were eight, nine, ten or twenty candidates, but because they did not put a number against those candidates those people were effectively disfranchised. If people do not want to put a number against a candidate under the system which honourable members opposite support, those people lose their right to have that vote recorded. I feel that the reforms are very reasonable. They deserve the support of both sides of the House. The public of Australia are certainly entitled to them.
– I wish to make a short contribution to the debate on Electoral Bill (No. 3) which, as honourable members will be aware, proposes the introduction of optional preferential voting for House of Representatives elections. I think all honourable members will agree that the aim of any system of voting in single member constituencies should be to ensure that the victorious candidate receives the support of at least 50 per cent of the formal votes cast either by first or subsequent preference. I invite any subsequent speakers from the Government side in this debate to challenge that approach as being other than a reasonable approach to a democratic system of election in a single member constituency. Inevitably, in a discussion on optional preferential voting we get into an argument as to whether it is some kind of disguised first past the post voting. I agree with the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), with the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) and with other honourable members who have participated in this debate that it would not be correct to say that optional preferential voting simply equals first past the post voting. I agree with that.
What I put to the House- this is where I disagree with members on the Government side- is that it is quite possible and not, as the Leader of the House said when introducing this Bill, purely hypothetical, for optional preferential voting to have precisely the same result as first past the post voting. I shall trouble the House with an example. If the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) will not mind my using their names in this example I shall give the House a simple illustration of how this can occur. Let us say that we have a constituency of 100 people and that 100 valid votes are cast at a poll. Candidate Garland, as I shall call him, receives 41 of those votes by way of first preference, candidate Riordan receives 39 and- I will be modest- candidate Howard received only 20 votes. Of the 20 people who voted for Howard, the problem is that only ten decided to express a preference. They are given an option of whether to express a preference. Half, that is ten, declined to exercise their preference. Of the ten who express a preference, six of them decide to give their second preference to Garland and four of them decide to give their second preference to Riordan. So Garland ends up with 47 votes and Riordan with 43 votes. Garland is declared the winner. Of course, by way of first or subsequent preference, Garland has received only 47 per cent of the vote. In other words, 53 per cent of the people who voted in that poll did not want Garland although he is declared elected.
– They might not have cared, either.
– The Minister had interjected but he cannot gainsay the fact that if we have an optional preferential system, if we have 3 candidates, and if only half of the number of persons who voted for the third candidate express a preference, it is possible for the victorious candidate to be elected with less than 50 per cent of the primary or subsequent preference votes of the people taking part in the poll. That was precisely the same effect as a first past the post system. The objection held to first past the post voting in this country is that it leads to the election of minority governments. It leads to the election of candidates, in single member seats, in respect of whom more than 50 per cent of people have cast adverse votes. That, in essence, is the basis of our objection to this system of voting. The Leader of the House in his remarks when introducing this legislation stated:
It is true that if all voters deliberately refrained from expressing any preferences beyond the first preference, the result under optional preferential voting . . . would be the same as in a first past the post system.
I put it to the House that the Leader of the House should have further qualified those remarks by saying that if a sufficient number of voters in an optional preferential system refrained from expressing a preference, the result would be the same because the example I have given to the House shows precisely the same effect in that it leads to the election of a person who has received less than 50 per cent of the formal vote. The Leader of the House in his remarks went on to say that the proposition he put was purely hypothetical because it has not eventuated in elections under the optional preferential system in Australia in the past and that it was not likely to eventuate in the future. I very seriously challenge that proposition of the Leader of the House. Experience with optional preferential voting in Australia is extremely limited. To suggest that the sort of occurrence which I have outlined will not eventuate in the future is an extremely bold proposition.
The other remark I make is that the introduction of optional preferential voting reduces the influences of minority parties. That may be a desirable political objective but it is not necessarily consonant with a democratic voting system to reduce the influence of minority parties. The final question I ask the Government is: If it is wrong to compel people to exercise a preference beyond their first preference, why is it not wrong to compel people to vote? I find a logical inconsistency in saying that we cannot compel people to exercise a second or subsequent preference but that we can compel people to vote. If this Government is really consistent and if it really believes that we ought not to compel people to vote beyond a certain preference, it ought to examine its fundamental commitment to compulsory voting because there is a very strong and logical inconsistency in the approach which it takes.
– I call the honourable member for Sturt.
-Mr Speaker - Mr Nicholls- I move:
That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)
AYES: 60
NOES: 57
Majority……. 3
AYES
NOES
That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)
AYES: 60
NOES: 57
Majority……. 3
Original question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
AYES
NOES
Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.
Bill (on motion by Mr Riordan) read a third time.
page 2063
Debate resumed from 28 August on motion by Mr Daly:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-This Bill provides mainly for the registration of political parties and for the political affiliations of candidates to be printed on ballot papers. The provisions of this Bill were part of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill which was debated in this House last November and again in April of this year. They are part of that package of proposals which the present Australian Labor Party Government is putting forward in an endeavour to improve the political system in its favour. On a number of occasions the Opposition has expressed its objections to the principles that are involved in this Bill. The registration of political parties will mean the setting up of a tremendous structure of regulation, and that is the reason for a good deal of the Opposition’s criticism.
It has long been realised by those who are interested in the provision of a better form of political parliamentary representation that the right of an individual citizen to stand as a candidate and to have a fair chance at the poll is important. I realise that the party political system which exists in this country today gives him a minor chance of success. Nevertheless the system is there and who is to say that the present structure of parties will continue forever or even for a long time? The fact is that, as the law stands at present, the electors have the ability to change their representatives frequently, not merely between members of major parties. What this Bill would do would be to make it harder for the individual to be elected and to make things more difficult for all parties other than the Australian Labor Party. That is the reason for the presentation of this item in the package of proposals that has been put forward.
It is the same motive which has led the Government to endeavour to change the electoral boundaries very much in its favour and to endeavour to make many changes to the electoral laws from which only the present Government can benefit. In the 6 second reading speeches of the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) and in other speeches in this place he has endeavoured to justify the situation on what he calls non-partisan grounds. But the abuse contained in those speeches and his general demeanour and attitude on this subject are enough to convince everybody on this side of the House that that argument is not a genuine one.
I will not try to cover all the provisions of the Bill because they are complex and, with the Government’s objective in mind, somewhat legalistic, but I will mention briefly the principles that are involved. A party will have to register its name. Perhaps on the surface that sounds simple enough but of course we all know of cases- there are a number of cases- of people registering names intended to be confused with the names of existing political parties. The Labor Party is perhaps least likely to suffer electoral consequences from that and therefore it is a very good idea for the Government to add to the problems of others. Legal action has been taken on the matter. In the main those efforts have been unsuccessful in our present situation. But what is intended here is to set up incredibly complex machinery in which the appeal is not to the courts but to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer- in other words, an officer in the employ of the Government. In spite of the relatively recent independence of that position, it is clearly not the right avenue. The avenue, if needed, should be through the courts. They alone have the aura of impartiality which would allow the people to see true independence. As is often said, it is not a question of being impartial but of having the appearance of impartiality.
If the well known political parties have their names on the ballot paper, irrespective of the relationship of those parties to one another, that must have an adverse effect on an individual putting forward his name. As I have said, the Bill encourages confusion by allowing names and party names to be put forward that are intended to be confusing. We all know of people who have changed their names by deed poll in order to be placed on top of the ballot paper or in order to cause confusion or otherwise gain advantage. We have known of people registering names under the various State Acts or promoting names which are intended to be similar to the names of other parties. I have mentioned the -appeals system. Fancy in the height of an election with all the pressure and the difficulties which exist the
Chief Electoral Officer adjudicating on a group promoting a name which can be confusing with the name of another political party. In the opinion of the Opposition Parties this proposal is quite improper and of course we oppose it.
We have put a view also about the qualification provisions. There is all this paraphernalia. Under this Bill there is to be a register called the Register of Names of Political Parties. One may have a party registered only if there is a certain amount of support in the electorate. For instance, in the case of a general election for the House of Representatives the number of candidates endorsed by a party must not be less than onequarter of the number of divisions in the relevant State- that means the number of electorates in a State. In the case of a Senate election the number of candidates endorsed by a party is to be not less than one-quarter of the number of senators to be elected for that State. In other words, this proposal is weighted very heavily in favour of the status quo and that is clearly damaging to the right to which I referred of individuals to stand for election and to have a fair chance. It is surely worth preserving, even by the big parties, the principle that the opportunity of the individual counts for something. After all, when such a person is elected it is usually for an important political reason and the consequences of such elections have been important ones in Australia’s history. The proposal in this Bill that there needs to be a qualification of numbers before registration of a party can take place is obviously unfair.
I have mentioned that there is to be a register of the names of political parties. This again only shows the propensity of the Labor Party to try to regulate everything. It is mad about moving motions, about having a large number of Bills enacted and regulations passed. The Labor Party exaggerates the need. It cannot leave things alone. It sees some advantage in this proposal and that joins with this propensity to legislate. So we have this quite complex Bill which if passed could result in creating a great number of anomalies and would very likely support the ambitions of the Labor Party.
The Bill sets out that the Chief Electoral Officer shall register the name of political parties, other particulars including the address, etc. I can imagine how many etceteras there would be. The Bill says that the Chief Electoral Officer ‘may refuse an application for the registration’. So he will have to come into the political process. He will be able to say: ‘No, you cannot have the name that you have set about promoting in order to put a political point of view or a set of principles. I may refuse it because the law says so’.
The Bill says that he has to give the leader of the party a statement setting out reasons for the refusal. I am afraid that is very little safeguard when we see the sort of reasons that are produced in this House by the Government for refusing things and indeed for promoting things. The fact of the matter is of course that anybody who puts his mind to it can write on a subject 50 or 100 words which may or may not say anything, depending on the motive of the person who writes them, but surely the officer responsible for the conduct of elections should not have to come into this and make a decision which is part of the political process. That surely is anathema to what should be achieved and I believe in the main has been achieved in our political process in this country.
As one goes through this Bill one gets deeper and deeper into a quagmire of provisions. The Bill proposes that during the period of 3 months after the commencement of Part IXA certain applications to register the name of a party must be refused. That is an attempt, I suppose, to achieve the objective I referred to earlier, that is, the confusion that can come about, some of it deliberate though some of it may not be intended to be confusing. Nevertheless, the proposal does not adequately cover every situation. Indeed it would be just inviting the creation of a situation in which those who want to manipulate the political process- there is a small minority who are interested in doing that- could have a field day. Clause 58M provides that a party is not to have more than one registered name. I suppose that would be necessary because of the objective that is sought by the proposal to have the name of a party printed on the ballot paper, but it may well be unfair to the party. If a party wants to have a different name in each State or some variation why should it not be allowed to do so? I know that the Labor Party does not want this. No doubt this proposal would put it into another advantageous position, but there is nothing Godgiven about that sort of uniformity. There is nothing about it that should entitle somebody to have an advantage and a legal advantage as is provided in this Bill.
One could go on picking up these points and the dangers that exist in this legislation which simply is not necessary- just is not necessary, like so much of the legislation that is proposed in this place and so much of which has been rejected by the Senate. And thank goodness for that; otherwise we would have an enormous amount of highly complex and in many cases vague legislation on the statute book that more and more we would be trying to unravel. Let me refer very briefly to one illustration of the confusion to which I referred. There was an attempt by a group some little time ago to promote a party known as the Liberal Reform Group. That resulted in some legal action and it was a messy situation.
– You certainly needed it.
– Of course it was intended to be confusing, as the honourable member is. The point is that that was designed to make people believe that it was the Liberal Party. It was dealt with, I believe satisfactorily. A certain amount of attention was drawn to it in a political way. Some action was taken through the courts. The matter was resolved. That instance demonstrates that there is no need for this complex machinery which is open to a lot of other abuse. As so often happens with radical approaches- I hope I have given that word in its correct meaning- there are consequences which are not fully recognised or perhaps in the haste and desire to make changes one does not care whether they have adverse consequences, but the Opposition believes this Bill would create far more damage than it is worth and for that reason it strongly opposes this Bill and the principles which are embodied in it.
– This Bill seeks to do no more than to give voters assistance to make a free and unqualified choice as to who they wish to vote for at a particular election. The opposition to this Bill is a further classic example of the humbug and the mania for obstruction which is possessed by this Opposition. This is not some unusual or unique proposal. Some 25 countries have already adopted a proposal that the political affiliation of candidates be shown on the ballot paper. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) in introducing this Bill nominated 25 countries ranging from Austria to the United States, from Canada through to the South American countries, most of Western Europe, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, South Korea and Luxemburg. Twenty-five countries have this provision in their electoral laws. But the honourable gentlemen opposite seem to take the view that it is some sort of a plot by the Australian Labor Party to gain an advantage.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you and members of this House to analyse what members of the Opposition have been saying this afternoon. To make it easier for a vote to be formal and counted in an election is apparently a plot by the Australian Labor Party to gain some advantage. To ensure that the disadvantaged and the aged, in filling out a complex Senate ballot paper, have their choice counted as far as they wish it to be counted is a plot according to the Opposition. The fact that we get something like six or eight times the number of informal votes when we have a large number of candiates as in the last Senate election in New South Wales as against the last House of Representatives election in New South Wales, apparently fades away into insignificance as far as the Opposition is concerned. It is determined to try to perpetuate a system whereby minorities can be elected to government. The Australian population ought to recognise this for what it is. It is a planned campain to have Australia ruled by a minority government. The Opposition has never accepted the fact that majorities should control governments in Australia. It is ludicrous to put forward a proposal saying that this legislation is some devious scheme to give the ALP an advantage or some devious scheme to make it harder for persons who are not members of major political parties to be members of this Parliament. It is sheer and utter nonsense. This legislation in fact makes it easier for the elector to cast an intelligent vote.
Of course I can understand my friends from the National Country Party not wanting that to happen because there would be a few of them who would not be around for long if they got an intelligent vote in their electorates. But the fact of the matter is that this proposal will allow for each candidate to be classified and named and identified on the ballot paper. The various provisions contained in this Bill which require the registration of the name of a political party are designed to prevent abuse. I can understand the apprehension of the Liberal Party which changes its name every few years. As soon as the old one gets worn out it tries to put on a new cloak to cover up the same old faces. I can understand the National Country Party, or the Australian National Country Party, or the National Party, or whatever name it finally determines, not wanting to have the same name in every State. I can understand that. But the people ought to know. The electorate in, say, New South Wales, ought to know that it is ashamed of the name it uses in Queensland and it ought to know that the National Country Party does not want to wear the mantle of Mr Bjelke-Petersen, or it does not want to have that noose around its neck is the better way of putting it. The Opposition parties cannot have a multiplicity of names. A party should have one name. If a party wants to have different names a simple procedure is involved. It registers a different party name. It can do that, but it must be a separate party.
Humbug, cant and hypocrisy will not and should not in any way confuse the Australian people. This is a typical example of the Liberal and National Country Parties’ opposition to every suggested electoral reform. Whether it be in regard to positions on the ballot paper or, as in this case, the question of identifying the candidates in accordance with their political affiliation, or optional preferential voting or more proper and reasonable electoral boundaries, the conservative forces of the Liberal and National Country Parties will be seen in opposition and they will fight these proposals all the way through because they insist on trying to perpetuate minority rule. Any misrepresentation, any strategy is fair for them, so they believe, in order to prevent the majority of the population of Australia having the final say in who controls the government of Australia.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.
-Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) accused the Opposition of humbug for not supporting this rather complex piece of legislation. He accused us of not trying to facilitate for the Australian people an easier method of voting. I accuse the Government of humbug because since this Government came to power it has successfully eliminated no fewer than 900 polling places around Australia thus making it more difficult for thousands of people to cast their votes. In the electorate of Gwydir, which I represent, no fewer than 24 polling places have been abolished. In South Australia there is the notable case of one polling place being abolished so that now the electors of that small community will have to travel 275 miles to a polling place to cast a vote, then come all that way home. Let us not have this nonsense. This Government is not trying to make it easier for people to vote; that is absolute rubbish.
– Why did not you do something about it when you were the Minister?
-When I was the Minister for the Interior I did not abolish the polling places to the extent that this Government has abolished polling places. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie knows jolly well that the argument that was put forward by the Minister for Housing and Construction, who is at the table, does not stand up to proper scrutiny and examination. Polling places have been abolished in small community centres throughout Australia. In my electorate in places such as Boolcarro] -
– They were costing $3 a vote.
– I mention places such as Cubaroo. You do not like it; that is the truth.
-Order! The honourable member for Wilmot will stop interjecting and I suggest that the honourable member for Gwydir debate the Bill.
– It will cost people a great deal to vote. It will not facilitate their ability to cast a vote. Let us look at the proposal which is before us, for printing party identification of each candidate on the ballot paper. These proposals are not new. They have come up from time to time and former governments have examined them and found them to be almost unworkable. Political parties have never been officially recognised in our electoral laws or within the precincts of polling places. Although the inclusion of political affiliations of the candidates on the ballot papers may assist voters who may be unaware of those affiliations when voting, the adoption of the proposal would necessitate official recognition of political parties within the electoral system. Recognition in the sense of adding the political affiliations of the candidates to ballot papers would indicate a candidate’s adherence to a particular political party and could perhaps be taken as an indication of some contractual obligation upon the candidate to vote in the Parliament in accordance with that party’s directions rather than as an individual member representing the interests of the electorate.
Of course there are a great number of administrative problems in trying to make that sort of proposal work. The Bill clearly shows us the difficulty that the Electoral Office will have in trying to administer this legislation. Let us go to the definition or interpretation of a political party. The definition of a political party is: . . . body or organisation, incorporated or unincorporated! having as one of its objects or activities the promotion of the election of a candidate or candidates endorsed by it or by a body or organisation of which it forms a part;
Proposed new section 58d ( 1 ) states:
For the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection ( 1 ) of section 58c, a party qualifies in respect of an election only if-
in the case of an election of a Member of the House of Representatives for a Division in a State to be held at a general election of Members of that House-the number of candidates endorsed by the party in respect of elections for the Divisions in the State (including the first-mentioned election) is not less than one-quarter of the whole number of Divisions in that State;
Of course that discriminates against smaller parties. It discriminates against those groups in society that might wish to form a new party. Why should we not have in a democratic society an ability for a party to grow from a small nucleus to perhaps something really worthwhile? It advantages larger parties. It certainly advantages the Labor, Liberal and National Country Parties, but it does not advantage the Australia Party, the Democratic Labor Party or a whole host of other smaller parties which believe that they should have a right to contest certain electorates to try to push forward views that they think are necessary to better society. That is what democracy is all about.
Let us not take it for granted that the whole point and purpose of this legislation is to facilitate easier voting procedures for the people. We live in a very sophisticated and well educated society and I think it is quite insulting to the intellect of the Australian people to believe that they do not know for whom they are voting and for what they are voting. I would perhaps go along with the proposal if I thought it was going to be administratively feasible. I can see that the Chief Australian Electoral Officer would have a tremendous job. As the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) pointed out, that officer becomes the sole arbiter to try to adjudicate in disputes on this matter; and there would be many disputes over this very issue. I think it would tend to complicate and confuse the electoral processes in Australia because clearly the processes that are laid down under this legislation are complicated and would not be easy. For instance, leaders of political parties have to register with the Chief Australian Electoral Officer which will throw a tremendous weight upon the system, upon parties, upon party leaders and particularly upon the smaller parties that are struggling perhaps to get a footing in the Australian political scene. I wish to draw attention to proposed new section 5 8P( 1 ) which states:
Subject to section S8Q, if, of his own motion, or upon the written application of any person, it appears to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer that-
the registration of a name in respect of a party was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation;
a registered party has ceased to exist, whether by amalgamation with another party or otherwise; or
one of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (i), inclusive, of subsection (1) of section S8L is applicable, he shall give the person shown on the register as the leader of the party at least 1 month’s notice in writing, calling upon that person to show cause, at a time and place specified in the notice, why the registration of the name in respect of the party should not be cancelled for that reason.
This matter is so complex and there are so many reasons and possibilities, many of which are covered in the terms of this legislation, that it indicates to me and to the Opposition that great complexities could arise in trying to register party political names and to ensure that parties do not try to defraud or cheat the Chief Australian Electoral Officer. I think this legislation would do the opposite of making it easier for political parties and for the people. I will not buy the argument that this legislation is trying to make voting easier when a government, at the stroke of a pen, can abolish 900 polling places throughout Australia thus making it more difficult for people, particularly in isolated locations, to cast a vote at all.
-Mr Speaker-
Motion ( by Mr Riordan) put: That the question be now put. The House divided.
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
AYES
NOES
That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)
AYES: 60
NOES: 57
Majority……. 3
Majority……. 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put-
That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided: (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.
Bill (on motion by Mr Riordan) read a third time.
page 2068
– I move:
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent either the Prime Minister or the honourable member for Cunningham from making a statement to this House immediately on the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the honourable member for Cunningham as Minister for Minerals and Energy.
On this incredible day a Press statement has been released by the man who, for a very short time, remains the Australian Prime Minister. Press statement 574 dated this afternoon was released outside this Parliament explaining not to the Parliament but to the Press covering this Parliament the circumstances, or some small part of them, of the extraordinary events which have evoked questions which remain unanswered within this chamber. It is essential that this Parliament be told the reasons for and the nature of the extraordinary circumstances which surround the resignation of the man who was until but a short while ago the Minister for Minerals and Energy. It is incredible that during question time the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) chose to have placed on notice most questions which sought replies on this matter. It is essential that the Parliament be provided an opportunity to hear the reasons for the resignation of the Minister for Minerals and Energy and why he today sits as the honourable member for Cunningham on the back bench.
It is critical that Standing Orders be suspended so that the whole Parliament and the people of Australia can know something of the deception and the deceit which first saw the man who was then Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer called upon to hand in his resignation because he supposedly had not conferred with the Prime Minister. It is interesting that in this instance the precedent set by the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) has not been followed by the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor). It is interesting that the Prime Minister has not seen fit to come into this Parliament and provide for us all a reasonable opportunity to debate and to consider the circumstances of this most unusual and, dare I say, almost reprehensible event. It is important that there be an opportunity for the Parliament to consider the circumstances of a senior Minister’s resignation. This is the man who on the last Caucus vote was No. 3 in the ministerial stakes. The suspending of Standing Orders is the only medium now open to the Opposition, when we have given to the Government since 2.15 this afternoon an opportunity to explain the full circumstances of the Minister’s resignation.
The Prime Minister was one of the 4 signatories of the original Executive Council minute authorising the whole of the overseas loan negotiations. The suspension of Standing Orders would give the Prime Minister who is also the leader of the Government, and as such under the Westminster system responsible for each of his Ministers and for the actions of each of those who are his public servants, an opportunity to answer to this Parliament. -He has chosen to refuse that opportunity. Mr Speaker, suspending Standing Orders would allow the honourable member for Cunningham as an alternative an opportunity to respond. This opportunity would be given to the man who only last week in answers in this place assured us that no negotiations had been undertaken although in the course of transactions revealed through telexes referred to in this Parliament earlier today he has obviously been continuing in negotiations to which the Prime Minister has not referred and yet obviously he must have been in some way involved in them.
Suspending Standing Orders, Mr Speaker, is the only way that we can get an opportunity in this Parliament to hear and have answered the charges which must be laid, and have been laid, by the Prime Minister against one of his former senior colleagues. No member of the Labor Party, no member of the Government, can be proud when, circumstances having arisen which cause a senior member of their Government to resign, that member is to be let languish. He is allowed no defence and no opportunity to explain to the Parliament or to the people. That man is to be let suffer. Is that man, who is a colleague of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry) who is trying to interject, a man who presumably even the honourable member would have supported but a week ago, a man who would have presumably spoken for him, to be allowed to languish? Is the honourable member and every other honourable member on the other side going to prevent this Parliament giving to the honourable member for Cunningham a chance to tell us why he was called on to resign?
Mr Speaker, we ask for the suspension of Standing Orders so that the whole of the details of those transactions which have been adverted to in the telex messages, which apparently have been covered by telephone conversations, which apparently have been subject to discussions between the Prime Minister and the honourable member for Cunningham and officers of his Department can be debated. This is the only way in which these matters can be canvassed in this Parliament. We have given the Government since 2.15 this afternoon an opportunity to explain to the people of Australia and to the Parliament what has happened. This man seeks to hide behind his Leader’s apron strings. The Prime Minister said in Press statement No. 574 that no charge has been laid. I would suggest that the Prime Minister might refer back to Hansard of 9 July. He might look at the charges made by the Opposition then. He might even care to read his own speeches. He might care to see that in his charges against the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) he suggested that the difference between the honourable member for Lalor and the honourable member for Cunningham was that one had his confidence, that one confided in him. He now says: ‘But I was misled’.
The suspension of Standing Orders is the only way to ensure that this Parliament is not misled. It is the Prime Minister who would seem to be the one who is misleading us. It is for the Prime Minister to come into this Parliament at even this late hour and tell us just why and in what way he has called upon the honourable member for
Cunningham to step down. And well members of the Labor Party should be embarrassed. We are concerned here with parliamentary principle and the absolutely reprehensible way in which the Prime Minister framed his statement. He suggested he maintains principle. Yet he reneged upon it. He suggests that in order to preserve principle he has called upon his colleague to resign. Yet he does not give to the honourable member for Cunningham a chance to defend himself. What a great manner of behaviour from a man who is supposed to uphold the law. It is absolutely incredible that senior members of the Labor Party are to be permitted to be sacrificed on the altar of the egoism of the Prime Minister. It is absolutely deplorable that the Parliament should be denied any opportunity to debate this matter.
The resignation of the Minister for Minerals and Energy is a matter of serious moment to this House. It is vital that the Parliament and the people of Australia be advised of the circumstances of his resignation. It is vital that a Press statement made outside this House be made as a matter of policy within the Parliament, that every member of this chamber be given an opportunity to debate it and that the man who is accused to be given the opportunity to defend himself. For those reasons I have moved suspension of Standing Orders.
-Is the motion seconded?
– I second the motion. For one who contends that he has such a fierce regard for the proprieties of Parliament, the issuance of a Press statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in respect of this matter must surely be the frankest repudiation of that view. Parliament is sitting. Why is it that the honourable gentlemen has not found that simple sense of courage to come into the House and tell the House what is in this statement. We are not dealing with some minor squabble. We are dealing with the dismissal of a man who was at one time the Acting Prime Minister of this country. We are dealing with a matter which touches the very heart, soul and integrity of government, and that is the capacity of men and women who sit in Parliament to tell the truth.
The Prime Minister in his statement issued outside this Parliament today had this to say:
At no time has there been any allegation of improper conduct, of dishonest conduct, of reprehensible conduct, of illegal or corrupt conduct by any member of the Government.
And yet in the same statement the honourable gentleman says this -
– I raise a point of order. The merits of the argument as to why Standing Orders should be suspended were debated in the first instance by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party. That form of argument is being continued. I take the point of order that the merits of the argument as to why Standing Orders should be suspended should be debated.
-Order! I am aware of the Standing Orders. I have allowed some latitude to the honourable member who moved the motion. I would suggest it may be of benefit if the honourable member were to keep to the motion. The same latitude will be given to the next speaker.
– I respect your ruling immaculately. But I am coming to the point of urgency. After having said there was nothing improper, in the same statement the honourable gentleman said:
I was . . . driven to conclude that I had been misled by Mr Connor . . .
The Prime Minister himself makes the charge against his former colleague. He came in here this afternoon and he washed his hands of the whole affair. Such was the Prime Minister’s performance that he would give one the impression that, by contrast, Pontius Pilate had a mortal fear of water.
I invite the House to realise the utter gravity of this matter. As was put by my friend the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Sinclair), the Standing Orders deserve to be suspended so that the House can in a mature way deal with the question. The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) is entitled to be heard. What is his version of these events? The honourable gentleman nods in assent. A charge has been made against the honourable member for Cunningham. Such has been the nature of the charge that he has been sacked. Let the honourable gentleman be given the opportunity to be heard. For the Prime Minister to talk about painful conduct- his words were: ‘My own painful duty has been twice to defend and to preserve a great and fundamental parliamentary convention’ is to call forth the invitation for the honourable gentleman to come in here and to give the Parliament the opportunity to discuss and to debate this matter. The quality and quantity of tears which come from the Prime Minister in this Parliament- there are many on his side who know the quality and the quantity of the tears of the Prime Minister- are such that one would be able to irrigate the Gobi Desert with them. This Parliament deserves something better than the utterly contemptuous manner in which the Prime Minister has treated the Parliament. The Parliament is entitled to satisfaction. The Parliament demands satisfaction.
– The Government opposes the motion which seeks to suspend the Standing Orders. I find a great deal of difficulty, with all respect to my friend from Moreton (Mr Killen), who has just spoken, to distinguish in his language between history and hysteria. I would have respected this escapade had it been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and seconded by the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony). The Leader of the National Country Party is here. He is listening to the debate. I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition is. The honourable member for Moreton, whose language I respect -sometimes I respect his perspicacity- referred to the utter gravity of the matter. With all respect to the honourable gentleman, I think that the matter of most utter gravity of the moment that is appearing in the Australian system is: Who governs Australia? In my view, they govern Australia who have the numbers in this House of the Parliament. There has been a lot of nonsense in recent days about refusing supply-
– You have said it all.
– You do not say much, with all respect.
– We have not said anything about it.
– You will not be saying much from now on either.
– You speak for yourself.
-Well, I speak for myself in this place and I hope that everyone else can speak for himself too.
– Speak to the motion.
-Well, the motion seeks the suspension of the Standing Orders.
– Why does the Government not allow the honourable member for Cunningham to speak for himself?
-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Hume that he might stop trying to run this Parliament and let me run it
– Sometimes I think that it is very hard to define humbug. With all respect to the honourable gentleman, I think he knows the definition of it better than I do. At the moment, this nation faces a certain difficulty- a constitutional crisis, if honourable members like- and the question that arises is: Who governs Australia? I say to my friend on the other side that at least I respect his integrity. But with all deference and parliamentary diffidence, I do not respect the integrity of some of the others, including those who move a motion of this sort. There is a certain section in the Constitution- and I think this is what all of the discussion is about in the finishwhich acknowledges to begin with that there is only one House that can originate what are called money Bills.
– What has this to do with it?
-It has a lot to do with what you are talking about, with all respect.
– I rise to take a point of order.
-Mr Speaker, I hope that you will give me the same deference as you gave to the honourable member who is taking the point of order.
-Order! I will hear the point of order.
– I do not wish to deprive the Deputy Prime Minister of his time to speak in this debate, but I would suggest that the subject of money Bills does not have anything to do with suspension of the Standing Orders for the purpose of permitting the honourable member for Cunningham and the Prime Minister to speak.
– I would suggest that a lot of what was said in the two previous speeches also had nothing to do with the motion before the Chair.
– Exactly.
– Oh, Mr Speaker!
-Order! I allowed a lot of latitude because I think this is a matter in which that degree of latitude should be allowed, as it is being allowed. I intend to allow the same latitude in this debate to the Deputy Prime Minister.
– I was saying that there is a convention that provides that money Bills can be originated in one place only, that is, here. The section says that money Bills are Bills which the Senate may not amend. I am suggesting that there is only one sensible and intelligible interpretation of that provision in 1975, that is, that such a Bill is a Bill which the Senate may not reject.
– It can veto.
-Order! The honourable member for Chisholm will remain silent.
– Again the neophytes who are here for the first time- and some of them by accident -
– And some of you are here for the last time.
-Order! The honourable member for Hume will cease interjecting, or I will name him.
-They profess to know all about it. Surely everybody here respects constitutional usage.
– And parliamentary practice, too.
-Well, parliamentary practice too.
– Well, why do they not go and make an announcement in the House instead of acting like cowards and doing it outside?
-Order! The right honourable member will remain silent.
-With all respect, Mr Speaker, and I speak through you- I speak particularly to my honourable friend from Moreton who is one who claims, when it suits him, to stand upon precedents and upon usage, and I hope that my friend opposite does the same sort of thing.
Mr Ellicott I hope that you read my article in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning.
– I am not a regular reader of the Sydney Morning Herald. I try to do my best to read the few respectable journals left in Victoria.
– Like the Melbourne Herald?
– They are not very many. I sometimes wonder what those who claim to be defending parliamentary usage and constitutionality and so on are doing at the moment. There is only one place under the Westminster system where governments are made or unmade and that is the House of Representatives. When we look at what the Opposition parties have done with respect to what are called occasional or casual vacancies in the Senate -
– What did the Government do to the High Court?
– I will be kind to the honourable member for Lowe.
- Mr Speaker, I raise- a point of order.
– I think he would be better out of the place than in it.
-Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat.
– His reputation was great.
-Order! A point of order is being taken.
- Mr Speaker, my point of order is that the Deputy Prime Minister is not speaking to the motion. I know you have given a great deal of latitude to speakers from both sides of the House, but this is ridiculous. The Deputy Prime Minister has not spoken to the motion before the Chair.
– I suggest that the latitude I have given the Deputy Prime Minister is equalled only by the latitude which I gave the previous 2 speakers who also did not speak to the motion. I said that I feel that this is a matter which is entitled to be debated without interruption. I have given that latitude to both Opposition speakers. I think that latitude ought also be given to the Deputy Prime Minister.
– I see by the light in the clock that my time has almost expired. I reiterate what I said when I began. The Government opposes the motion for the suspension for Standing Orders. I move:
Question put:
The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)
AYES: 59
NOES: 57
Majority……. 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:
That the motion (Mr Sinclair’s ) be agreed to. ‘
The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)
AYES: 0
NOES: 60
Majority……. 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 2073
Bill presented by Mr Clyde Cameron, and read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
As honourable members will know, the provision of effective protection for the consumer is one of the stated aims of the Australian Labor Party. It is a theme which underlies many of the Government’s other aims. Its plans in the social, economic, industrial and environmental fields, its plans in research and development and in law reform are all conceived with a clear recognition of the interests of the Australian consumer. Useful moves have already been made to provide measures of consumer protection in Australia, but these have mostly been fragmentary in nature. I do not want to decry in any way the valuable achievements that have been made by consumer bodies and by State governments. On the contrary, I commend them for their splendid efforts. That they have achieved as much, without legislative support from the Australian Government, is a tribute to them. That they will achieve so much more in the future is the assurance that I can give them with the introduction of this legislation.
Let me state clearly at the outset that it is not my intention that the new Authority should take over the functions of the State bureaus. Its role will be to work in close liaison with them. It will complement their work, not compete with it. The Authority, by looking over the whole field on a national basis, will be able to identify and act quickly against malpractice which crosses State boundaries. I invite the States, where they are able, to make a continuing contribution to the work of the Authority. I intend to have regular meetings with State Ministers for Consumer Affairs, and am confident that we will provide a formal link with the Authority at an appropriate level.
The object of the Bill is to establish a statutory authority to give effect on a co-ordinated nationwide basis to the comprehensive policies which we have for the protection of the consumer. This Authority will be the administrative centre for consumer protection. It will be the hub of Australian Government involvement in consumer protection and the point of contact for State consumer affairs bodies. It will be the agency to which the general public and the many splendid voluntary consumer groups can look for the assistance which they so fully deserve in their work to protect the public. It will also be the source for completely new initiatives in the setting of national standards and the testing of consumer products.
Before dealing with the most important features of the Bill, I must refer briefly to the work of the Interim Commission on Consumer Standards which was established by my predecessor in October 1973. It was directed to canvass the opinions of consumers on the need for consumer standards and to suggest how the desired standards might best reflect public need and how their development might be facilitated. The Interim Commission was also asked to examine general issues pertinent to consumer protection, to encourage the formation of a federation of consumer organisations, to investigate consumer education, to arrange liaison between Federal and State consumer officials and, most importantly, to make recommendations about a permanent body that should ultimately take its place. One of the achievements of the Interim Commission was to bring together consumer organisations to form the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. This now enables a consumer viewpoint to be expressed with the backing of the Federation. The criticism that the consumer movement only represents small sectional interests can no longer be sustained. (Quorum formed)
The Interim Commission’s report which was tabled in this House in July 1974 strongly urged the establishment of a permanent statutory authority with wide powers to undertake all those activities necessary to develop soundly based consumer standards. An essential part of the processes leading to the adoption of mandatory standards was seen by the Interim Commission to be the conduct of public hearings. With that view I am in complete agreement. I would like honourable members to note that many of the recommendations of the Interim Commission have been incorporated in the Bill. Since the work of the Interim Commission was completed, I have give the most searching thought to the needs of setting and enforcing national standards for consumer protection. I am firmly of the view that this very necessary need can only be achieved effectively if all its aspects are brought together under one authority which has the constitutional power to set and enforce these national standards. I am equally sure that this is what the public wants of the Australian Government.
Honourable members will know that the Trade Practices Act includes provisions directed towards consumer protection. For the reasons which I have given, I do not want to have a dichotomy of government responsibility- vested partly in the Trade Practices Commission and partly in a consumer standards commission. The proposal, therefore, which is incorporated in the Bill is one for a single Australian Consumer Protection Authority which will bring together the functions and powers presently exercised by the Trade Practices Commission in relation to the legal aspects of consumer protection, as well as the technical functions and activities needed to establish a sound base for consumers to be given accurate and adequate information about consumer goods. We will not be trying to force everyone to have Rolls Royce models of everything; but we should put them in the position where, especially in the major purchases they make, they can select on the basis of accurate information. At present many of the major purchases such as carpets, refrigerators, stoves and so on, are made without adequate information.
Honourable members will know that my portfolio encompasses science, technology and consumer affairs. The connection linking consumer interests with applied science and technology is, I think, readily apparent. Many products of our technological society have found their way to consumers through slick sales publicity designed to condition the psychological processes that now fashion the kind of society in which we live. In respect of the goods which we seem to value highly nowadays- cars, television sets, refrigerators and so on -the consumer has very little early say in decisions which culminate in the range of services and products on the market. Worse still, he has no knowledge of some of the most undesirable side effects of modern science and technology. Thus the consumer is, at one and the same time, both a beneficiary and a victim of modern technology. It is therefore my aim to achieve better public understanding and more public involvement in the complex interactions between technology and industry on the one hand and consumer protection on the other.
The Authority will be of positive value to Australian industry. The potential benefits are obvious. With national standards set in co-operation with the States, manufacturers will no longer have to worry about having to meet different requirements in different States. It will protect local manufacturers as well as consumers against imported goods which do not meet Australian standards. These standards will be set in close consultation with local industry. Such consultation will be designed to ensure that no standards are set without a full understanding of what the cost effects will be. For these reasons, reputable Australian manufacturers will have nothing to fear. They will, in fact, benefit from the knowledge that the Authority will restrict the activities of unscrupulous firms which give industry a bad name. I have studied developments in the field of consumer protection in many overseas countries. It is evident to me that, whilst much good work has been done in this country in the field of consumer protection, we lag far behind what is being done overseas. I emphasise, however, that this Bill is not a carbon copy of anything from overseas. It incorporates the best features of overseas practice, selected to suit Australian conditions, and includes some innovations of its own.
I now turn to the Bill itself and I will confine my remarks to broad concepts rather than going into details. The first part of the Bill comprises mainly of definitions only and needs no further comment. Part II of the Bill describes the powers and functions of the Authority. It will be seen that they derive from the recommendations of the Interim Standards Commission and from the functions transferred from the Trade Practices Commission. In summary, the functions of the Authority will cover the whole gamut of consumer affairs. It will liaise with, and support, consumer groups and prepare and distribute educational information. The Authority will also work together with persons engaged in advertising, trade or commerce, and keep such persons informed of its activities. There will be a wide spectrum of public interest in consumer affairs which will be represented directly on the Advisory Council. It will enforce consumers’ rights by examining unsatisfactory trade practices and taking legal action when necessary. Its other main function will be to study the quality of goods and services, by the testing of consumer goods and by developing and enforcing, where necessary, consumer standards, the Authority will, however, seek to persuade rather than penalise. I do not visualise the Authority engaging in a long range of confrontations with industry. We believe that the greatest good can be done by educating the consumers on the one hand and by educating the manufacturers on the other hand. Moreover, we want to protect the good manufacturers from the unscrupulous rival who seeks to use snide methods and inferior quality to capture a market against a reasonable competitor.
In the performance of its function, the Authority will be obliged to avail itself of resources and facilities of other bodies or authorities engaged in the formulation of such standards and will play a co-ordinating role to this effect. I have already spoken of my desire for the Authority to work in harmony with State agencies. Honourable members will notice that Part III of the Bill is identical to Part V of the Trade Practices Act. The only changes in this Part are to clauses 20 and 21, and these changes are of a machinery nature only. Otherwise the whole part of Part III of the Bill is identical with the whole of Part V of the Trade Practices Act. The intention then is clear To give the proposed Authority the consumer protection functions now exercised by the Trade Practices Commission. After this legislation comes into force, the corresponding sections will be deleted from the Trade Practices Act, Officers of the Trade Practices Commission who are currently devoted to the administration of Part V of the Trade Practices Act are to be transferred to my ministry. I can therefore give an assurance that there is no intention to duplicate activities or to build up a large bureaucracy. In fact, the Authority will comprise a small core of permanent staff supported, where necessary, by specialists drawn from States, industry and universities, on a seconded or contract basis. Specialists task forces will also be established for specific short-term duties.
Part IV of the Bill deals with the Authority’s role in respect of consumer product standards and in particular with the public actions which it must take before recommending to the Minister that a standard be adopted or revoked. The duties of the Minister in relation to this process and to Parliament are clearly laid down in the Bill itself. Part V provides for the notification to the Authority by manufacturers, distributors and retailers of substantial product hazards. The related powers of the Industrial Court and the Authority are clearly defined. This Part was taken from legislation passed by the United States Congress. It has worked extremely well in the United States to the satisfaction of both the manufacturers there and the consumer groups. Part VI of the Bill makes provision for wide public debate on consumer protection matters and particularly the development of mandatory standards.
The Authority will be concerned with standards for consumer goods, and many of those standards will enjoy the force of law. It is therefore important that, before such standards are introduced, all the consequences of their introduction are assessed and appreciatedespecially by the general public whose interests are at stake. It would be easy to write standards which appear to be desirable from the consumer viewpoint, but which would later be found to entail serious disadvantages to manufacturers. It is therefore important to set standards which are feasible, economical viable, and technologically and socially desirable- standards giving the consumer the best practical results, without making unreasonable and unrealistic demands on industry.
The powers of the Authority in regard to public hearings have therefore been spelt out in some detail. These clauses follow very closely those applicable to the Industries Assistance Commission in regard to its public hearings. Honourable members will notice that witnesses may be compelled to give evidence but at the same time they are protected from intimidatory practices. Where matters of evidence are genuinely confidential, they will be protected and they will be kept confidential. Part VII of the Bill deals with enforcement and remedies. This Part contains, unaltered, the enforcement provisions of Part VI of the Trade Practices Act. Part VIII describes the structure of the proposed Authority. It will be headed by a Commissoner and up to 5 associate commissioners. The Commissioner will be a statutory officer having the powers of a Permanent Head.
Part IX of the Bill deals with ‘finance’. I shall not go into the details on this matter except to say that it follows the normal recognised and accepted provisions in Australian statutes in regard to Auditor-General and Treasury requirements and the normal safeguards that are written into all pieces of legislation involving the expenditure of public money. Part X makes provision to establish an Advisory Council consisting of not more than 20 persons, chosen primarily because of their active interest in the field of consumer affairs. Whilst they will not be representative of particular organisations, nevertheless they will be chosen so as to cover the interests of all cross sections of the community. I want to see manufacturers represented. I want to see retailers represented. I want to see the people who have helped to set the standards represented. I want to see those Australian Government departments that are essential to the satisfactory operation of the Act represented on this Advisory Council. For instance, if we are going to set standards that have to be observed by Australian manufacturers it is important that we do not allow those manufacturers to be subjected to unfair competition from inferior goods produced overseas. Consequently it is important that on the Advisory Council a representative of the Department of Customs should sit in order that where it becomes necessary to put an embargo upon inferior goods which would constitute unfair competition with the Australian manufacturers who were observing the standards set by the Authority the need for prohibition will be understood and the Customs Department will be able to act quickly to protect the Australian manufacturer from that sort of unfair competition.
The Bill also contains a number of necessary machinery clauses, as for example the need to present annual reports to Parliament. I forsee such reports as being most useful documents and powerful forces for good through the exposure of malpractice and the lauding of good practice. Honourable members will also note that any reports to the Minister by the Authority must be listed in the report. We do not wish to see a situation in which the Minister can have power to suppress a report if he does not like it. The report given to the Parliament by the Authority will indicate to the Parliament the nature of every report given to the Minister. The Minister will have absolutely no power to prohibit the Authority from doing something. He would have the power to request the Authority to do something. He would not have any power and neither should he have the power to veto the decision to test something that the Authority thought it necessary to test for consumer protection. Provision is made to protect manufacturers and to provide them with access to the Authority before the disclosure of information, as well as in the investigation of substantial product hazards. It is not contemplated that the Authority would ever set standards or would ever deliberate or make a decision upon what constituted a substantial product hazard until the manufacturers concerned were first given an opportunity of putting their case, discussing with the Authority the kind of things needed to be done to ensure that the manufacturer is able to meet the standards without prohibitive costs. That kind of thing is what the Authority would deem itself to be obliged to look for.
There is also provision for the adoption of international conventions and internationally adopted standards. Before concluding, I want to indicate an important aspect of the way in which the Authority will operate. Consumer products cover a very wide range, and there are already many agencies working in this field. For example, the Therapeutic Goods Act already makes provision for the Minister for Health to determine standards for therapeutic goods and for their packaging and labelling, and to prevent their distribution if they do not comply with those requirements. The Therapeutic Goods Standards Committee, the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee, and the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, have been established to advise the Minister in his administration of that Act. Samples of therapeutic goods subject to the Therapeutic Goods Act are examined, tested and analysed by the National Biological Standards Laboratory, a division of the Department of Health. In addition, the National Biological Standards Laboratory researches and prepares draft standards for consideration by the Therapeutic Goods Standards Committee and the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee.
It is intended that the Commission, in exercising its functions, will not disturb either the existing procedure for the determination and application of standards for therapeutic goods by the Minister for Health, or the functions of the bodies established under the Therapeutic Goods Regulations. The Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which includes representatives of State governments, consumer interests and the food industry, has for many years carried out the function of formulating food standards. It has been aided by its specialist advisory committees on food additives, food microbiology, food analysis and food science and technology.
Transport is another area in which the Consumer Protection Authority will be able to make a strong consumer input in co-operation with the existing agencies for the formulation and determination of standards. In the case of aircraft, the Air Navigation Act and Regulations provide a basis for the establishment and enforcement of proper standards. In the important case of motor vehicles, ACPA will become a major new force in the formulation and implementation of standards in consultation with the Australian Transport Advisory Council. The Authority will be able to place the onus and sanctions where they belong- with the manufacturers, importers and distribution networks. Moreover, the Authority will be able to look critically at the way in which vehicles and associated services are being merchandised and to protect the individual motorist when difficulties arise. I can say at this point that the Australian Consumers Association has told me that something like 80 per cent of all the complaints received by the ACA relate to motor vehicles.
Section 7 (2) of the Bill will enable the Consumer Protection Authority to take advantage of the expertise and experience, in the health field, of the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council; and in transport, the Road Safety and Standards Authority and the specialist advisory committees of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. Complementary arrangements will also be made to enable the latter bodies to take advantage of the expertise and experience of the Consumer Protection Authority. There is no intention that the Authority should take over that activity. Its role will rather be to work through existing organisations and to co-ordinate their work, to comment on their work, and to indicate to them areas requiring attention.
In conclusion, let me say that every member of Parliament is in some way or other a consumer. All of us have been dissatisfied from time to time with the quality of goods that we have bought; with the lack of information about products; with the service we have received; or with the fine print in the contract that we have signed. This Bill provides the greatest step forward so far taken in protecting the rights to which we as consumers and as members of the Australian public are entitled. It gives me great pleasure indeed to commend the Bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned.
ELECTORAL BILL (No. 5) 1975 Second Reading
Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Mr Daly:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-The Electoral Bill (No. 5) is the fourth of the series of Bills that are being debated today. It forms part of the provisions and principles that were involved in the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill that was debated by this House twice previously, once in November last and once in April last. Today 6 electoral Bills are put before us- we debated some of the others before the suspension of the sitting for dinner- which together make up all those items contained in the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill. I make the point, as I must in respect of this Bill, that it contains clauses to which the Opposition has already indicated its opposition in this House and in the Senate. Yet the Government, for the third time, is bringing these clauses forward. This indicates to the Opposition a shocking set of priorities, that the Government can be debating this matter when there is so much that is urgent facing the country and without any attempt to negotiate with the major parties any sort of ground for agreement.
It has not been explained why it is necessary to have 6 Bills. It has not even been found that each or any of the Bills which might be acceptable to some extent can be agreed to altogether. This Bill refers to four particular items- the closing of polling booths at 6 p.m. instead of 8 p.m., the drawing for positions on the ballot paper by candidates for the House of Representatives, the increasing of deposits of candidates for nomination for election, and linked with that the changing of the formula relating to forfeiture of deposits. I shall mention each of those provisions in a moment but I indicate that as most of these aspects are opposed by the Opposition there seems little point in trying to set forth a series of amendments to the Bill, particularly as the Minister in charge of the Bill, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly), who the Opposition appreciates cannot be here this evening, criticised the Opposition greatly for attempting to amend the composite Bill that was put forward previously. We do not propose on this measure to try to pick and choose because what we regard as acceptable is relatively minor.
I refer to the second reading speech on this Bill by the Minister for Administrative Services which is recorded in Hansard of 28 August. I shall refer to one or two aspects of what he said. Early in the speech he said that the Bill contains provisions for revising penalties for electoral offences to bring them in line with the present monetary values. That sets aside one of the criticisms we made in that area, namely, that gaol sentences are set for a number of electoral offences. We suggested that where that sentence was left at 3 months no penalty of imprisonment ought to be specified but the offence should be a matter for a fine. Typically, the Minister failed to mention that point at all although, as I said, he has split the Bill into 6 parts and made 6 separate speeches on the Bills on the day the 6 Bills were introduced. As I said earlier in the day, that is the reason why we insisted in turn on having 6 separate debates. But that point has been put aside. It has not been answered. That is one element of our objection to the Bill.
Clause 4 refers to an increase in the deposits. It increases the nomination fee of candidates. We believe there is no reason for changing the proportionate amounts and so believe that the deposits should not be increased for candidates for either the Senate or the House of Representatives. Previously an amendment was moved in the chamber but we think that cost should not be a prohibitive factor in any person deciding whether to stand for election for any House of Parliament. There is much to be said for the right of an individual elector to be able to nominate, or for small parties to be able to support individual candidates, and this provision seems to have the plain purpose of scaring off such candidates.
The Minister referred in his speech to people who nominate for obstructive or frivolous reasons. Who is to decide whether it is obstructive or frivolous for an elector to stand for Parliament, which is his right? The Minister will have made that judgment without evidence and without any supporting reason other than that to which I will come. He will become the arbiter of that matter and his proposition singularly lacks any evidence. Indeed, we could have the reverse effect. The Minister said:
The essential purpose of the proposal to increase deposits is to reduce the number of persons who might be tempted or influenced to nominate for either Senate or House of Representatives elections for obstructive or frivolous reasons.
That is very nice. It is all right for candidates of the Australian Labor Party to stand; they are not standing for obstructive or frivolous reasons. But other arid minor candidates or certain others to whom he later referred apparently are standing for such reasons. The Minister continued:
This occurred in the 1974 Senate elections when an individual publicly admitted that he had sponsored a number of candidates in order to deliberately obstruct the Senate elections in New South Wales.
I quietly challenge the Minister to produce to me any evidence for that statement that anybody said they had deliberately set out to obstruct the Senate election in New South Wales. The Minister has picked up a Press report and twisted it. He has twisted the words that that person said and has used them in Parliament as an argument to try to bolster this proposed legislation.
– Do you think it was a coincidental accident?
-The Minister can try to draw red herrings if he wants to, but I have suggested that the Minister made a plain statement about what somebody had said, and has not quoted it correctly and has twisted the words. If the Minister likes to look at the Press report and put it next to his own words I am sure that he will find that that is the case.
– It is substantially correct.
– It is not substantially correct at all. The Minister coined the word ‘obstructive’ and the word ‘frivolous’. Later in his speech the Minister said:
Let me stress that this proposal is not designed to reduce the number of genuine candidates or to discourage candidates from nominating.
He is trying to say that if people stand for what he decides are frivolous or obstructive reasons they will be deterred because of the higher deposit but a genuine person, perhaps with small means, will not be deterred. Of course the argument is absurd. He has made a non sequitur. It is extraordinary to me that with the staff at his disposal, a really quite short speech cannot be made more logically consistent than to allow those comments to appear only a few sentences apart. The fact is that a rise in the deposits which are necessary to nominate may well have the opposite effect. It may well drive out what he would care to believe were the genuine candidates and allow those nominating for obstructive or frivolous reasons to continue; it may be that they would have more funds at their disposal. This whole argument is fallacious, and that provision in the Bill is unnecessary.
Clause 5 refers to the percentage of votes required before a candidate or a group of candidates will have their deposits refunded. This is a means of restricting, by indirect means, parties or candidates without anticipated general support.
After all, we do not know until they have stood and the votes are gathered whether they are going to be elected, but I believe the Minister is trying to prejudge the matter. As a general rule, under this provision candidates would be required to gain a slightly higher percentage of votes than at present. All things considered, the Opposition believes that that too is undesirable.
Clause 6 attempts to change the procedure for arriving at the order in which candidates’ names appear on the ballot paper. The Minister wants to set up a system whereby they are drawn by lot rather than placed alphabetically. I suppose that this is an old chestnut which, in electoral terms, the Minister would be pleased to call electoral reform. Of course he thinks that all change is reform, but we believe there is no particular advantage, and there is no evidence that the proposed system would be more equitable than the present alphabetical system.
– Hear, hear.
– I am pleased to have the honourable member’s agreement, as his name begins with an A. The point is that if we agree that there is an advantage in being on the top of the ticket it does not cure the problem to say: ‘We are going to provide some sort of lottery to determine this’. It does not really do much harm, I would suggest, if the order be alphabetical, for that system has the advantage of being the one mainly in use. It has the advantage, I think, of not requiring change for its own sake, which seems to appeal to the Government the Opposition cannot see that that is a great issue to be pursued, although I have heard Labor members wax very emotional on the subject. I have heard the argument used also that that is what happens in Senate elections, but since Senate ballot papers list teams, and there is no question of putting them in alphabetical order, obviously there is no alternative.
Clause 7 proposes that the hours of polling should be restricted to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. in lieu of the present 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The Opposition can see no reason at all for that. It seems to form part of one of the themes of this whole package of proposals which, we believe, is a package primarily aimed at assisting the Labor Party in elections. I think it is part of an effort to restrict availability of the polls. I am aware that in Queensland these polling hours have been used for some time, but that is not so in other States. It was a proposal in New South Wales recently. My latest information is that the Government will not be proceeding with that aspect of a number of electoral proposals. But irrespective of what happens elsewhere, which is that most States have the hours of polling from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.,- it is for us to make a judgment about what is the right thing to do.
In this country we have a compulsory system of voting. If you do not vote you are sent a letter asking you to explain and if your reason is not convincing you are fined. That results in a voting percentage of about 92 per cent of those on the roll. It is a compulsion. The Labor Party suggests nowhere that that compulsory system should not continue. So we say that in matters such as the number of polling booths, the provision of adequate facilities, particularly with regard to postal votes, and the hours that the booths are open, there is a requirement, a duty, for the Government to provide reasonable convenience to electors. We can see no good reason for restricting the time.
One of the arguments- indeed, almost the only one- produced by the Minister in his speech is that an earlier closing hour will allow counting to commence 2 hours earlier, with the result that the counting trend for which the nation is waiting will be known much earlier in the night on polling day. This argument curiously pervades a lot of the debate on this Bill, as it did on previous Bills. I make the point again that the important thing is to get the result which is closest to that which the people wish to express- what I called earlier today when speaking to another Bill the right result. The Minister and another honourable member opposite chose to twist what I said. If they care to read Hansard they will see that.the sense in which I used that phrase is as I say. The right result is the one which is closest to the clear wishes of the Australian people.
Clearly, if the time for casting a vote, the availability and number of polling booths and the way in which postal votes can be lodged are restricted the rights of the people are restricted. If it is done just because the counting has to be finished a couple of hours earlier, what- a silly business that is. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to help the television commentators in giving more an accurate prediction of an election result 2 hours earlier. This is getting absurd. If an election is very close it is going to take days -or weeks before anyone can be sure of the result. If it is not very close the result will probably be known by midnight. To say that the electoral law ought to be changed so that someone will be able to know the result of an election 2 hours earlier is patently absurd.
I have dealt with the major provisions of the Bill and the reasons why the Opposition will oppose it. I refer briefly to clauses 8 and 9. I referred to them in passing earlier. When another Bill with similar provisions was before the House earlier the Opposition attempted to have it amended to delete terms of imprisonment of less than 3 months so that the penalty would be only a fine. I say that no argument has been put forward to meet the Opposition’s argument on that point. It would appear that the Australian Labor Party in what it seeks to do is showing what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has been pleased to refer to as the Labor Party’s authoritarian streak. In conclusion, if I may paraphrase the conclusion of the Minister’s speech, I can only say that the measures proposed are not straightforward, are not rational and certainly are partisan.
-There are a couple of very important features of the Electoral Bill (No. 5) on which I wish to comment, not the least of which is the question of drawing for positions on the ballot paper. The system which we have at the moment is such that there are members who have served in this Parliament in the past, members who are serving here at the moment and members who will serve in the future not because they have the enormous support that some of us, with our egos, think that we command from the electorate, but rather because the positions of those members’ names on the ballot papers are determined by the initial letters of their surnames. There are honourable members who have experienced that type of outcome. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) have both been subjected to OUtcomes brought about by what we term in politics the donkey vote.
In using the term ‘donkey’ I am not referring to the people who cast such votes. It is simply a fact of “life, accepted by all of us, that some people going to the booths to vote will vote straight down the ballot paper. In the. infamous days of the late 1950s and 1960s the Democratic Labor Party of Australia, when it was contesting elections, went out of its way at both Federal and State elections to have on ballot papers the names of people whose names began with either A, B or C. In a Federal election that lifted the Party’s percentage of the national vote to such an extent that it thought it was a decent, acceptable and some sort of major political party.
How can the Opposition attempt to justify such a- system? How can it say that when nominations ‘ have been called for the House of Representatives the honourable member for Curtin, whose name happens to be Garland, should appear on the ballot paper before me because my name happens to be Young? If we stood for the Senate for our respective teams we would, according to custom, draw for positions. That should also be the custom for the House of Representatives. Appearing at the top of the ballot paper can mean a substantial vote in some of the electorates now held by my colleagues in the Australian Labor Party where we are being gerrymandered and where we find 80 000 or 90 000 voters in a single Labor electorate. The position at the top of the ballot paper can be worth between 700 and 1400 votes.
We recall quite vividly a very great member of the Australian Labor Party, Reg Pollard, who was the honourable member for Lalor, losing his position in 1966 not because the people of Lalor consciously did not vote for rum. He received thousands more primary votes than any of the other candidates, of whom there were twelve or thirteen if my memory serves me correctly. He lost his position because his name was eighth or ninth on the ballot paper. He ended up being beaten for the want of 1 per cent of the vote. It does not matter whether a candidate appears first, second, third or fourth on the ballot paper. He still gets the so-called donkey vote if he happens to appear above his major opponent. As I will point out, the Opposition Parties, who were given the idea by their great friends, the DLP, as to how to manipulate the system, intend to take advantage from this situation.
One would think from listening to the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Curtin, that each of us comes here because of our enormous contribution in our own little electorate, that everybody in the electorate knows us and at least 50 per cent plus one vote for us. Quite the opposite is true. We are all here because in one way or another through the various conventions and councils of our respective parties we have been able to win endorsement from our political party. So we are here as Labor Party representatives, Liberal Party representatives or representatives of whatever the crowd in the corner call themselves, and for no other reason. Not one honourable member out of the 127 who serve in this chamber is here for any reason other than that he was endorsed by his political party. That ought to be faced up to. The second thing that ought to be faced up to is that is it is good enough to draw for positions on the Senate ballot paper it should be acceptable to draw for positions for the House of Representatives. We have had the experience in marginal seats of not only political parties nominating candidates whose names begin with A or B but also of people changing their names so that they can gain top position. In some cases the top position may be worth more than the 1 per cent which I have stated. It certainly is in State elections.
Let us look at what has been our experience in Australia. At the House of Representatives 1974 elections, for example, the Opposition parties chose their candidates so as to gain maximum exploitation of the alphabetical system in those divisions where the result was likely to be close. At those elections, in 26 out of the 37 divisions which could be said to be marginal- that is, where the wirining margin, after allowing for either actual or notional distribution of preferences, was under 5 per cent- candidates sponsored by the Opposition parties were placed higher on the ballot paper than were candidates sponsored by the Australian Labor Party. At the 1972 House of Representatives elections candidates sponsored by the Opposition parties were ranked ahead of ALP candidates on the ballot paper in 26 of the 32 divisions. The divisions in NSW where the Opposition- quite accidentally, I am sure- were placed ahead of their ALP opponents were Cook, Eden-Monaro, Evans, Hughes, Lowe, Lyne, Parramatta, Paterson, Phillip. In Victoria the seats involved were Ballaarat, Bendigo, Bruce, Casey, Deakin, Diamond Valley and McMillan; in Queensland, Brisbane, Griffith, Herbert, Lilley, Petrie- every marginal electorate; in Western Australia, Forrest, Stirling, Swan and Tangney. In almost all of these seats which we would describe as being marginal electorates we find the Opposition party candidates, if not at the top of the ballot paper, certainly ahead of the position of the Australian Labor Party candidate.
No acceptable argument can be put forward by the Opposition parties to substantiate and justify their saying that some person should appear on these ballot papers above another person because of his surname. If people are to be representatives in this chamber and if we are to abide by the single electorate system, let the positions on the ballot paper be by chance and not by design. Perhaps some people will continue to serve in this chamber because they draw the position at the top of the ballot paper if the new system is instituted. But let it be that system and not the corrupt and manipulated system where people are endorsed by the Opposition parties merely because of their surname.
In addition to the important issue of drawing for positions on the ballot paper, I want to refer to the question of deposits. I have always been quite apprehensive about the deposits required of candidates who stand at political elections.
Experience throughout the world has been that a lot of the deposits have been required merely to keep people out. We have put forward a variety of amendments to these laws in Australia and the Opposition has found some reason to throw them out. If the Opposition had put forward acceptable suggestions or amendments to try to improve the system perhaps the idea of increasing the deposits in the manner we are now putting forward would not be necessary. We are not saying that the Government or the Electoral office have to be people who decide whether parties are being mischievous or frivolous in putting forward their candidates. Most people would decide for themselves, knowing the amount of the deposit.
We decided to move these amendments immediately after we saw the nominations that were put forward for the Senate elections in New South Wales. People deliberately set out to manipulate the system to increase the informal vote in Labor divisions and so prevent the election of Labor senators. Instead of having the normal 40 to 50 candidates in New South Wales, in 1 974, we wound up with 73 candidates. Perhaps some of those people would have decided that their quest was frivolous if the deposit had been larger. I prefer another system. I would prefer to see the optional preferential system introduced so that we would not have to have deposits at all. Deposits are not new in Australia. We have had them since federation. At the time of federation, 1902, a £25 deposit was introduced. It was quite a lot of money in those days and certainly would have kept a lot of people from nominating
As I say I am apprehensive about deposits. While the Opposition continues to insist on the system of voting to which it is adhering and while it refuses to accept the optional preferential system which is the alternative to very high deposits, it seems to me that the Government has to look at other ways of protecting the people and the system. I suggest very seriously that the Opposition parties have to look at this question. As I said earlier in the afternoon when speaking on one of the earlier electoral Bills there can be no doubt that people will set out to make the Senate system, in particular, inoperable because of the low deposit, because of the slowness of counting and because of the slowness in striking what may be the quota. The number of candidates from New South Wales and Victoria at any future Senate election may make the whole system completely inoperable.
I refer now to the question of the closing of polling booths. I know that the Opposition gets very frantic about this. As I said earlier Senator
Withers said on behalf of honourable members opposite- it is not a philosophy; it is just a state of mind- that everything we do has some scheme behind it, that what we were trying to do is to adjust the system to suit the Labor Party. I do not know how closing the polling booths earlier specifically helps the Labor party and does not help the conservative parties in this country. One honourable member from Queensland who is sitting opposite can tell the House that the Queensland polling booths close at 6 p.m. One of these days those that we employ in the electoral offices will say: ‘It is just not good enough. We are not going to turn up at 7 o’clock in the morning and work till midnight. It is just beyond the human resources we have available. We intend to work a normal day. We intend to work to rule’. The whole counting process will be lengthened considerably because of the volume of work that we are placing upon those officers under the present laws.
This proposal seems to me to be just a matter of common sense. It does not seem to be a scheme to assist the Labor Party any more than the Liberal Party or the National Country Party. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) says that Mr Lewis, the New South Wales Premier, has changed his mind about his news release of 22 July and the amendments he intended to bring in have now been shelved. If they have not been shelved it was the intention of the New South Wales Liberal Government to introduce 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. as the voting hours. It seems to me that all we are doing is taking into consideration the welfare and working conditions of those people we are employing in the polling booths and in the electoral offices throughout the country. It is for those reasons that I support the Bill.
-This Bill, as the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has indicated, principally provides for the closing of polling booths at 6 p.m. in lieu of 8 p.m., the drawing of positions on the House of Representatives ballot paper, increasing deposits for nomination and changing the formula relating to forfeiture of deposits. I would like to devote my few remarks to the first 2 items and to deal firstly with the 6 p.m. closing. I know that there is a differing view in the Parliament on this issue. I draw to the attention of the House the great need to try to maintain the 8 p.m. closing. The proposal to shorten polling hours for Federal elections and referendums is not a new thought. It has been considered by previous governments.
Although it is recognised that the closing of booths at 6 p.m. would lighten the load on polling officials and would enable progressive voting results to be known earlier on the evening of polling day, it is felt and was always felt- and I firmly believe this- that under the compulsory voting system the full 12 hours for polling is justified and any move to reduce those hours would be met with complaints from electors, particularly by electors in the area that I represent. There is evidence that in rural areas particularly many electors wish to avail themselves of as much daylight working time as possible leaving their voting until after completion of a day’s work, which is very often after 6 p.m.
– Tut, tut!
-Another factor -
– The interjection came from behind you.
– Yes, I know. I would not expect the honourable member to have much understanding of the problem about which I am talking. I do not blame him because he has not had to experience it. Clearly we are facing a greater dimension to our problem. More than 900 polling booths have been closed in the last few months.
– You said that this afternoon.
– I am saying it now because it is relevant to the point that needs to be aired in the debate on this Bill. The honourable member for Wilmot is chirping away like a canary. I do not know that he knows what he is talking about either.
– You are going on like a bull with tonsilitis
-Order! I insist on order from both sides. Interjections are disorderly.
– The honourable member gets very upset every time I mention the closing of polling booths. I think he has probably made a big noise about this.
– Why repeat it over and over again?
– I know it is a very sore spot.
-Order! The honourable member for Wilmot will cease interjecting.
– It is tedious repetition, Mr Deputy Speaker.
– Repetition or not, let me say that the closure of 900 polling booths throughout
Australia has disadvantaged a great number of people in areas such as the electorate of Gwydir who, on wet polling days because there are no all-weather roads, will have to ride to vote, go in a 4-wheel drive vehicle or pay the fine for failing to vote. What the closures will effectively do in certain circumstances is disfranchise people who would otherwise be entitled to vote. If the honourable member for Duthie is happy with that prospect -
– I rise on a point of order. I am the honourable member for Wilmot.
– I am sorry, the honourable member for Wilmot. Well, if he is happy with that, he is not the man I thought he was. The honourable member for Port Adelaide also spoke of the defeat of Reg Pollard in 1966.
– An excellent illustration.
– ‘An excellent illustration’, says the honourable member for Duthie. The honourable member for Duthie was successful -
-Order! It is the honourable member for Wilmot.
-The honourable member for Wilmot. He was successful in confusing me that time. The honourable member for Port Adelaide will remember that in 1 966 there was a massive landslide against the Australian Labor Party and I suspect that Mr Reg Pollard was more a victim of the swing against his Party on that occasion than a victim of the system. The proposition that a draw be made to determine the order in which names of candidates will appear on the ballot papers for the House of Representatives generally stems from a mistaken assumption that the top position gives significant advantage to the candidate in that position. I will produce some statistics that will prove my point that this is a mistaken view. Honourable members will know that in the case of a Senate election provision is made for a draw to determine the order in which the respective groups appear on the ballot papers. However, there are important differences between ballot papers for a Senate election to fill periodic vacancies and the ballot papers for a House of Representatives election. The principal difference stems from the fact that there are 5 periodic vacancies to be filled at each Senate election whereas elections for the House of Representatives are based upon single member constituencies. This results in a multiplicity of candidates for a Senate election and there is little doubt that the tendency to cast a so-called donkey vote increases proportionately with the number of candidates standing for election.
Another influencing factor lies in the fact that the State as a whole comprises the electorate for Senate elections whereas House of Representatives elections are conducted on the basis of individual divisions. Accordingly candidates for House of Representatives elections, being considerably less in number than for Senate elections and being associated with the particular divisions, are generally better known to the electors.
It is of interest to look at the statistical evidence for the 1969 House of Representatives election as it shows up the relationship between candidates who were placed first on the ballot papers and candidates who were elected. The figures show that in respect of 123 divisions, plus the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, 35 candidates who were placed first on the ballot papers were successful; 43 candidates who appeared second on the ballot papers were also successful; and of the remainder of the successful candidates twentyfour were placed third, nineteen were placed fourth, one was placed fifth and three were placed sixth. Iris significant to note that of the 35 successful candidates who appeared first on the ballot papers twenty stood as Australian Labor Party candidates whereas fifteen came from the Government Parties.
Let us not have all this tripe and onions about the electorate being stupid. I think some people were stupid in 1972 and a few less were stupid in 1974. But I do not think we need underestimate the wisdom of the average voter of this country.
– They are not stupid all the time.
– They are not stupid all the time. As someone said, you can fool half of the people half the time but not all the people all of the time. I think that is worthy of note too. I would like to incorporate in Hansard a table which makes an interesting analysis of figures taken over 5 House of Representatives elections. It shows the position in which successful candidates appeared on the ballot papers. For instance, it shows that 2 candidates contested elections on 29 occasions and that the candidates in the first position on the ballot papers were elected on 20 occasions whereas the candidates in the second position were elected on 9 occasions. I seek leave to incorporate this table in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
An interesting analysis is set out below which covers five House of Representatives elections. It shows the elected candidates in relation to their position on the ballot-papers-
There were 2 candidates on 29 occasions and candidates in first position on b/pps. were elected on 20 occasions while the candidates in second position on b/pps. were elected on 9 occasions.
There were 3 candidates on 330 occasions and candidates in first position on b/pps. were elected on 1 13 occasions while the candidates in second position on b/pps. were elected on 1 18 occasions while the candidates in third position on b/pps. were elected on 99 occasions.
There were 4 candidates on 1 88 occasions and candidates in first position on b/pps. were elected on 40 occasions while the candidates in second position on b/pps. were elected on 56 occasions while the candidates in third position on b/pps. were elected on 41 occasions while the candidates in fourth position on b/pps. were elected on 5 1 occasions.
There were 5 candidates on 5 1 occasions and candidates in first position on b/pps. were elected on 8 occasions while the candidates in second position on b/pps. were elected on 14 occasions while the candidates in third position on b/pps. were elected on 13 occasions while the candidates in fourth position on b/pps. were elected on 1 1 occasions while the candidates in fifth position on b/pps. were elected on 5 occasions.
There were 6 candidates on 1 2 occasions and a candidate in first position on b/pps. was elected on 1 occasion while the candidates in second position on b/pps. were elected on 3 occasions and a candidate in third position on b/pps. was elected on 1 occasion while the candidates in fourth position on b/pps were elected in 2 occasions while the candidates in fifth position on b/pps. were elected on 2 occasions while the candidates in sixth postition on b/pps. were elected on 3 occasions.
There were 7 candidates on 2 occasions and a candidate in second position on b/pps. was elected on 1 occasion while a candidate in third position on b/pps was elected on 1 occasion.
There were 8 candidates on one occasion only and the candidate in fourth position on b/pps. was elected.
There were 9 candidates on 2 occasions and a candidate in second position on b/pps. was elected on 1 occasion while a candidate in fourth position on b/pps. was elected on 1 occasion.
-The table clearly gives support, on the basis of 5 elections, to the fact that the positioning on the ballot paper does not make any real difference to the voters ‘choice. So one wonders why we are going through this tedious exercise of trying to alter the system and confuse people who generally have become accustomed to the alphabetical system. For the sake of change we have another Bill. I think the Opposition is taking a very responsible attitude on behalf of the Australian people in saying no to this quite unnecessary change in the electoral legislation.
-The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) suggested that I would not understand the problem that farmers would face if the polling booths were to close at 6 p.m. My view is that the Australian farming community should recognise that the right to vote is a very important one and that they should express a preparedness to stop work for a few minutes during the day to go to their local polling booth or, alternatively, to take out a postal vote.
It is not fair to expect the people who work for the Australian Electoral Office to keep going all night. Also it is not fair to those people from all political parties, who voluntarily give of their time, to expect them to man polling booths from 8 o’clock in the morning until 8 o’clock at night. In other words, I personally am opposed to my own Party’s viewpoint on this subject- I am not afraid to have my opinion registered. I would hope that one day common sense will prevail on this side of the House, and on the other side of the House when we are back in office. Finally, I am convinced that the majority of members of my Party and the coalition National Country Party of Australia share my views, but as we have never taken a vote on the subject we do not really know how we stand.
Question put:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)
AYES: 58
NOES: 54
Majority……. 4
AYES
NOES
Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.
Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.
BUI (on motion by Mr Riordan) read a third time.
ELECTORAL BILL (No. 6) 1975 Second Reading
Debate resumed from 28 August on motion by Mr Daly:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-This Bill is one of 6 electoral Bills which are being debated by the House today. It forms part of those attempts to change the electoral law which were set out in the Electoral Law Amendment Bill. That Bill was twice debated in the Parliament, in November of last year and in April of this year. This BUI forms part of that package of proposals which the Government has put to the Parliament 3 times and which, in the view of the Opposition, are intended to improve the chances of the Labor Party in its fighting of elections. The Opposition has opposed four of those Bills as being partisan. The debates on those Bills have taken place.
This Bill contains provisions which the Opposition regards as being worthy of serious consideration. Those provisions include some proposals which are similar to provisions which were proposed by the Minister who was in charge of electoral laws in the previous LiberalCountry Party Government. Of course those provisions of the Bill are not contested. There are, however, a number of amendments which the Opposition will seek to make to the Bill. They are set out in the document entitled ‘Proposed Amendments’ which has been circulated in my name. The Opposition believes that many of these matters to which I will refer in a moment are important and that some of them need amendment and contesting. That attitude will be taken up in the debate in the Senate when this Bill is considered there.
However, in the second reading debate, I refer first of all to some of the comments made in his second reading speech by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) who is in charge of this Bill. Speaking of mobile polling booths, the establishment of which this legislation proposes to authorise, the Minister said that they would be: … a significant step forward in making it easier for the aged and infirm to register their votes while at the same time removing the need for canvassers and political parties organisers to invade hospitals, convalescent homes and institutions, as they do at present.
I observe in passing that there is something to be said for introducing mobile polling booths. There is also something to be said for the support of canvassers and political party organisers who, after all, are present at all other booths in an election. These people serve a purpose. I hope that the intention of that observation by the Minister was not to disparage the presence of these people. One cannot help wondering- and we will need to watch to see what the result of the operation of mobile polling booths will be- whether without any -
Debate interrupted.
page 2086
-Order! It being half past ten p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July 1974 1 propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
-On 4 October the Sydney Bulletin published an article from which I propose to read an extract. It stated that the honourable member for Lalor Dr Jim Cairns, was hobnobbing with the pro-Ustasha Croatian Liberation Movement. The article states:
Dr Jim and his wife were surprise and unexpected guests at a dinner dance on September 6 in St. Augustine’s Hall, Yarraville, Melbourne.
The revellers were astonished, to say the least. There was the portrait of the Ustasha leader, Ante Pavelic, on the walland the Ustasha version of the Croatian flag.
The secretary, Joseph Cuk- who was once named by Lionel Murphy as one of the alleged leaders of the Croatian organisation plotting against Australian Labor leadersgreeted Dr and Mrs Cairns, and arranged for their entertainment.
The writer of this article, Mr David McNicoll, states:
I rang Jim Cairns to check the accuracy of the information about his appearance at the party. He confirmed it, and added: ‘I told them that in my opinion, the Croatian community in Victoria had great human content, and that I wanted to help it in every decent way, particularly by Access Radio. ‘I told them I wanted them to have every opportunity of genuine expression. I regarded them as warm, real people who wanted and deserved recognition. ‘
When I read this- I had been told of it previously- I was unable to believe it because although the opinions which the honourable member for Lalor has expressed were those which I think should be shared by me and other honourable members, they were not the opinions which the honourable member had expressed in this House and elsewhere. In order to check this matter I rang the secretary, Mr Cuk, in Melbourne. I checked from his own lips the fact that this had occurred. The dance was held. Dr Cairns, the honourable member for Lalor, and his wife appeared unexpectedly at it. There was some confusion but it was decided that they should be given every courtesy. They were greeted. The honourable member for Lalor (Dr Cairns), explained that he believed that the Croatian community had been traduced, that there had been a misunderstanding but that all would be sweetness and light between him and the Croatians.
This is almost incredible because it was Dr Cairns who led the pack of Australian Labor Party hounds which denounced the Croatian community. I have heard him and other members of the Australian Labor Party in this House denounce, for example, the former honourable member for Corio- your seat, Mr Speakerbecause it was said that he had appeared at a meeting where the Croatian flag and the portrait of a Croatian leader were displayed. This was said by the ALP group to be an appalling thing. The hounds led by the honourable member for Lalor, who had ex-Senator Murphy in the pack with him, savaged the Croatian people, accused them of every crime and really traduced them in every way. This was done for a political purpose, as is now shown, by somebody who did not believe what he was saying at the time. The important thing is that the honourable member for Lalor, Dr Cairns, has now shown that the whole of the Government’s campaign against the Croatians in those days, led by him and Senator Murphy, was based on a he. They knew that what they were saying was untrue. They got up this scare against the Croatians. They traduced them in every possible way for the meanest and lousiest of political purposes. This is the measure of this Government. Those gentlemen were prepared to falsify facts. They were prepared to use what they described as intelligence reports- I do not believe they were intelligence reports at all - for the purpose of a campaign against the Croatian people.
They did not care that in the course of the campaign they were making life miserable for many people in Melbourne, Sydney and other places. They named people under the protection of the privileges of this House. I am sure that they knew that what they said was false because now the honourable member for Lalor, Dr Cairns, the leader of the pack, says that it was false, that the Croatian people have been maligned. Here we have the chief of the maligners now pretending penitence, crawling for votes and saying that all his previous protestations were false. He even greeted in a friendly way Mr Cuk who had been named by the Labor Party as one of the traitors and ringleaders in this so-called Croatian plot.
– But the honourable member consorts with communists.
– It may be unimportant about the honourable member for Lalor. He is now a person of no importance. But it is important to realise that the Labor Party’s campaigns are unscrupulous and based on lies. The Labor Party does not hesitate to attack people for a political purpose, and to ruin their personal lives if they can, knowing that what is said is false. I heard somebody on the other side of the chamber a moment ago use the word ‘communists’. Of course, this is part of the situation. Everybody knows that while this was going on the communist Tribune was hurrah-ing for the Government. It was supporting the persecution of the Croatians. It was saying that these were abominable people. There was a complete parallel between the communist propaganda and what was said in those days by the honourable member for Lalor, Senator Murphy and other people on the Labor benches.
We now find that it is all phoney. We now know that from the first these people knew that it was phoney. Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps some of them did not know that it was phoney. Perhaps they were the victims of their leaders who co-operated with the communists in getting up this phoney scare against the Croatians. It was run by the Australian Labor Party and the Communist Party working in tandem. This is something that the House and the country will remember. I hope that every person of overseas origin who is now a voter and who finds a Labor Party member crawling to them for votes, as the honourable member for Lalor crawled on 6 September, will know that the Labor Party is phoney through and through on this issue.
– I always feel that I have a quinquennial duty to this Parliament to let the newer members of Parliament know something about the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) which they probably are not aware of. I have always felt it my duty, once every 5 years, to give a few facts about the honourable gentleman’s past activities.
– You told us last year.
-No, the 5 years are up now. The honourable gentleman has graced this chamber now for some 26 years. He comes from a long line of very distinguished Australians dating back to the highway robber Dr D’Arcy Wentworth who was, as we all understand, the unwanted son of an earl in London. But for the fact that that earl did not believe in marriage the honourable gentleman would not have been eligible to sit in this Parliament; he would today be required to take his place in the House of Lords instead of here. The earl did not believe in marriage but he looked after his son D’Arcy and when the son was convicted of highway robbery it was decided that, providing he agreed to come to Australia as a surgeon, the normal penalty would be changed to that of temporary residence in Norfolk Island. I had the very great pleasure and privilege of looking at that lovely little old hut in Norfolk Island- I would like to see it preserved for posterity- with shingled roof where the distinguished D’Arcy and his de facto convict wife lived for many years. She bore him some 3 sons who later were responsible for sowing the seed that eventually produced the honourable gentleman that we have here with us tonight.
There is no doubt that the long line of marvellous Wentworth people were distinguished people. I often wonder just where this honourable gentleman really stands. The one time honourable member for Watson, Mr Danny Curtin, was the first to reveal the belief that the honourable gentleman had been for some considerable time an undercover member of the Port Kembla branch of the Communist Party, holding ticket No. 176. The honourable gentleman denied that he held ticket No. 176 and Mr Curtin then changed the number to 166. Apparently that was accepted without further demur on the part of the honourable gentleman. I am wondering whether after all he is not a very clever- extremely clever- agent for the Kremlin.
– An agent provocateur?
-Yes, that is right. He has been hoodwinking us for years and years, having got dispensation, no doubt, from the Kremlin to make these attacks on the Communist Party because this is the way he can suck us in and make us believe that here we have a friend, a man we can trust, a man we can talk to, discuss defence problems with, discuss the secrets of our atomic potential and all this kind of thing, knowing all the time that whatever we tell him is safe in his hands because he is always such a devout anti-communist.
I remember the case of Diver Dobson. It was an interesting case. This anti-communist, Diver Dobson, was pushed off the ferry going across to Manly by communists. Who else would push anyone off a ferry but a communist? The only thing was that when they found him he had forgotten to get his coat and shirt wet. He got the bottom part of his gear wet- his boots and socks were wet- but by some miraculous means he was able to avoid getting any other part of his clothing wet after the communists pushed him into Sydney Harbour. The honourable gentleman was the architect of this grand scheme to show that this was what the communists would do if they could only get their way. They would push people like the famous Mr Diver Dobson into the river, when all that he was doing was fighting these bad communist people.
Then the honourable gentleman started to get very cunning with the communists. He said:’I know what I will do. I will offer a cup for the best marching team on Labor Day down at Illawarra’. It was called the Illawarra Star Cup. It was a very clever- almost diabolically clevermove on his part. The communists, not knowing what he was up to, of course, took him at face value, as we all do, and decided to put a boycott on his newspaper which was called the Illawarra Star. The honourable gentleman sat in his home down on the South Coast and thought: ‘How will I overcome this problem?’ He chanced upon the marvellous idea that he would ask one of the most dangerous communists this country has ever seen, Ted Roach, none other, who was then the Assistant Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, to confer with him in secret. No one knew they were there.
No one discovered that they had had the conference until the march took place. We could not understand why it was that the communist controlled Waterside Workers Federation had won the march. Its team was not the best marchers. The best marchers were the anti-communist clerks union. They were by far the best. But by some foul little plot these evil communist people belonging to the Waterside Workers Federation had the cup. I am told that as the honourable gentleman presented the Illawarra Star Cup to the communist controlled contingent of Waterside Workers on that Labor Day he genuflected to this dangerous communist, Roach, as he handed him the cup.
Now, of course, he comes along and tells us that after all he really is anti-communist. He has to keep up that pretence. I am not saying that he is a spy. I cannot prove it. I cannot prove that he is a member of the Communist Party. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that he has special dispensation from the Third Internationale to put up this front.
The behaviour of the honourable gentleman during World War II was rather strange too. He . was in the Home Guard. He did his best to get into the fighting services and it was not his fault that he could not. He is a very courageous man and I say that quite seriously. He is an honourable gentleman. When he was not able to get into the forces he joined the Home Guard and did his best. He did better than his best because he blew up the Cronulla Bridge just to show that it could be done. He then captured the Redfern Police Station to prove that Australia really was vulnerable and that the Japanese could quite easily come and take this country. There were no adequate defences. Because Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blamey had the audacity to ridicule the suggestion that our defences were not at the ready all the time, what did the honourable gentleman do but kidnap Sir Thomas Blamey. He took him up to Leura in the Blue Mountains and held him there for 48 hours. Nobody was able to find out anything about him. He did this in order to demonstrate the point he was trying to make and he made it successfully. The point was that the country was ill-equipped to defend itself. - How did the honourable gentleman capture the Redfern Police Station? This is an indication of how crafty and clever and cunning the honourable gentleman is. A man clever enough to pull this off is clever enough to do anything. He arranged for his contingent of Home Guards to dress themselves up as tramway men, with uniforms and hats and everything on. They approached the Redfern Police Station at a time when there was a change of the morning shift on the tramways. At the given point the Home Guards, dressed as tramway men, pounced upon the police station, held the inspector in charge and put everybody under guard. They they said: ‘Here we are; we are in charge of the Redfern Police Station’. It was a magnificent manoeuvre. It demonstrated, in a way that nobody else had up to that time been able to demonstrate, just how vulnerable was the defence system in Australia.
-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.
Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar)-I wish to make a personal explanation. I am afraid that it will have to be a fairly long personal explanation because so many untrue things have been said by the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron). I will say, first, that what he said about my family was untrue. I will not go further into that except to say that I consider that this is one of the meanest and most horrible things that have been said in this House. Secondly, the story about my having been a member of the Communist Party is utterly and completely untrue. It has been denied in this House previously. I believe that the Minister knows it to be untrue because he has told me personally that he knows it to be untrue. He has said that to me personally and there can be very little doubt that the Minister knew that what he was saying was untrue.
-Order! If the honourable gentleman continues debating the question I will have to ask him to resume his seat. He is making a personal explanation with my indulgence and I suggest he keep to the point.
-The story about Diver Dobson had nothing to do with me at all. It is a complete and utter fabrication that I had anything to do with that at all. I believe that the Minister knows it to be untrue. The story of the socalled Illawarra Cup is-
– It is true that there was one. It is also true that I knew nothing about it at the time. I am perhaps as good as the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at not knowing things. The story of the presentation is an utter and complete fabrication. The story of my so-called secret meetings with Ted Roach is utterly untrue. The story about the Redfern police station is not true. There is no bridge at Cronulla so I did not blow one up. The whole thing is a complete web of fabrication with which the Minister has seen fit to regale the House. I do not think I can say anything more than that the Minister is a damn liar.
-Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw that remark.
-The Minister is grievously misinformed.
-The honourable member will withdraw it.
– I withdraw it.
-When speaking during the adjournment debate on 2 October 1975 I commented on the criticisms made by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) of the Regional Employment Development scheme. He had complained of alleged injustices caused to sponsors of projects which had been approved under this scheme but which now, because of budgetary constraints, could not be funded. The honourable member for Mallee had complained that in many cases sponsors had had projects approved and had in good faith entered into expenditure on materials and preparation for the project, implying that the sponsor- in many cases local government or community organisations with limited financial resources- would have to foot the bill themselves now that the project would not go ahead. In looking at Hansard, it seemed to me that there could be some misunderstanding so I sought further advice on this subject from the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland).
I can now provide some clarification of my remarks of 2 October 1975 following the speech of the honourable member for Mallee. A Press statement was released by the Minister for Labor and Immigration on 10 September following a meeting of the ministerial committee which administers the Regional Employment Development scheme. The relevant part of the statement indicates that projects which had not been started would not now receive funds, although the Budget allocation of $ 135 m should enable all projects already commenced to be continued to the extent of the grant initially approved. The only exceptions to this principle were a small number of projects approved but not started in areas of more than 10 per cent local unemployment. The Press statement goes on to say with regard to projects approved in other areas which will not be funded that ‘claims for any legitimate expenditure of moneys already incurred in relation to these projects would be considered sympathetically and speedily’. Senator James McClelland has advised me that in fact it is proposed to reimburse the sponsors of these projects for all legitimate expenditures they have incurred subsequent to being advised regarding approval of the projects. I think it was on this point that I had some misunderstanding with the honourable member for Mallee. I trust that this statement will clarify the situation. I seek leave of the House to incorporate the Press statement of the Minister in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- press statement from the minister for labor and immigration senator james McClelland
At a meeting of Ministers administering the Regional Employment Development Scheme on Wednesday, 10 September 1975, consideration was given to the results of a review, undertaken by the Department of Labor and Immigration, of projects approved after 30 June 1973 and of those approved before that date on which work had not begun. Officers of the Department of Labor and Immigration contacted sponsors of all those projects and sought information as to whether work had started or not, and what financial commitments had been incurred. Pending the completion of the review, and the finalisation of Budgetary provision for funds for the Scheme, those sponsors were told that they should not assume that funds would be available to enable completion of the work and that, if work had not started by the engagement of unemployed workers, then it should be held in abeyance.
At their meeting the Ministers decided that the $135 million provided in the Budget for the Scheme in 1 975-76:
The Ministers also decided that no further cost escalation would be funded on projects other than in the most exceptional circumstances.
page 2090
10 September 1975
Question resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned at 10.56 p.m.
page 2091
The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:
asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1973- 74.
New South Wales: The National Trust of Australia (New South Wales) The Royal Australian Historical Society The Braidwood and District Historical Society The Sydney Cove Waterfront Museum Ltd The Addington Trust.
Victoria:
The National Trust of Australia (Victoria) The Footscray Historical Society
Queensland: The National Trust of Queensland The Ilfracombe Historical Society Museum
South Australia: The National Trust of South Australia The Pichi Richi Railway Preservation Society
Western Australia: The National Trust of Australia (Western Australia) The Esperence Bay Historical Society
Tasmania:
The National Trust of Australia (Tasmania)
1974- 75.
New South Wales: The National Trust of Australia (New South Wales) The Sydney Cove Waterfront Museum The University of New South Wales The University of New England
Victoria:
The National Trust of Australia (Victoria) The City of Footscray Historical Society The Royal Historical Society of Victoria Monash University Melbourne University
Queensland: The National Trust of Queensland The National Parks Association
The Griffith University
The Royal Society of Queensland
The Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Inc.
The Wildlife Preservation Society Maryborough
Branch
South Australia: The National Trust of South Australia The Nature Conservation Society of South Australia The Civic Trust of South Australia The Field Geology Club of South Australia
Western Australia: The National Trust of Australia (Western Australia) The Community Education Centre- Fremantie
Tasmania:
The National Trust of Australia (Tasmania) The Theatre Royal Board
Australian Capital Territory: The Australian National University The Ecological Society of Australia
Northern Territory:
The Hamilton Downs Youth Camp Association Inc. The National Trust of Queensland.
For further details on grants to non-government bodies or individuals I refer the honourable member to my reply to question No. 86 which appeared in Hansard of 10 April 1975 on page 1559.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:
– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:
What are the present functions of the Commonwealth Employment Service?
– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has supplied the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:
Briefly, the present functions of the Commonwealth Employment Service are:
the registration, referral and placement of applicants for employment;
the raising, registration and filling of job vacancies;
the collection of statistics relating to the labor market including comprehensive monthly surveys of CES transactions in dealing with the unemployed, the numbers unplaced at the end of the survey period, vacancy activities, unemployment among school leavers, the handicapped, Aborigines and apprentices, employment and overtime in larger private factories with appropriate comments on the reasons for significant variation in figures;
the provision of Vocational Guidance or Employment Counselling when necessary;
the review of industrial, occupational and related trends with regard to present and future demands for labor and to give advice and information on labor market trends to employers and prospective employees in the area;
to offer a special employment counselling and placement service to school leavers, the handicapped, older workers, discharged servicemen, ex-prisoners, aborigines and migrants. A special service is also offered in respect of professional employment, harvest labor requirements and in meeting requirements for major construction and other projects;
to advance fares (on a repayable or non-repayable basis) to workers proceeding to jobs or employment interviews for work to which they have been referred by the CES;
to operate the National Employment and Training System. This includes the identification of clients likely to benefit from training, counselling clients about training opportunities, approving courses of training within given delegation and the supervision and oversight of ongoing training;
to receive, investigate and make recommendations on claims for Income Maintenance and/or relocation under the Structural Adjustment Assistance Scheme;
to refer and place clients in Regional Employment Development Scheme (REDS) projects; and
to act as an agent for the Department of Social Security in relation to the administration of certain provisions of the Social Services Act 1947-1975, particularly in the issue and receipt of claim forms and first income statements for unemployment benefit and in the administration of the ‘work test’ which is the system used to determine whether suitable employment is available for a claimant or recipient of unemployment benefit.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:
– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:
asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s questions is as follows:
The information on the number of dwellings built in both 1 and 2 above include loans provided under the following categories of assistance:
New homes erected with temporary finance under prearranged discharge of mortgage method.
New homes purchased.
New homes built.
asked the Minister for Overseas Trade the following question, upon notice:
Has New Zealand maintained the export price for skim milk powder in terms of United States dollars, as promised, since the 1 5 per cent devaluation.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
At the time of the New Zealand devaluation Mr Rowling, the New Zealand Prime Minister, stated that ‘There must be a sizeable transfer of incomes back to farming. A devaluation is the simplest and quickest way to do this . . .’. While this does not constitute a ‘promise’, there is the implication that New Zealand will attempt to maintain its export prices in terms of United States dollars for farm products. As far as I am aware, New Zealand has done this in the case of skim milk powder.
asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Under broad direction undertake field work in areas where the Department is engaged in studies and projects including: explanation of departmental policies on urban issues at local, regional and State level utilising all possible opportunities; detection, analysis and reporting of movemem of opinion and attitudes on urban, regional and community issues. Undertake special short-term assignments where issues require local investigation and transmission of the departmental viewpoint, and act as the main departmental link with corresponding officers in Development Corporations.
The duties for the Community Development Officer are as follows:
As a member of a small project team, assist in developing methods whereby Glebe Estate residents can effectively participate in the development of the Glebe Project, be responsible for liaison between the project staff and the community, assist residents with particular problems and needs, stimulate the formulation of ideas and methods for implementing specific objectives and assist in carrying out studies on the social and environmental aspects of the estate.
Mr Bornstein is based in Melbourne and operates throughout Victoria and Tasmania,
Ms McCrae is based in Glebe, New South Wales and operates in the Glebe Estate.
Ms McCrae is employed as a Clerk (Class 7) in the Third Division of the Public Service and as such receives an annual salary of$12,158.
1 ) Mr Stein has had an extensive background in com.community relations work, had his own public relations and publishing business and long experience in journalism. He has extensive working experience with Government, Australian and State Departments, Local Government Authorities and Associations, the media, community groups and voluntary organisations. Prior to his appointment Mr Stein was employed as a temporary Journalist Grade Al by the Department.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1974-75-1814
July 1975-314 August 1975-264
The main reasons why some loans were less than the statutory maximum were: where the applicant requested a loan of less than the maximum statutory amount. where the amount of advance which could be made available in accordance with the Defence Service Homes Act having regard to the value of a property, was less than the maximum statutory amount.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:
Would the Minister please answer my letter dated 3 June 1975.
– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
An interim reply was forwarded to the honourable member on 11 June 1975, and a substantive reply on 30 September 1975.
asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:
– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Overseas Trade the following question, upon notice:
– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the right honourable member to the answer the Prime Minister gave to a similar question, No. 31 10 which appeared in Hansard of 1 October, page 1598.
asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:
– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 3 1 10, (Hansard 1 October, 1975, at page 1598.)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:
– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:
I refer the right honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to questions No. 31 10 (Hansard, 1 October 1975, page 1598).
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:
– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the right honourable gentleman’s question:
The right honourable gentleman is referred to the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 31 10 (Hansard 1 October 1975, page 1598).
asked the Minister for Northern Australia, upon notice
– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Police and Customs, upon notice:
– The Minister for Police and Customs has provided the following information for answer to the right honourable member’s question:
I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 3110 (Hansard 1 October 1975, page 1598).
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:
– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
Will he provide details of losses incurred by the Reserve Bank arising from the provision of forward exchange cover during 1973.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Reserve Bank records provide information on the profit and loss from forward exchange transactions on the basis of deliveries made under forward exchange contracts in a given accounting period. This information is available for financial ‘ years only. On this basis, book losses arising from deliveries under forward exchange contracts were $193 million in the financial year 1972-73 and $120 million in the financial year 1973-74.
Treasury Bills and Cash Balances
– On 1 October I undertook in answer to a question to provide the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) with information on the use of Treasury Bills and Cash Balances for the period during which he was Treasurer (from January 1966 to November 1969).
The following tables give this information indicating Cash Balances at the end of each month for the above period and Treasury Bills outstanding at the end of each month during that period.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice:
– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in matters relating to the Public Service has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member’s question:
The decision was to take effect from 1 September 1975. The Prime Minister stressed, however, that until the decision was implemented the Government expected all persons covered by the decision to observe its spirit by travelling economy class.
With regard to staff employed under the Public Service Act Departments were notified of the Government ‘s decision and the Public Service Regulations were amended to delete references to class of travel. For staff not employed under the Public Service Act, the appropriate authority was requested to give similar effect to the Government’s decision.
While I am not aware of any particular instances of public servants travelling first class on internal domestic airlines, it is possible that some may have continued to do so up to 3 1 August 1975. From 1 September 1975 1 would expect all Departments and authorities to be applying the Government’s decision.
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751014_reps_29_hor97/>.