House of Representatives
16 October 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2193

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Cadet Corps

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 their great dismay at the decision of the Australian Government to abolish the Army Corps of Cadets from our Secondary Schools.

The enthusiastic acceptance by leading educators, those nearest to the secondary educational scene (our Head masters), the approval and encouragement of thinking and caring parents and the dedicated support of those teachers involved (the Officers of Cadets) bear certain witness to the reliability of this activity as a character builder for our youth.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

Why, after a century of proven usefulness, would you destroy so well established an institution for good in our community?

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bonnett, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Drury, Mr Hodges, Mr Killen and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

Fraser Island

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 would be identified as part of the World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure: that the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and that the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Enderby, Mr Clayton, Mr Mathews, Mr Morris and Mr O’Keefe.

Petitions received.

Income Tax

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 that 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 favour the larger states of New South Wales and Victoria over the smaller States of Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania;

That in Canada, where the various Provinces have the power to levy income tax, differences between the Provinces in income tax rates are substantial and tend to favour the larger, wealthier Provinces;

That it is undesirable that a new taxation system should be introduced in Australia which would widen rather than lessen the differences in standards of living between the various States;

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the present system of personal taxation which ensures geographical uniformity of treatment of citizens throughout Australia be continued and any proposal to reintroduce double taxation be rejected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Armitage and Mr Reynolds.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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:

  1. Further shrink the flow of funds available for finance for private enterprise in Australia.
  2. Will eventually lead to nationalisation of much of private enterprise in Australia.
  3. Cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

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. by Mr Connolly.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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:

  1. . That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.

  3. That the insurance industry is already faced with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g., the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Service Superannuation.

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. by Mr Hyde.

Petition received.

Increased Postal and Telephone Charges

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 sheweth:

That we wish to protest most vigorously at the increases in postal charges, especially with regard to religious, non-profit making magazines in Category A. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Diminish the size of the increase or, if possible, leave charges as they are, and provide special rates for such magazines.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kelly and Mr Lucock.

Petitions received.

Home Ownership

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 and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

The Prime Minister

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That your petitioners are suffering from unemployment or other distressing circumstances.
  2. That your petitioners have reason to believe that their current sufferings are not due to any fault of their own, but arise from the disastrous policies pursued by the present Commonwealth Government.
  3. That your petitioners believe that there can be no relief from the sufferings which afflict them in common with so many other Australian citizens until the present Government is replaced by another whose policies will be different and directed to the advantage of the Australian people.

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 Ruddock and Mr Wentworth.

Petitions received.

Income Tax

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 if existing income tax laws were amended so that the State Governments had the power to vary the total amount of personal income tax there would be various undesirable consequences, including

  1. it would become difficult to ever introduce a successful program of personal tax indexation since a commitment by the Australian Government to tax indexation would mean little if various State Governments themselves had the ability to increase income tax rates;
  2. it would open the way for State Governments to steadily increase income taxes and would therefore tend to increase the proportion of overall taxation in Australia raised through income taxes: since Australia is already heavily dependent on personal income taxes for revenue by international standards, any further move to increase dependency on personal income taxes should be examined carefully;
  3. c) it would mean that the Australian Government would lose the complete control that it has at present over the pattern of marginal income tax rates: this would further complicate the already difficult task faced by the Australian Government of formulating a wages and industrial relations policy which will meet with wide community acceptance;
  4. it would complicate the overall task of economic management for the Australian Government if State Governments had the discretion to move income taxes in an opposite direction to that judged desirable on economic grounds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments and that a system of double taxation will not be imposed on incomes.

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

Petition received.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned students and staff of the State College of Victoria, Bendigo, respectfully showeth:

  1. That the Federal Budget for 1975-76 recently brought down by the Australian Government grossly neglects the needs of students dependent upon Government assistance through the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme.
  2. That a majority of students financed by this scheme are unable to cover basic costs of living.
  3. That persons receiving unemployment benefits are granted an allowance which is $7 greater than the student allowance.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the allowance granted to students under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme be increased.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

To the Honourable, the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of Australia assembled. This humble petition of interested citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

  1. That there is widespread public concern relating to indiscriminate Aboriginal Land Claims being put to the Interim Aboriginal Land Commission.
  2. That Land Claims should not be allowed to be put to the Commission in relation to established residential and business areas set up by the present and past Governments and whereby established residents may be displaced.
  3. That such claims, because of their protracted nature, are causing emotional stress and strain upon residents in such areas and are causing a feeling of uncertainty in their future.
  4. That such claims result in loss of time and money to residents in the claimed areas in attending and being legally represented at such Lands Commissions.

That the areas recommended by the Aboriginal Land Commission to be passed into Aboriginal ownership be subject to discussion and vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate as to the passing over of legal title in such land as such matters will materially affect the heritage of all Australians whatever their racial origins.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrCalder.

Petition received.

Income Tax

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. by Mr Connolly.

Petition received.

Metric System

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 that 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.

Petition received.

Post Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth:

That we wish to protest most vigorously at the proposed increases in postal and telephone charges.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

End the legal monopoly held by the Post Office and give free enterprise the right to compete with the most inefficient and overpriced “service” in Australia.

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

Petition received.

Post Office, Royston Park, South Australia

To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth:

That the citizens and residents of St. Peters area are greatly inconvenienced by the closure of the Post Office agency at Royston Park and that elderly residents of the area are particularly inconvenienced by reason of their having to walk increased distances to other Post Offices.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will:

Restore a Post Office agency for the convenience of citizens in Royston Park, St Peters, College Park and Hackney, who live distant from the existing Post Offices.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrHurford.

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That the decisions of the Australian Government,to depart from its 1972 election promise that basic pensions would be related to average weekly earnings and never be allowed to fall below 25 per cent thereof, and
  2. To increase postage costs and the costs of installation and annual rental of telephones, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by these facts to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decisions (a) and (b) and to determine-

  1. That pensions be related to average earnings as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1972 policy speech, and
  2. That no charge be made for installation or rental on the telephones of those pensioners entitled to a P.M.S. card.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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-

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

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

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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-

  1. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. find that real aftertax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments.

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

Petition received.

The Prime Minister

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Under the provisions of standing order 131,I now move:

That the petition praying that this House -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman may move that the petition be printed. He will not repeat its terms.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may move that the petition be printed. He will not repeat its terms.

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

-I move:

That the petition praying that this House withdraw its support from the Prime Minister in order that there may be a speedy -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member may move that the petition be printed. He will not repeat its terms.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I beg your pardon, Sir. I just want to identify it. In accordance with standing order 131 it is now my duty to inform the House what further action I propose to take. The further action I propose to take is this: I give notice that at the next sitting -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman wishes to indicate that he intends to move a subsequent motion, he will give notice when notices are called.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Thank you, Sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That the petition be printed ‘.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Are there any notices? Questions without notice? The honourable member for Moreton.

Mr Wentworth:

– I wanted to give notice of a motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes, but you did not rise when I called for notices. The honourable member for Moreton.

page 2197

QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2197

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that if a half-Senate election is held those Bills which meet the requirements of section 57 of the Constitution lapse? I further ask the honourable gentleman: Does he acknowledge the fact that the provisions of section 57 were designed to facilitate the resolution of conflict between the 2 Houses? If so, in view of the fact that there are some 21 Bills which meet the provisions of section 57, what argument does the honourable gentleman advance not to resort to the provisions?

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

-The honourable and learned gentleman is asking me for a legal opinion, which of course under the Standing Orders I am not entitled to give. I do not admit the validity of the proposition he put in the first sentence of his question. It is true, of course, that there is a very great number of Bills which have been twice passed by the House of Representatives in this Parliament and twice rejected by the Senate. On any of those Bills, in fact on all of those Bills, I am entitled to advise the GovernorGeneral to dissolve both Houses. It is plain, however, that there is a considerable number of other Bills which have already been rejected once or unjustifiably delayed by the Senate once and which are likely to be rejected a second time. Accordingly, it is right to await an opportunity so that all the pieces of legislation which the Government has put to the Parliament in keeping with its election promises, its undertakings to the people in 1972 and 1974, should come the requisite number of times before the Australian Senate. It is plain that the Senate has not yet completed its program of obstruction and destruction. When all the Bills which have already been delayed or rejected once by the Senate are so delayed or rejected a second time I shall advise the Governor-General to dissolve both Houses under section 57 so that these Bills still pending for delay and rejection can be put to the people in the same way as the 21 which the honourable gentleman has mentioned.

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Presentation of papers? Ministerial statements by leave? Notices?

The Clerk:

– A notice has been received from the honourable member for Mackellar that at the next sitting he will move:

That this House views with displeasure the attitude of the Government members who knowing that the present Government has forfeited the confidence of the electorate as a means to the prospertiy of Australia and it is unworthy of continuing in office, nevertheless, feel themselves as bound by the ALP pledge which they signed as a condition of obtaining party endorsement for their seats, that they refuse to do their obvious duty of voting in this House against the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Government business.

The Clerk:

– Notice No. 1 -Motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

page 2197

GRIEVANCE DAY

Notwithstanding the preceding standing order, the first order of the day, government business, on each alternate sitting Thursday commencing with the first sitting Thursday after the Address in Reply to the Governor-General’s Speech has been adopted shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker ‘That grievances be noted’ . . .

Until standing order 106 is suspended by this House this standing order applies.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Unfortunately the honourable gentleman is not as well aware of the Standing Orders as he would think. We are not on orders of the day. We are on notices. I call the Minister for Manufacturing Industry.

Mr Sinclair:

– You called on Government business.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended - (Honourable members interjecting)

Mr SPEAKER:

– We had better clear up this position. The standing order refers to the first item of Government business, and I called Government business. We are on notices.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister moving forthwith a motion expressing confidence in the Government and asserting the role of the House of Representatives.

I do this because yesterday in the Senate, because of a political decision against all precedent and principle, democratic government in Australia has been threatened. I move:

That the question be put.

Question put-

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 57

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question (Mr Lionel Bowen’s motion) put:

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 57

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2199

QUESTION

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I move:

That-

Considering that this House is the House of the Australian Parliament from which the Government of Australia is chosen;

Considering moreover that on 2 December 1972 the Australian Labor Party was elected by judgment of the people to be the Government of Australia; that on 18 May 1974 the Australian Labor Party was re-elected by judgment of the people to be the Government of Australia; and that the Australian Labor Party continues to have a governing majority in this House;

Recognising that the Constitution and the conventions of the Constitution vest in this House the control of the supply of money to the elected Government;

Noting that this House on 27 August 197S passed the Loan Bill 1975 and on 8 October 1975 passed the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 which, amongst other things, appropriate moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government;

Noting also that on 15 October 1975, in total disregard of the practices and conventions observed in the Australian Parliament since Federation, the Leader of the Opposition announced the intention of the Opposition to delay those Bills, with the object of forcing an election of this House; that on 1 5 October 1 975 the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate announced that the Opposition parties in the Senate would delay the Bills; and that on 1 5 October 1 975 the Senate, against the wishes of the Government, decided not to proceed further with consideration of the Loan Bill 1975;

Considering that the actions of the Senate and of the Leader of the Opposition will, if pursued, have the most serious consequences for Parliamentary democracy in Australia, will seriously damage the Government’s efforts to counter the effect of world-wide inflation and unemployment, and will thereby cause great hardship for the Australian people;

  1. This House declares that it has full confidence in the Australian Labor Party Government.
  2. This House affirms that the Constitution and the conventions of the Constitution vest in this House the control of the supply of moneys to the elected Government and that the threatened action of the Senate constitutes a gross violation of the roles of the respective Houses of the Parliament in relation to the appropriation of moneys.
  3. This House asserts the basic principle that a Government that continues to have a majority in the House of Representatives has a right to expect that it will be able to govern.
  4. This House condemns the threatened action of the Leader of the Opposition and of the non-government parties in the Senate as being reprehensible and as constituting a grave threat to the principles of responsible government and of Parliamentary democracy in Australia.
  5. This House calls upon the Senate to pass without delay the Loan Bill 1975, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76.

This motion brings to the formal notice of the House a situation of grave constitutional crisis without precedent in the Australian Parliament and the Australian nation- without modern precedent in the parliamentary democracies of the world. That situation arises from statements made outside this chamber by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) yesterday that the Opposition parties will use their numbers in the Senate to delay the Government’s annual Appropriation Bills, which have been passed by this House.

Subsequently the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) moved, and the Senate passed, an amendment to the Loan Bill 1975 that the Bill be not further proceeded with. It is transparently clear from what he said that the Opposition proposes to take the unprecedented step of blocking the Budget of the democratically elected Government of Australia.

In the face of the Leader of the Opposition’s attempt to sabotage the foundation of our parliamentary system, this House must, in unmistakeable terms, make clear its rights. For the rights of this House are nothing less than the rights of the Australian people. This House must expose the political opportunism of the Opposition in the Senate for what it is. And what it means is constitutional revolution- the proposition that governments can be unmade by the Senate and not by the House of Representatives- the people’s House.

Let me recall the words of the Leader of the Opposition:

The basic principle which I adhere to strongly is that a government that continues to have a majority in the House of Representatives has a right to expect that it will be able to govern.

He has professed that principle again and again. He knows the course of honour, of decency, of democracy. Yesterday he espoused a course of action which can only mean that he is willing to overturn his principles and overturn the basis of our system. There is the really reprehensible circumstance’ today- a man who knows what is honourable, yet who does the thoroughly dishonourable- the exact definition of a man without honour, a man without principle. As another self-indulgent wool grower said in putting personal interests ahead of the nation’s interest, video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor.

The House of Representatives- the people’s House- alone determines who shall govern Australia. Only 17 months ago, the people for the second time in less than 18 months, elected the Austraiian Labor Party to govern for a further 3 years. I state again the basic rule of our parliamentary system: Governments are made and unmade in the House of Representatives- in the people’s House. The Senate cannot, does not, and must never determine who the government shall be.

The Leader of the Opposition himself has asserted that basic principle again and again. In a very real sense he owes his present position to the assertion of that principle. He was only able to destroy his predecessor because the right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden) had fatally weakened himself by his attempt to subvert the principle in April 1974 and his failure to pledge that he would never again be party to another attempt.

By appearing as the champion of this basic parliamentary principle the present Leader of the Opposition drummed up support among Liberal senators who wanted security of tenure, and among the business community who wanted stability in politics more than they wanted a change of government. That was how he was able to destroy his leader- the second time he had destroyed a Liberal leader by posing as a man of principle. He enjoyed his honeymoon with the Australian people precisely because he professed the principle- the principle that the elected government had the right and responsibility to govern for its full term of 3 years. This is the man of principle, the man of honour, who stood up in this place on 9 March 1971 when he for the first, but not for the last time, destroyed his leader and said of the former Liberal Prime Minister of Australia, the present Independent member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) and the next senator for the Australian Capital Territory:

This man is unfit to be Prime Minister of Australia.

His own reproach will be his own epitaph. And it will be my exquisite duty soon to ram this message home to the people of Australia, in terms that neither they nor the Leader of the Opposition will ever forget.

The Leader of the Opposition announces with some pride that departments are running or will run short of funds. Of course they will run short of funds. The Leader of the Opposition is refusing to pass the Appropriation Bills in the Senate which provide for the ordinary annual services of the Government. He will be responsible for bills not being paid, for salaries not being paid, for utter financial chaos, and this will continue as long as the Leader of the Opposition refuses to allow the Senate to pass the Supply already authorised by this House, the people’s House. And now, like a pyromaniac he dances around the fire. He will get burnt.

Let us cut through the humbug. The Leader of the Opposition has been planning this action ever since he was elected. And all the nonsense about ‘reprehensible circumstances … or extraordinary circumstances’ was so much eyewash, so much a smokescreen for his real intentions. Look at the terms of the Senate resolution yesterday- the reasons it gives for delaying Supply, for not proceeding further with the Budget. It mentions the Government’s overseas loan raising efforts. There is nothing in that resolution which raises matters which were not fully known on 9 July when the House met to thrash this whole matter out. Yet neither then nor subsequently has the Opposition in this House ever moved a motion of censure or no confidence upon the Government on this matter, any more than it has ever been able to bring any specific charge of illegality or misconduct by the Government or the Ministers in our negotiations. It is absolutely plain that the Leader of the Opposition determined upon his course from the outset, just as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Withers, let the cat out of the bag, last time, when he said:

We embarked on a course some 12 months ago to bring about a House of Representatives election.

That is, from the time that the people of Australia had the impertinence to reject the men born to rule and to elect a Labor Government. Over the period of 75 years since Federation there have been 20 occasions on which the annual Appropriation Bills have come before a Senate in which the Government did not have a majority of its own. There has been a similar number of occasions in respect of the Supplementary Appropriation Bills and also of the Supply Bills. Not one of these Bills has ever been rejected. They number in all 139. 1 seek leave to table a list of the Bills concerned.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– Yes, leave is granted.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-On the other hand, numerous examples can be given of government measures other than annual Appropriation and Supply Bills that have been rejected by the Senate. In this 29th Parliament alone, in a bare 15 months, 22 Bills have twice been rejected by the Senate and a further ten have been rejected once, deferred or unacceptably amended by the Senate. The contrast between the record of the Senate over 75 years in respect of Appropriation and Supply Bills with its treatment of other Bills points to only one conclusion. The conclusion must be drawn that the treatment by the Senate of Appropriation and Supply Bills has reflected a firm conviction that the Bills for financing the annual services of government should not be rejected.

The specious protestation by the Leader of the Opposition that it is not rejecting the Budget will fool no one. But it does at least serve to reveal that even he is conscious of the gross violation of constitutional principles involved. He shrinks from calling his action by its true name.

There are compelling reasons why the Opposition cannot be allowed, in an unscrupulous grab for political power, to shatter the principles that have stood for 75 years. Appropriation and Supply Bills can originate only in this House and the Senate may not amend them for the ordinary annual services of the government.’ Responsible government on the Westminster model, upon which our system of government is founded, requires absolutely that the people’s House- this House- through which the Government is chosen, should hold financial paramountcy over an upper House. The convention has been clearly established that the Senate, which has no power to originate or amend money Bills, shall not block or reject them either.

The principle I -assert is the principle for which, I am certain, everybody who has stood in my place in this House would also. have stood firm in the three-quarters of a century that we have had a National Parliament. Prime Minister Menzies did. Prime Minister Holt did. Prime Minister Gorton did and does. I repeat the principle: The Government is formed in this House and is answerable to this House and this House must control financial matters. This has been the situation in every English speaking democracy. No other democracy would permit a situation where an upper House could reject a Budget.

In no other parliamentary democracy has the elected government been subject to the artificial pressures and intolerable stress to which this Government has been subject by the unconstitutional threat of an election every 6 months. And that threat has been sustainable only through the fortuitous, the accidental situation in the Senate- by the actions of a Senate described by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) as a ‘tainted Senate ‘.

Last night on television the Leader of the Opposition made 2 remarkable assertions, breathtaking in their audacious distortion of the truth. He said that the people of Australia had given his coalition a majority of senators at the last Senate election. The truth is of course that at the last Senate election the people not only recorded 200 000 more votes for the Australian Labor Party candidates- the Government- than for all other Parties represented in the Senate combined, but elected 29 Labor senators and 29 Opposition senators and 2 Independents. Because 2 State Premiers flouted another great constitutional convention, the Government now has only 27 senators. Yesterday’s Senate vote was a complete distortion of what the people decided about the Senate in May last year. The second assertion last night by the Leader of the Opposition was that the scandalous appointment of a replacement for the late Senator Milliner by the Queensland Government was not relevant to yesterday’s decision. Senator Steele Hall nailed this once and for all when he said:

Let it be remembered that the Opposition succeeded only because a Labor senator died. They did it over a dead man’s corpse.

If the Premier of Queensland had acted honourably and constitutionally by appointing a Labor supporter to hold Senator Milliner’s place then the Opposition’s amendment would have had as many senators voting against it as voting for it. Yesterday’s spurious resolution in the Senate would have been negated.

The political immorality of the Opposition is demonstrated further by the grossly improper incitement of non-Labor State governments to restrain the Governors of the States from exercising their duties under the Australian Constitution in relation to periodic Senate elections. On 24 occasions the Governor-General has suggested to the Governors of the States the date which they should set for elections of senators for their States. On four of those occasions- May 1953, December 1964, November 1967 and 1970- an election for the House of Representatives was not held. On all 24 occasions the State Governors met the Governor-General’s request. The years 1975 or 1976 could see the first time in the 75 years during which Australia has had a national Parliament, the first of the 25 occasions on which a Governor-General has put such requests to the State Governors, that a Premier advises a Governor to disregard constitutional practice, to fail in the duty which the Constitution imposes on a Governor. This outrage would be at the behest of the Federal Council of the Liberal Party last Sunday- the faceless men of the Liberal Party.

At this time particularly when constitutional issues are at stake it ill behoves any representative of the Crown to cast aside the traditions of his office and throw in his lot with one or the other of the political parties in dispute on national issues. It is a matter of grave concern that a man in this position can be so careless of his responsibility, so unconscious of the precedent, so unthinking as to the danger as the Governor of Queensland showed himself yesterday.

I have recently had occasion to quote many authorities on the perils of the course upon which the Leader of the Opposition has embarked- not least Sir Robert Menzies who founded his Party. Let me now quote Quick and Garran, writing at the time of the founding of the Australian Parliament:

The House of Representatives is not only the national chamber; it is the democratic chamber; it is the grand depository and embodiment of the liberal principles of government which pervade the entire constitutional fabric. It is the chamber in which the progressive instincts and popular aspirations of the people will be most likely to make themselves first felt . . . by the Constitution, it is expressly intended to be such a House, and by its organisation and functions it is best fitted to be the area in which national progress will find room for development.

And this, with a prescience, prophetic insight, that Quick and Garran would not have claimed for themselves, gets to the heart and the root of this present grave crisis. It is because this Government has attempted to make this Parliament the instrument for reform, for long overdue change, for progress, for the redistribution of wealth, for the uplifting of the underprivileged, for the reduction of the privileges of great wealth and deeply entrenched vested interests, an instrument towards equality of opportunity for all Australians, that our opponents and those vested interests have from the very beginning, as Senator Withers revealed, embarked on a course to destroy this Government at the earliest opportunity. But what they are really doing is destroying the very basis of parliamentary democracy in our country.

The Senate resolution talks about ‘submitting to the judgment of the people’. Precisely! This matter should be submitted to the judgment of the people. It will be submitted to the judgment of the people. The issue is the unconstitutional and undemocratic conduct of a chance majority in the Senate. The issue is the rejection by the Senate of a Budget designed to bring great benefits to this nation. It is the Senate which is on trial. It is the Senate which will have to submit to the judgment of the people. It is the Senate which has rejected the Budget. It is the Senate which must face the people. Again, in the indelible words of Senator Steele Hall, it is the Senate, the Liberal Party and the Liberal leader which, by the course they are now attempting, have sown the seeds of their own destruction.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

– It is an odd government that has to pass a motion indicating confidence in itself. When there is a universal judgment around Australia that this Government stands condemned for its actions, especially over the last 12 months; when there is a universal call around Australia for this Government to go to the people for an election, this Government has to use its synthetic temporary majority in this House to try to claim that it has the confidence of the Australian people. That will not deceive anyone any more than other actions of this Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) over the last several months when he has tried to seek scapegoat after scapegoat, to blame other Ministers for actions for which, if he were a man, he would take the responsibility as Prime Minister of this country. But he is not a man of that kind; he is the sort of man who condones the deception of this Parliament until it is forced out by other people. Then he blames a Minister, whether it is the Deputy Prime Minister or not, sacks him and says: ‘My hands are clean’, when he had the information, he had the knowledge, he knew of it and tried to keep it silent.

The Prime Minister brought this matter on because he fears questions. He fears to face the people of Australia. He fears to face the truth about himself and he knows quite well that it is other people who will suffer as a result of this. He said it is going to be a long hard road. How long and hard for a family on $70,000 a year? How long and hard for the average person who is betrayed? (Government supporters interjecting)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-How long and hard for the Prime Minister?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Honourable gentleman on my right will come to order. The Prime Minister was heard in comparative silence and I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition -

Mr Cohen:

– He was not.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will name the honourable member for Robertson if he interjects when I am standing. If he wants to vote in this I suggest he obey the rulings of the Chair. I suggest other honourable members do the same.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-How long and hard for the Prime Minister and his family on $70,000 a year? For that is the position of the Prime Minister. What concern does he have for the average people who have been betrayed by this Government from the inception of this Government? There is a general move toward an election which this Prime Minister denies. The Prime Minister quoted a number of eminent legal authorities. I wish to quote no more eminent a legal authority than the Prime Minister himself when he was in another place using other clothes and adopting other principles. This eminent legal authority, the Prime Minister, said in this Parliament in 1970:

If the motion is defeated, we will vote against the Bills here and in the Senate. Our purpose is to destroy this Budget and to destroy the Government which has sponsored it.

He was making it quite plain that he would use the powers of the Senate to defeat the Government. Again he said on another occasion on another Bill:

Any government which is defeated by the Parliament on a major taxation Bill should resign. This Bill will be defeated in another place. The Government should then resign.

He said:

This Bill will be defeated in another place.

By another place he meant the Senate. This eminent legal authority was asserting the power and the right of the Senate. What humbug have we had from this eminent legal authority today? He has spent 20 minutes and read a long resolution doing nothing but condemn himself and his own opinions when he was in another place with other clothes. He changes his clothes. He changes his principles as he changes his jobs. He has no respect amongst the people of Australia.

The charges against this Government for which it stands condemned are two- the gross mismanagement of this economy and the impropriety of the Prime Minister and his Ministers’ actions. We know there is record unemployment, which will reach 400 000 on the Government’s own admission, and record inflation. Home ownership is a dream that none can now reach or few reach as they once could, and the retired are being destroyed by the policies of this Government. There has been a failure to take responsibility by the Prime Minister. He sought scapegoats. The present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Crean) was one of those scapegoats. He sought overseas causes as the result of ills caused by his Government. He blamed the Treasury, the Treasurer. The former Deputy Prime Minister was going to be the saviour of Australia. Then he was denigrated and sacked by the present Prime Minister. He blamed excessive wage claims.

In all of this, overseas reports, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund, and his own Treasury in Treasury Statement No. 2 attached to his own present Treasurer’s Budget Speech blamed his own policies and the policies of” his Government. But now once again he turns to overseas causes seeking a scapegoat, seeking an alibi for his own failures, his own misconduct. The people of Australia will not be deceived by that for one moment. It is rooted in a lack of concern, a lack of understanding, a remoteness from the average Australian. His world has shrunk to this Parliament. He does not realise that performance here does not meet Australia’s needs. He is an ineffectual Falstaff. He is a dishonourable Richard III.

The impropriety of this Government’s actions date in particular from 13 December of last year, a date which will live in infamy in the records of this Government, this Caesar’s Ides of March. He then signed a document which said loans for 20 years were to be for temporary purposes. How can loans for 20 years be for temporary purposes when the purposes of the loans would have endured for up to 50 years or more? The Prime Minister said in answers to questions on notice that he would not have to go to the Loan Council because the funds were for temporary purposes, but in the same answer he said that, once consummated, the loans would go to the Loan Council- a complete contradiction in the one answer and the one question. Another answer which was given yesterday concerning the nature of temporary purposes is again a falsehood and a contradiction. The semantics of this Prime Minister have ceased to deceive any person in Australia. He said that no allegations or charges have been made against him or his Government. He must be blind, he must be deaf, if he does not know the charges which have been made of massive illegality and of possible conspiracy to defraud and to deceive the Constitution. These matters are all on record in this Parliament. They are unanswered to this day.

The Prime Minister said that the former Deputy Prime Minister was Labor’s gift to Australia, and he deliberately withheld a letter which would have indicated that the Minister had deceived this Parliament. By withholding that letter this Prime Minister condoned the deception but he was prepared to make use of it when it was published by the media. Then he was suddenly righteous and he had to sack the Deputy Prime Minister for a sin, if it were a sin, which he, this Prime Minister, had condoned. In that he stands as guilty as the perpetrator of the original deception.

When we look at the position of the former Minister for Minerals and Energy we see the same pattern. In May this Prime Minister gave instructions that documents concerning loans should go over his desk. How can anyone believe in his innocence? Does he not read the documents that go over his desk? Does not his Department follow instructions? In any case, he condoned the pursuit without authority and this week he said that the only deception was the fact that the Minister had not told him. The Minister should not have had to tell him because the departmental arrangements that the Prime Minister had made would have made automatic the knowing of it by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister seeks to deny such knowledge. How can anyone believe in his innocence? It is said that the only charge against the Minister was that the Prime Minister was not told. Who can believe that he did not know? He must have known, but the only way he can argue his innocence is to argue his own incompetence; and he can take either charge. There is a common thread in the sacking of colleagues to absolve himself. It ought to be noted that a president in another country did the same. Information was dragged out and dragged out over long periods. There was the sacking of colleagues to prove his innocence, but he was proved guilty himself in the end.

The Prime Minister now says that the people he trusted misled this Parliament or himself. Who else in his Ministry has misled him? Who else in his Ministry does he not trust? Does he trust the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) to whom is is now speaking? Why did he take telephone-tapping authority from the AttorneyGeneral? Does he not trust the AttorneyGeneral? Or does he want that telephonetapping authority in his own Prime Ministerial hands for political purposes? Does he not trust the Attorney-General with whom that authority ought properly to lie? Does he trust the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron) who may no doubt wish to speak in this debate the better to do in the longer term what he no doubt will achieve as his one last political ambition? Does he trust the present Treasurer (Mr Hayden), the present Deputy Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister has been trying to find out who has made available a certain Treasury document to the Opposition. Would it be reprehensible if that document came to us from a Treasury official or from somebody sitting beside him on the front bench? If it were somebody sitting beside him on the front bench would he believe that that person ought to resign? Would he want to know whether it was somebody from the Treasury or somebody from his front bench? Let me tell him that it is somebody who is sitting on the front bench at this moment. The person who made the document available did so because he believes that in the national interest the Opposition ought to have that information. He did it because he is a worthy person. But the Prime Minister needs to know whether he can feel confidence in the activities of all his Ministers. Would he believe that that matter would enable trust between himself and his colleagues? He has brought down his colleagues. He has brought, down his Party to the lowest depths at which it has ever been. He can no longer -

Mr Whan:

– They are right behind him.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-They will be right behind him as he walks over the cliff and takes them all to doom and destruction like lemmings falling into the sea. The Prime Minister cannot long delay the serious judgment of the Australian people. He cannot long avoid the masters of all people in this Parliament, in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. He can no longer run away from his own learned opinions as a lawyer when he was in another position wearing other clothes. He can no longer pretend that the principles he enunciated today were principles that he espoused when he was in Opposition. His principles suit his cause. Honourable members opposite know that he stands condemned before the people of Australia.

It might be worth asking those who sit beside him and those who sit behind him: Do they want an election now when 300 000 are unemployed or an election in February when 500 000 will be unemployed? If the Labor Party is to go to complete and absolute destruction honourable members opposite will allow this Prime Minister to delay the normal and proper course that ought to follow if a money Bill is defeated in either House, as this Prime Minister, this learned legal counsel, once so ably and briefly expressed in this Parliament. If honourable members opposite want a Labor destruction, let them follow this man to complete and absolute destruction. If they want another judgment, let them go to the people in the streets, the people in the factories, the people in their own electorates and see what they say of this Prime Minister. By way of amendment to the motion moved by the Prime Minister I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Anthony:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · Oxley · ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will jettison all principle in his desperate grasp at high office. He proved that again today in the way in which he is prepared recklessly to impugn the character of everyone on the front bench of this Government. The facts are that the identity of the person in the Public Service who leaks documents to the Opposition, the shadowy ‘Mr Williams’ is known to the Government. He is certainly known to me. I spoke with him yesterday. Although he would not be aware, I know his identity. He is known to most of the members of the Press Gallery in this Parliament if indeed not to all of them. The Leader of the Opposition’s attempt at fabricating another identity for that person will fail. The unbridled ambition of the Leader of the Opposition, a man who has destroyed two friendsone a Prime Minister and the other a Leader of the Opposition- has pushed this country to the brink of the most serious constitutional crisis since Federation.

The grotesque situation of possible social and economic chaos we are now facing is the product of his overwhelming lust for power. The unremitting efforts of members of the Opposition to manufacture issues to justify an election have merely been the mask to cover the ugliness and corruption of their ambitions at work. It is not credible for members of the Opposition to flog the so-called loans issue into another star as justification for an election. The only new issue that came out of the latest newspaper reports on this matter resulted, quite properly, in the resignation of a senior Minister. There is nothing more in those reports that adds to what already has been divulged earlier this year. But the Opposition is prepared to flaunt, to distort and to exaggerate in an effort to destroy by false imputation. Neither can the Opposition blame the Budget, which rests uneasily as hostage to a capricious Senate, for any economic problems that might exist now or in the near future. Apart from anything else there will be a lag of several months after the

Budget has passed before the full beneficial effects of it will be felt. Members of the Opposition blur the focus on our domestic economic problems falsely pretending that we alone grapple with these problems. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports make it clear, as did the recent International Monetary Fund Conference at Washington which I attended, that all countries are afflicted by these problems. Some non-oil producing lesser developed countries will probably default in their international financial obligations this year or at the latest next year. The advanced countries’ recovery is more sluggish than they would wish. The OECD reports show, on balance, that Australia is performing better than most other countries.

In a desperate effort to create an election situation the Opposition has mustered only a mild and forced protest at the stacking of the Senate; but it bears happily with the result. There has been an assault on our constitutional convention and a corruption of our parliamentary system. More violence has been inflicted on our parliamentary system by the Opposition in the last 12 months than in the rest of our constitutional history. There have been crude attempts to stack the Senate; obstruction to the proper processes of government; constant intimidation from the hostility of the upper House; and unremitting efforts to manufacture a condition, any condition, on which an election might be sought. Stolen letters, purloined documents, suborned public servants and even the economic incomprehension of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) have all been brought to bear, more often clumsily and more often ruthlessly, in a desperate effort to fabricate the conditions for an election. All have failed. Now the Leader of the Opposition shows that he is prepared to rock and perhaps even threaten the very foundation of our democratic system in pursuit of his ambition. He ignores the fact that the Government of the country is seated in the House of Representatives. He ignores the fact that the Government of the country in the House of Representatives has the control of that House and the confidence of that House and that that House has passed the Budget for this year. He has marshalled his hostile majority in the Senate, based on purely party lines, to impede that Budget.

It is the Senate which is the cause of the obstruction. It is the Senate through which the Budget has to pass. It is the Senate and not the House of Representatives where the remedy to this problem has to be established. It is also coincidentally a constitutional requirement that half the Senate should go to an election some time between now and 30 June 1976. Our course of conduct is entirely proper; that of the Leader of the Opposition, unredeemingly improper. He should declare now whether it is the intention of the Opposition to continue to defer the Budget or whether it is the intention of the Opposition, as he let slip today in the course of his statement to this Parliament, to defeat the Budget. If it is the intention to defeat the Budget let him say so and let the Opposition take that action and the consequences which flow from that action. The course of action which the Opposition has now set before this Parliament and this nation involves the gravest consequences for the country. It represents the most reprehensible conduct imaginable. The present course the Opposition is setting will grind this nation to a halt.

It is no exaggeration to assert firmly and with a great deal of concern that the economy of this country, if the present course of action which the Opposition has set in train is pursued, will get out of hand, that there will be a major economic collapse, that a substantial number of enterprises in the corporate sector will fail, that there will be an upsurge in unemployment and generally that there will be the worst deepening of the recession that we have seen at any time since the great Depression of the 1930s. Let us look at the effects of this course of action which the Opposition has set itself upon. It is true that about 60 per cent of what is covered in the Budget in fact is automatically appropriated by existing forms of legislation, but of the other 40 per cent a considerable amount of money is involved and a very wide range of people in this economy- in this social economic system- will be dependent for their success, for their capacity to sustain themselves in the near future, on the flow of money which comes from the passage of the Appropriation Bills. I refer to the suppliers of goods and services to the Government and the suppliers of goods and services to people who serve the needs of government, community agencies, States and overseas governments.

Let me give some illustrations of the effects of delaying the Budget either through the fiction of deferring the Budget or of rejecting it. Aged persons hostels, aged and disabled persons homes, organisations for assistance to the handicappedto give just a few examples- will not obtain money necessary to pay the people who provide the services. I mention the construction contractors who have built the buildings to accommodate the aged and those people who supply the goods and services necessary to allow those contractors to build those buildings. It does not take much imagination to appreciate the enormity of the problem which is about to beset this country if the Opposition persists with that line of action.

Hospital services will grind down. Much medical research will have to be stopped. The Council for the Aged, the Council for Social Services and the Red Cross Organisation, to mention 3 agencies in the community, will find that their funds will have dried up. They will not be able to function for long. Education in the States will be short of some $360m at least. I cannot see how the Defence forces will operate at all because included in those Appropriation Bills which are being delayed- or rejected- by the action of the Senate is $ 1 ,7 1 Om for that purpose. The Government of Papua New Guinea will be deprived of over $200m which is absolutely essential for it to maintain services in that community. This is happening at a crucial stage in the historic development of that nation, at the time when it has stepped across the threshold to independence.

People throughout this country will find that they will not be able to obtain their Medibank medical benefits. The State hospitals will find that the allocations of finance on the 50/50 cost sharing arrangement for operating costs under Medibank will not be available. Companies will find that taxation will continue at a much higher rate than we propose, at a cost of over $ 120m to them for this financial year. Individuals will find that their marginal tax rates will continue to climb steeply and be at a level of 45 per cent to 48 per cent on average weekly earnings as against the 35 per cent marginal tax rate which would apply under our new program. How sincere is the proclaimed concern of the wealthy grazier from Victoria who spoke a little while ago about the costs of taxation facing a family with an income of $7,000 a year?

In his Press statement released last night, the Leader of the Opposition said that the Opposition will ensure that pensions are paid. Of course, pensions are appropriated automatically, but they will not be paid at the increased rate which we propose and which is necessary if pensioners are to meet the increased cost of living that has ensued since the last increase. He said that he will ensure that public servants are paid so that pensioners may receive their pay cheques. But will the Leader of the Opposition also ensure that funds will be available for the purchase of cheque leafs, the purchase of equipment such as typewriter ribbons- these are very simple little things- the provision of power, the purchase of stamps which are necessary to post out the cheques, and funds to meet the costs of telephone calls to follow up inquiries from pensioners and beneficiaries of social security payments? Will he ensure that funds are provided for these purposes? This is the corner into which he has locked himself. It is further evidence of the absence of detailed consideration of the son of commitment that the Opposition is prepared to make in its desperate and unprincipled grasp for power.

Principles to the Opposition are like horses to a horse dealer. Let us look at the type of economic management that the Opposition is proposing to the Australian community as an alternative to the budgetary outline that we put forward. There has been some adaptation made to the original statement that the Leader of the Opposition delivered in his reply to my Budget Speech. It will be remembered that, on that occasion, he said that the Opposition would set the same deficit level that we proposed in our Budget, that is, $2,800m. But because there were other expenditure commitments- new expenditure commitmentsthere would be cuts of about $ 1,000m in the commitments that we had outlined in our Budget. The Leader of the Opposition identified $500m of those cuts, leaving $500m yet to be identified. However, more recently- this week in fact- the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asserted that the contingency planning of the Opposition if it is to be in government is to work on an expected deficit of $4,000m. This is an increase of some $ 1 ,200m over the level of deficit that this Government outlined. That $ 1,200m plus the $500m in unidentified cuts which remain unaccounted for represent a total of $ 1,700m in cuts in public expenditure.

Let us take the simple arithmetic a little further. This matter is crucial as what the Opposition is proposing as its form of economic management for this country has the most horrific implications in economic management and social consequences that are imaginable. Either the Opposition has not thought through what it is proposing or it is so incompetent that it cannot understand what it is that it is putting forward. Of the outlays in the Budget, a little over 38 per cent in fact goes to the States. That amount of money cannot be reduced in any way at all. This in turn means that that cut of $ 1,700m must be applied to outlays by the Australian Government. That sum represents cuts of well over 12 per cent in outlays committed by the Australian Government for its own purposes. More significantly, it represents a compression of those cuts into a 6-monthly period, that is, into the second half of the current financial year. So, the net closes as we get a better impression of the severity of the economic contraction which would follow as a consequence of what the Opposition is putting forward.

Let us look at what the Opposition’s proposals mean in real terms and what the effect will be on the Australian economy. In education this action would mean the sacking of at least 3 000 teachers, or it would mean more than 7 000 academic and non-academic staff at universities being retrenched. It would mean that at universities in the new year 25 000 fewer places would be offered to students. In defence it would mean the end of recruitment and a reduction in strength as a result of such a policy, of 6 000 men. But the effects would go further than that.

This action would result in the retrenchment of 10 000 servicemen and civilians. The conclusion of the Department of Defence is that the peacetime operating capability of the armed forces would completely vanish. In agriculture there would be no follow-up to reports by the Industries Assistance Commission, such as its recent report on the beef industry. No further rural reconstruction work would take place. There would be no rural re-establishment loans or war service homes credit. Let me cite only some of the instances of cutbacks with respect to Aboriginal affairs. There would be 150 fewer houses built and purchased through the Aboriginal housing association throughout Australia. The provision of Aboriginal medical centres to provide minimum medical health services, such as at Alice Springs, would need to be deferred. There would be a curtailment of town management services in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland.

The prescription of the Opposition for economic management is a prescription for chaos, just as the unbridled pursuit of the ambition of the Leader of the Opposition is a recipe for the destruction of the social and economic structure of this society, if he continues with it. It is the Senate that is on trial, not the House of Representatives. The Government has the control and the confidence of the House of Representatives. It is in the Senate that the impediments are being falsely put forward. It is the Senate which must account for itself before the Australian people.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party · Richmond

-Mr Speaker, we have listened to the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) who has used this opportunity to try to create fear in the Australian community as a result of the actions being taken or to be taken by the Senate. If there is any hardship, if there is any disruption, in this country as a result of the actions of the Senate, the blame will lie with the Government and with the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) himself. We have made it perfectly clear that our proposition is to defer the Budget until such time as the Prime Minister is prepared to face the real judges- the Australian people- as to who should govern this country. Immediately he makes that announcement, the Budget will be passed. There will be no disruption of Government services, of payments to pensioners or anybody else in the community; and the Government knows it. If those things happen, the blame will rest on the Prime Minister and the Government.

The Prime Minister is endeavouring to make the proposition that the Senate is trying to unmake the Government. That is what he saidthat the Senate is trying to unmake the Government, that it is going to change the Government. That is wrong. What the Senate is doing is allowing the Australian people to decide who will be the government of this country. But, of course, the Government is not game to face its jury. It is not game to let the people of Australia make a final decision as to whom they want to run this country.

Mr Speaker, there is no surer sign of guilt, there is no more certain indication that the Government has something to hide, than for the Prime Minister to move in this House the motion that we are now considering which pleads for confidence in himself and in his Government. If ever there was a clear sign that this is a broken decomposing government that is running scared, it is the motion before the House today. There is not more unmistakable evidence that the Government had doubts about itself and has a lack of confidence that it can win the Australian people’s support than a motion in this place seeking support for the Prime Minister. This incompetent, corrupt, discredited, pathetic circus calls itself the Government. Goodness me, it is obvious that it is running scared, that it is in really deep trouble.

The Australian public will not be fooled by this motion. Every man, woman and child knows that the Government has the numbers in this place. Of course it is going to win the vote on this motion, but what a sham it is for the Prime Minister to come into this place and ask for support and confidence. He should go and ask the other House of Parliament what it thinks of the Government; then he will get an answer. I think there is no more apt remark than one made by a certain Mr Hawke just a few days ago, and what did he say? He called this ‘the coward’s castle’. Well, certainly it is a coward’s castle today when the Prime Minister comes in here trying to get an endorsement, trying to get support. Why does he not go out into the real arena and face the Australian people and see whether they will give him support? There are, I believe, some good decent men on the Government side of the House, but how long are they going to put up with this Prime Minister? How long are they going to accept all the decisions made by this ruthless, ambitious man desperately clinging to office in his eleventh hour as he sees it sliding away from him? If they do just blindly follow then they will be leading themselves and their own Party to utter destruction.

Goodness me, I admire their loyalty. I will admire their loyalty if they support this motion of confidence today. I do not expect any of them to cross the floor of the House, but they have some deep thinking to do amongst themselves. As one Labor man who came out of the Caucus meeting the other day after the dumping and the sacking of the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) said: ‘If you want any loyalty around this place you had better go and buy a dog’. And that is pretty true. Certainly there is admirable loyalty amongst private members of the Labor Party and the Ministers to their Prime Minister, but how much loyalty is there in the Prime Minister to the rest of them? He will desert any one of them at any time to protect his own skin and that is what we have seen going on and on. This man is involved up to his neck in the overseas loans scandal and he knows that he cannot hide from it. But the rank and file members of the Labor Party have some real thinking to do. They must recognise the consequences of what this desperate man is doing. What he is trying to do now is to avoid the determination of the Senate that this Government should go to the people. That is what he is trying to do. He is trying to say that we are going to have an election for half the Senate. Have honourable members on the Government side thought of the consequences of that and of the consequences of dragging out the possibility of a House ofRepresentatives election till next year?

How long are the Australian people going to put up with this uncertainty and with this man doing anything to remain in office knowing full well that this is his last chance. He has no dignity or pride, otherwise he would resign as any man in his position would, or he would take his Party to the people for a decision. If the Government does decide to have a half Senate election and the Prime Minister goes out to the GovernorGeneral the Governor-General will have some questions to ask, and rightly so because he has been misled on 2 occasions by the Prime Minister. The first was on the proposition that the Petroleum and Minerals Authority question was a double dissolution issue. The GovernorGeneral had just been appointed so it was quite natural that this should sneak through, but the Prime Minister would not have been unaware of it. He thought he would get it through. Then there was the loans affair with the Executive Council minute. The Prime Minister went out there and misled him, pretending that he could get authority because the loan was for temporary purposes. The Governor-General was not even at that Executive Council meeting but when the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Minerals and Energy and the Attorney-General all signed the documents it was pretty natural that when the matter came before the Governor-General at a later date he would have thought it had been thoroughly examined and researched and that he would have signed it. But is he going to be so easy this time? When the Prime Minister goes out there and says: ‘I want a half Senate election’, the Governor-General must say: ‘What will you do if you do not get control of the Senate after a half Senate election? Are you going to come back to me and say that you want a double dissolution for the 23 or so Bills that are double dissolution issues now?’ I think the Governor-General would have to say to himself: ‘I could not ask the people to vote again in a Senate election, so it will just be a House of Representatives election’. Where will the ordinary Labor members be then when they have to face the people in a House of Representatives election knowing that they have not got control of the Senate and that there can be no double dissolution?

Those are the issues that they have to think about. Are they going along just like puppets following this Prime Minister who has only one thing in mind and that is to remain in office, because he knows it is slipping away from him? How much longer are people like the present Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean), the honourable member for Cunningham, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) and the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) the former Speaker of this House- all these people who were just dumped, who were sacrificed, who were good loyal Labor men with a long tradition associated with -

Mr Whan:
Mr ANTHONY:

-The honourable member for Eden-Monaro- are you prepared to dump your colleagues?

Mr Whan:

– We were all loyal before -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Eden-Monaro and I suggest that the Leader of the National Country Party not provoke members.

Mr ANTHONY:

-What I am endeavouring to do is to point out to the whole Australian public and especially the Labor members in this House that they had better not just go along with the desperate actions of this Prime Minister because he is prepared to pull everything down with the one ruthless ambition of staying in power. If he is just going to delay and delay and cause the hardship that the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) is trying to threaten the Australian people with - ( Government supporters interjecting).

Mr ANTHONY:

-He is doing it, nobody else. If there is going to be delay and double elections as a result of the Prime Minister refusing to face the Australian people then it is they, the members of the Labor Party, who will suffer. It is they who will see their finances drained away by election after election. They have some real thinking to do and all I can say is: Bigger fools they if they do not really think about the issue. I do not expect them to cross the floor of this House today. Everybody knows that this motion is a stunt. If the Labor members just let this Prime Minister run them then they will get whatever they deserve because there is no loyalty in him to any of them. They know that. His performance shows it and it is about time they rallied and decided whether the Prime Minister ought to go or whether they should watch their whole party being decimated.

The Prime Minister has tried to make a mockery of this. We know only too well from his former statements that he believes implicitly in the attitude the Senate is taking. Mr Whitlam on 12 June 1970 in this Parliament said:

Any government which is defeated by the Parliament on a major taxation Bill should resign. . .

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

The same thing was said by the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Murphy, who said that the Senate had absolute power and that the Labor Party would use that power in blocking any financial measure to pursue its own policies and its own beliefs. It is hypocrisy now to say that the Senate has not got the power. It has the power.

This Government realises that it has lost the support of the Australian people. It is frightened to face its electors. It is time that the Labor Party as a whole, if it has any wisdom, made a decision which is in the best interests of the Australian people and of preserving our parliamentary institution as well as its parliamentary party.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

- Mr Speaker, we have just heard a frightened speech by the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony), a speech in which he implored us on the Government side to try to do something to assist the Opposition. Having created the greatest constitutional crisis in Australian history the Opposition has now unleashed forces that nobody can effectively control. In a democracy we rely on the fact that the people who elect members to Parliament expect their members to honour the democratic rules of a constitution. If the Opposition parties tear up those rules, tear up that constitution, they unleash those forces so that there is no rule of law. The Opposition parties say that they are entitled to make their own rules. They should bear in mind that we on this side represent the trade union movement, the working people of this nation, and if the rules are to be that anybody can do anything he likes the Opposition parties must bear the brunt of the consequences.

We have been saying all the time that democracy is the most effective way to have progress in this nation. If things are to be left to another House, a House elected not in constituencies by the people but by State, a House with representation on geographical lines and not on heads of population, there will be unleashed all the dangers that are now apparent. It is not much good coming in here and saying that there will be a great risk for this nation unless this Government is removed. What rubbish! We on the Government side have done nothing but listen to threats from the Senate since we took office in December 1972. 1 am reminded that as far back as April 1-973 Senator Withers, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, threatened the withholding of Supply. He did it again in December 1 973. In fact he rejected Supply in April 1 974 and forced a double dissolution. Again in October 1974 there was a threat to Supply and now there is another threat to Supply. There have been no less than 6 threats to Supply since we took office.

The Opposition talks about democracy and the right of the Senate to reject legislation. Bear in mind that this legislation has not been rejected yet. There merely has been a threat that the Opposition will reject it. What right has Senator Withers to issue threats? Who does he represent from the point of view of the people of Australia? When was he elected to the people’s House?

Does this not relate to one of the great dangers of any constitution? The financial matters of the country must belong to the House of the people, not to the House of the States.

I want to make it clear that we have said time and time again that there can be an opportunity for a Senate to make a suggestion, but not an amendment, relating to the omission of a particular item in a Bill. This Senate is flaunting its authority, using its political muscle, because it is dictated to by the likes of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the privileged few in this Australian community who control the Press and the money and who are saying how they think this country should be run. We have done nothing but face threats of Supply. We won the elections and this Government is entitled to serve its full period of 3 years.

Let us consider the threat envisaged by the founders of the Constitution. Honourable members should turn back to the debates of 1898 about whether there should be equal power between the Houses. That proposition was rejected, and properly so. They can read about the New South Wales representatives saying: ‘We give the Senate the right to go over an Appropriation Bill and to suggest in its wisdom some alterations but is it not inviting disaster to give it equal judgment in these matters? It would be a calamity for democracy if there was to be equal judgment on a financial basis’. The Constitution is designed on the basis that there would be no right to reject appropriation matters. Section 53 of the Constitution clearly says that appropriation matters can be initiated only in this House and sections 54 and 55 place restrictions on this House as to the type of legislation it can submit to the Senate. This House cannot put any type of matter in an Appropriation Bill; such a Bill must be limited to appropriation. A taxation Bill has to be limited to taxation. In case it is thought that we could put anything in those Bills in addition, the Senate could say: ‘You are trying to by-pass us because we really do not have the power to reject your Supply’. There are clear inhibitions in sections 54 and 55 relating to this House on the basis that the Senate could never reject Supply. If it did there are all the calamitous results that the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) told the House about today- the defence forces are in jeopardy, Medibank is in jeopardy, pensions are in jeopardy and the whole nation comes to a standstill.

In my portfolio of Manufacturing Industry, the most advantageous thing for industry is confidence in there being proper government elected for a period of 3 years. Honourable members opposite can argue about the merits of taxation and whether company tax should be 216 per cent higher or lower but that is somewhat irrelevant to the basic issue of whether we have continuity of government and continuity of democracy. We cannot have such things in this country with this Senate which is controlled by party room deliberations and decisions as to what should be done. It does not want what the elected representatives of the people say but what the people in the Opposition parties say.

Are we to look at the Leader of the Opposition as being the rightful Leader of the Opposition elected by the people of Australia? Not at all. We have heard this hypocrisy about him having a mandate to be the Leader of the Opposition. That is betrayed in his own way by his own conduct. In the 6 years that I have been in this Parliament I have seen him destroy the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) on the basis that he, the honourable member for Wannon, wanted to determine who should be the Prime Minister of this country. Do honourable members opposite honestly believe what was said as far back as November by the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) when he claimed that he was promoting the honourable member for Wannon without that member’s knowledge? Do members of the Opposition seriously believe that that could have happened? It certainly was not believed by the rght honourable member for Higgins. The Hansard record of the Senate proceedings show that recently there was some discussion about some conversation made in the dining room of this Parliament 12 months ago when Mr Fraser and the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) were present. That discussion was about how to organise matters to reject supply. At that stage the honourable member for Wannon was not the leader of his Party. Do honourable members opposite think that these things happen by accident? They happen by design. Honourable members opposite will bring anything into this Parliament to betray an elected government. They use the power of the Press to misprint news on the basis that right is never published. There is always merely a suggestion of bribery, corruption and wrongdoing.

The Leader of the National Country Party spoke about this being a coward ‘s castle. He was attacked on that basis by Mr Hawke. They were the words Mr Hawke used about the Leader of the National Country Party who recently criticised in this place the findings of a royal commission because they did not suit him. He said that the commission did not work assiduously at its task. What right has the Leader of the

National Country Party to betray the judiciary of this nation and to betray the Constitution? That is what is happening in this country today. How do the Opposition parties expect democracy to survive? We are saying to the trade union movement that there is a rule of law and a course of conduct open. We are saying that arbitration is the correct method of wage determination. We introduced wage indexation and we are winning despite the opposition of the Opposition parties. Members of the Opposition opposed wage indexation. They were the people who opposed the referendum on prices and incomes. They have opposed every action by this Government aimed at trying to get economic stability.

Honourable members opposite come in here and talk about unemployment and the problems of it. Of course those problems exist. However, we have a Budget designed to mitigate them, to assist the unemployed and the under-privileged. What part of the Budget does the Opposition object to? What part of the Budget would it reject as being the wrong fiscal amount? Not one bit of it. The Senate does not even have the courage to debate the Budget. All it is saying is to suggest that there is something wrong with this Government from their point of view. The only thing wrong with this Government is that it keeps defeating the Opposition. The real problem facing the Government is that it will not kow-tow to the friends of the Opposition parties and the people who support them.

Why is it that the Opposition cannot accept the verdict of the people? Why is it that the Opposition relies on the Senate which does not have the support of the people but which purports to be the financial House when the Constitution says that that is not to be? Why would it do so? I will tell honourable members why. Because the Constitution itself under sections 80 to 100 apportions the tax collected. Section 87 of the Constitution states that the money collected is to be divided on the basis that three-quarters goes to the States and one quarter is retained by the Australian Government. So there was no need to have the power of rejection in the Senate because at that stage it was clearly stated in the Constitution that the fiscal resources of the nation would be divided on the basis that only one quarter at most would be retained by the Australian Government.

Now we have a situation, because income tax was invented, in which the Australian Government has other responsibilities. The power has always been with the elected House. To put it any other way will destroy the democracy in this country. It is futile for us to go back to the people who elected us and say: ‘We are sorry. We cannot continue to govern because somebody in the Senate- his name happens to be Withers- has decided that he won’t let us’. No respectable nation could put up with that sort of autocracy, that sort of tyranny. It cannot last. The Senate is sounding its own death knell if it continues to function in this way. Honourable members opposite would not expect us, as a democratic government, to say: ‘We will have an election for the House of Representatives. We are really not too clear what will happen in the Senate but whatever the Opposition says will be all right with us. If they want to reject Supply every 12 months we will run to you people and ask you to put us in office again’. Can honourable members imagine anything more ridiculous?

If honourable members want to look at the legal powers, what are the powers of the Senate? The Senate has no fiscal powers. If there was a double dissolution because of the rejection of a taxation Bill, in the joint debate that may take place following the election, the senators could not take part in any amendment that was moved. They would have to walk out. From the point of view of the Constitution what a laughing stock they would be. If we did have a double dissolution on a taxation Bill and we moved an amendment the senators would have to walk outside. That is the way in which the Opposition wants to interpret the laws.

Let us make it clear. We have a mandate for our policies. The objection and the obstruction have come from vested interests opposite that do not have the support of the people. When we spoke in this place about educational reform, who opposed us most bitterly? It was the present Leader of the Opposition. When we introduced the Schools Commission Bill to give some justice to the underprivileged children of Australia, who opposed that legislation most? Once again it was the present Leader of the Opposition. I am not referring to the Country Party. I will exempt it from my comments here, which is to its credit. Why is it that the members of the Country Party support that sort of hypocrisy? Why is it? Senator Rae nearly went off his mind trying to stop Press announcements being issued by the Leader of the Opposition about what he would do with the Schools Commission Bill.

That again displayed the Opposition’s attitude that we must build up the elite and we must always maintain the position of privilege. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the Prime Minister’s income of $70,000. Why the Leader of the Opposition’s wool cheque would be at least that amount. He would not want to worry about that. What about the subsidy on superphosphate that he gets? He should refer to those sorts of matters if he wants to talk about wealth and privilege.

I should like to return to the issue of education. We found that the managerial class, the elitist class, had a majority of positions in universities. Yet the industrial working group, which comprises 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the nation, had as little as 17 per cent or 20 per cent of those positions. We found that because of socioeconomic circumstances children who were bright and had a lot of ability did not finish their secondary schooling. They never had a chance if they belonged to the working class. We have brought legislation into this Parliament on the basis of equality of education. This year we are allocating $ 1,900m to education. That is now in jeopardy.

The legislation dealing with budgetary matters contains an allocation to the States of $8,600m. That again is in jeopardy. What part of our Budget do honourable members opposite decry? What part or our Budget do they say should be rejected? We say that there is not one error in the Budget. It is the best Budget for Australia at the present time. It is a Budget that can give this country continuity of purpose. The Opposition’s amendment is spurious. It has been conditioned by people outside. I warn honourable members opposite that we may not be able to control the forces that they have unleashed today. They will be to the Opposition’s detriment. How long will a newspaper last if the printers refuse to print it? How long will a television station run if the technicians refuse to man it? Is not this the criteria that they now set? If the Oppositon is not willing to give justice or the appearance of justice under the Constitution, it deserves to have unleashed on it all the terror -

Mr Nixon:

-Is that a threat?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is not a threat. It is normal. We will say that it is about time we got a new Constitution, one in which the people count and in which elected representatives make the rules. We should not have somebody hiding behind some party directive who will determine what is best for this nation. The amendment should be rejected. It is a great danger for this nation that the Opposition dares to encourage the action that was taken yesterday. I urge the Opposition in the Senate to pass that legislation.

Mr KILLEN (Moreton) < 1 1.45)- I think the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Lionel Bowen) deserves to be reminded that it is not the Budget that is under discussion. I would hasten to remind him that when I rose in this place to speak on the Budget I was gagged. So when the invitation came from the honourable gentleman to discuss the Budget it seemed to me to come from a most curious source. When I sought to speak on the Budget it was the honourable gentleman who mustered the numbers to prevent me from speaking. I want to point out to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry that what is under discussion in this matter is the honesty of the Government. I want to say in plain terms: This is a dishonest Government.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You prove it.

Mr KILLEN:

– I will prove every syllable of it.

Mr Keating:

– You are a hypocrite. You are a shocking hypocrite.

Mr KILLEN:

– Poddy calves do not worry me in the least. This is a dishonest Government. I know the honourable member for Blaxland will not like the charge but he will not particularly like the proof either. The place for dishonest men is in gaol, not in the national Parliament. I shall begin with the charge. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) -

Mr Duthie:

– That is a rotten statement that you just made. Why do you not withdraw it? Mr Speaker, I take objection to that statement that the honourable member for Moreton has just made that we are dishonest and that we are fit for gaol. You retract that.

Mr KILLEN:

– I was speaking of the Government and you are not a member of the Government.

Mr Duthie:

– You retract that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Moreton will sit down. The honourable member for Wilmot will not direct the Chair to do anything. I have ruled in this House before that when a member makes a collective accusation he cannot be ordered to withdraw the words used. If that is the member’s wish, he is entitled to do it. I call the honourable member for Moreton.

Mr KILLEN:

– This whole sad business began with the actions of 4 men- the Prime Minister, the former Deputy Prime Minister, the former Attorney-General and the former Minister for Minerals and Energy. What did those 4 men do? They got together and put through an Executive Council minute purporting to raise $4,000m for temporary purposes- over 20 years. What person who would give the slightest substance to the English language would say for one minute that a loan for 20 years was a loan for temporary purposes? But the Attorney-General of the day signed the minute; the Prime Minister who still is the Prime Minister signed it; the former Deputy Prime Minister signed it and the former Minister for Minerals and Energy signed it. Then they took the Executive Council minute to the Governor-General and, to the eternal disgrace of any gathering of Ministers, they got the Gover-nor-General to sign that minute, which was a false Executive Council decision. It was a wicked Executive Council decision.

Mr Duthie:
Mr KILLEN:

– It was a grossly dishonest Executive Council decision.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is as aware as I am that he is reflecting on the Governor-General. He is not entitled to use the Governor-General’s name to influence debate in this chamber under the Standing Orders of this chamber. I suggest that he not do so.

Mr KILLEN:

– I come to the next sorry pass in this whole melancholy business. That Executive Council minute was rescinded. Another minute was substituted, this time in more modest terms, for $2,000m. The loan was to be over 20 years, still for temporary purposes. It was still a gross outrage against the simple meaning of language. The Prime Minister in this place was asked by the Leader of the Opposition what he would do with respect to the Loan Council. What was his response? He said: ‘Oh, I will tell the Loan Council about it when we get the loan. ‘ Every person who has looked at the Financial Agreement knows that if a loan is raised for defence purposes it does not go to the Loan Council; if a loan is raised for temporary purposes it does not go to the Loan Council. Why would the Prime Minister say to the Leader of the Opposition: ‘Oh, I will inform the Loan Council. ‘? If it was only for temporary purposes there was no obligation on the honourable gentleman to go to the Loan Council. It was a display of dishonesty, in terms of reason if not in terms of action.

But today the Prime Minister came in here- I concede that he was at his imperial best- and quoted Latin to us. Oh yes, he reminds me strongly of all the Roman emperors. I think that he would find himself very much at ease in discussing, for example, with Nero the events of the day. Just imagine Nero after the Prime Minister had told him what he had done to this country. Nero would have looked out on the city of Rome and he would have said: ‘I have shown great solicitude to my city as I fiddled when it burned.’ Imagine the honourable gentelman discussing the affairs of state with Caligua, who appointed his horse Consul. When the honourable gentleman told the facts to Caligua, Caligua would have thought that he gave a dashing display of rationality. Today the honourable gentleman seeks to impeach us. But he was the one in 1970, as Leader of the Opposition, standing in this place who said: ‘We will reject a tax Bill. We will destroy the Government in another place. ‘

Mr Kelly:

– Who said that?

Mr KILLEN:

-The Prime Minister said that. If the Prime Minister took that view in 1970, what has happened to him that he takes a contrary view today? What was so splendid about the logic in 1 970 that it is rejected today, in 1 975?

Mr Mathews:

– What is your view?

Mr KILLEN:

– I want to give my view, I trust, in terms that even the honourable gentleman’s mind can comprehend. The argument which was pressed upon us by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry and indeed by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden), that there is danger in this process, would be a valid argument indeed if the Parliament did not have at its disposal double dissolution machinery which has been in existence now for 12 months or 18 months, since the Government was returned. If ever there has been an outrage against any constitutional provision, this Government has outraged section 57 of the Constitution. There are 21 Bills which conform with section 57 of the Constitution, and the Prime Minister knows only too well that he has only to get into his car, go to Yarralumla, make an application to the Governor-General and ask him to dissolve both Houses of the Parliament.

Mr Hunt:

– Why does he not do so?

Mr KILLEN:

– He will not go because he is a frightened man. Why is it that the Prime Minister has allowed what has been described as a log jam- a storehouse- of double dissolution Bills? Would any person seriously charge the Opposition with embarking upon some dangerous course if the Senate were not in the position where there had been a strict compliance with the provisions of section 57 on no fewer than 21 occasions? That distinguishes the role of responsibility from the role of irresponsibility. All that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Manufacturing Industry have to do is to prevail upon the Government, in its corporate sense, to say: ‘We want to resort to section 57 of the Constitution. We want to seek a double dissolution’.

The last thing I want to say to the honourable gentleman is this: Yesterdy he cited to this House the authority of Sir Robert Menzies in 1932 with respect to the constitutional role of those who hold gubernatorial office. That was as it applied in 1 932. 1 hope that he would not be offended if I were to remind him of what was said by a man who once led the Labor Party, the late Right Honourable Dr Evatt, in his classic work The King and His Dominion Governors. He said that surely it is wrong to assume that the GovernorGeneral is a mere tool in the hands of the dominant political party. I trust that the Prime Minister will reflect well upon these words. Today this country has to take into comtemplation the actions of a dishonest government, a government from which 2 Ministers have been dismissed because they misled Parliament. The language is not mine; it is the language of the Prime Minister. He said: ‘It was my painful duty to dismiss the Minister for Minerals and Energy because I was misled’. If the former Minister for Minerals and Energy was dismissed because he misled this Parliament, with a stronger strength the Prime Minister should be dismissed because he misled this Parliament in relation to the whole of the loans scandal.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Today we stand in the centre of a grave constitutional crisis that threatens to destroy the fragile fabric of the democracy that holds our nation together. It is a crisis that has been engineered by a man bent on getting power at any cost. I refer, of course, to the present rich and elitist Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Is this not the same man who on 10 March 1971 brought about the downfall of his own Liberal Prime Minister by one of the shabbiest acts of betrayal ever written in the history of Australian pontics? Is this not also the same man who, in order to satisfy his lust for power, twice betrayed and finally destroyed another leader of his party? He says that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) changes his principles. He could have added ‘like I change my knives.’ Is this not the same man? Of course it is. How could the Australian electorate trust him to preserve the sacred tenets of our way of life? He has shown that nothing that stands in his way in his drive for power is sacred. In his thrust for power the Leader of the Opposition is willing to violate every principle, every convention and every tradition that form an integral part of our parliamentary system of government. He will do this even though his action brings about the total collapse of the parliamentary system of government.

Why does this man of privilege and inherited wealth want power so desperately? The answer is simple and it is frightening. He simply wants power for power’s sake. This is the self-styled man of principle. The man who twice disposed of his own elected leaders in his grab for power is now prepared to destroy the whole parliamentary system to satisfy his mad obsession to rule those whom he so deeply despises. Compare that man with the man he seeks to displace, the man who came to power in 1972- the present Prime Minister. He came to power inheriting 1 500 000 people who had no health coverage, 400 000 kids at school who were suffering serious disadvantages, people in 70 per cent of cases in the magistrates courts in New South Wales having no legal representation, and pensions at only 18 per cent of average weekly earnings- they are now at nearly 25 per cent. This same great Prime Minister is now fighting for the right to continue to right the wrongs of 23 rotten years of Liberal government. Australians love a fighter, especially when he is fighting for them and when he is fighting for the traditions, conventions and principles that are critical to the survival of the system of government that the Australians hold so dear to them. Not the survival of the Government, but the survival of the system of government is what we are talking about.

The Prime Minister has a bounden duty to defend Parliament and the conventions of Parliament against the violence which the Leader of the Opposition is attempting. It is a duty which he is prepared to carry out and I admire him for it as everyone must. How could any lover of democracy fail to admire the fighting qualities, the resilience and the intellectual qualities of the present Prime Minister? Why is it that the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party is now being seen at its magnificent best? Why is it that the Labor movement outside the Parliament is now more solidly united than ever before? It is because of the inspiration given by the Prime Minister in this present crisis, the man who in this Parliament stands out like a giant against the intellectual and moral pygmies who sit opposite him. It is because the Prime Minister has thrown down the gauntlet in defence of parliamentary government that I stand proudly beside him. That is why I and my ministerial colleagues stand solidly behind the Prime Minister in this, the most important fight of his life, the most important fight that the Australian people have ever fought in their lives.

The forthcoming Senate election is more than a party political contest; it is an election which will call upon the electorate to decide whether a government elected for a constitutional term of 3 years should or should not be allowed to complete its constitutional term. That is what it is about. If an elected government is not to be permitted to govern for its full constitutional term, why have elections at all? Only yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said that if elected he would need a full 3-year term to get Australia back to where it ought to be. But he will not give the Whitlam Government a full 3-year term to correct all of the evils of 23 years of rotten Liberal government. Of course the Leader of the Opposition has a program. It is designed to restrict the freedom of our Press and even the Liberty of our workers. He even rings up the Press barons in order that the Press men, the working reporters, will not be free to speak the truth and to publish the truth, so that the Press barons will put the jobs of the reporters in peril if they do other than follow the editorials of their newspapers.

Let the unions make no mistake about this. In public the Leader of the Opposition speaks about having a system of sanctions in our industrial system and in private he talks about gaoling union leaders. He will not deny this because it is true and he cannot deny it because he would not want to stand branded as a liar. I call upon my friends and supporters in the trade union movement, of whom I have many hundreds of thousands, to rally behind the Prime Minister’s call, to stand up and to defend the system of government by the people, of a government entitled to govern for its full 3-year term, enshrined by the Constitution as the right of all elected governments.

The rich and the privileged Leader of the Opposition wants government by big business, not government by properly elected representatives of the people. The people are many; the moguls are few. Yet it is the representation of those privileged few who have brought us to this very brink of mob rule. A frightening abyss is certainly before us now. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that because he is getting millions of dollars from the foreign-owned multinational corporations that now have a stranglehold on Australia’s main industries and its mineral and energy resources that that will win him the election. This Senate election will not be won by the party that gets the most dollars from foreign racketeers who stand to gain so much from the election of a Fraser government. This election will be won by the party that gets the most votes from the sensible, decent Australians who value the system of democracy. The election will be a contest between foreign dollars and Australian votes, the votes of men and women who want to keep Australia Australian and who want parliamentary democracy to remain democratic.

Without parliamentary democracy what is there? Why should the masses tolerate this mockery of democracy? What will prevent the masses from becoming a mob and what will then stand between the classes of privilege and the mob once the institution of parliament is destroyed? Who will then man the powerhouses, the oil refineries and the transport systems? Who then will man the ships, mine the coal and man the wharves? The Opposition cannot do that with guns and bayonets. It cannot do that with its wealthy racketeer friends. Revolution does not ever happen until some spark ignites the dynamite. The steps which the Opposition has now taken could be the spark that will bring down all the institutions in this country. Because, after all, what is the use of asking people to abide by the parliamentary system of government when that system is not allowed to operate? The people of Australia must speak out and they must say in a clear unequivocal voice that they want to preserve this system, they want the right to elect the government of their choice and they want that government to be given the specific constitutional tenure of office.

It is not only the institution of Parliament that is now threatened but also the judiciary, the Public Service and the statutory arms of government are now under threat. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition now to deny honourable members opposite need not laugh that he told colleagues that if elected to government he would abolish the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the courts and that he would reconstitute them with people of his own choosing. I challenge him to deny that he has told colleagues that he believes that appointments are more important than laws. If the Leader of the Opposition dares to deny that he made these statements to his colleagues I ask the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) to stand up and deny that he was present when the Leader of the Opposition made statements to that effect I challenge Senator Young to stand up in his place and deny that he heard the Leader of the Opposition declare that he would abolish the Commission and the courts and reconstitute them with his own men. That is the sort of man who is now putting himself to the Australian people as an alternative to the present Prime Minister, a man who will tear to shreds all of the conventions that prop up the institution of Parliament. After all, what is the institution of Parliament without its conventions and traditions? Without these it is nothing more than a white building on the brow of a hill occupied by some 180 people who call themselves either senators or members of the House of Representatives.

Parliament does not derive its strength, its authority, its respect and power from the shell of masonry that carries the name of Parliament House. Nor does it derive its power and respect from the people who sit in its chambers; it derives its power, respect and authority from the fact that people identify Parliament with a whole wide range of ancient traditions, conventions and principles without which it can no longer act as the barrier between our present way of life and the mob which would seek to change it. And yet, it is they, the privileged sections of the community and the Press barons, who have most to lose from the destruction of the present system. They, the Press barons, the mining magnates, the foreignowned multinational corporations, the ruling classes generally, the barons of business and the privileged classes are now urging the Opposition to embark upon the course of action which will destroy the only bastion which stands between them and the mob.

Why is it that those who work for their living and constitute the majority of our people have so far turned a deaf ear to the calls that excited their brothers and sisters at the turn of the century? Once working people see that their chosen governments are not to be allowed to govern, what is it that will stop them from responding to those memorable lines of Percy Shelley who, in conditions very much like those which will apply when the collapse of the parliamentary system occurs, made this clarion call to the men of England:

Rise like Lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number-

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you-

Ye are many they are few.

This Parliament stands between the rule of the mob, the law of the streets and society as we know it and have enjoyed it throughout our country. Without convention and tradition this Parliament is nothing more than a shabby, overcrowded building. It represents nothing. The Senate election now due to be held will determine the fate of the parliamentary system of government. That is what the Senate election is about. It will determine whether this country is to be governed by laws made in Parliament by the people freely chosen by the Australian voters, or whether we are to be governed by laws that are made in the streets.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

-Mr Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Malcolm Fraser’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 57

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original motion (Mr Whitlam’s) put-

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 57

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 12.33 to 3 p.m. (Quorum formed)

page 2218

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HAYDEN:
OxleyTreasurer · ALP

-Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr Sinclair:

– No, leave is not granted.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Do you run the House now?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Treasurer is seeking my permission. Does the Treasurer claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Yes. In the course of the debate this morning, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said that someone on the Government front bench had been responsible for giving an important Treasury document to him. I have approached all members -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to take a point of order. I suggest that this is not a personal explanation within the normal course that personal explanations should follow. No reference was made in what was said to the Minister concerned. No leave was granted for a statement to be made.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! On previous occasions, honourable members have made personal explanations when imputations have been made which could be taken to have been directed at them. I think that the position of the Treasurer on this occasion is one in respect of which a personal explanation would be in order.

Mr HAYDEN:

– This morning, in the course of the debate the Leader of the Opposition said that a member of the front bench of the Government had supplied him with a Treasury document. I have approached all members of the Cabinet in this House and in the other place and I am assured that, as I expected, this statement is completely untrue. As far as I am concerned, it is completely untrue. It is a shame that the Leader of the Opposition in his desperate drive to fulfil his ambition is prepared to traduce the character of other people.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Treasurer will not debate the question.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I merely want to say that what has been established this morning is that the Leader of the Opposition is thoroughly untrustworthy.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat.

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · ReidMinister for Urban and Regional Development · ALP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN:

– Yes. In regard to the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser), as far as I am concerned they are completely false.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes. I say that that statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is completely false. To suggest that I, as one of the members of the front bench on the Government side, should have given anybody a copy of any Treasury document is absolutely untrue and I deny it.

Mr Sinclair:

– On a point of order Mr Speaker, the Treasurer, I think, accused the Leader of the Opposition of being untrustworthy.

Mr Hayden:

– That is right.

Mr Sinclair:

– I did not hear whether he said so. If he did say so, I ask that he withdraw.

Mr Hayden:

– I said that this morning the Leader of the Opposition proved beyond any doubt that he is thoroughly untrustworthy. I stand firmly behind that statement.

Mr Sinclair:

– I ask for a withdrawal of that statement.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You cannot ask for it.

Mr Sinclair:

– I ask that it be withdrawn in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is not in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition can ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr Sinclair:

– I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition can ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes. This morning I was in the House when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) contended that a Minister at present sitting in the House had given him a document. I say that if that remark can be construed as being directed at me I regard it as reprehensible and without any factual basis.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to take a point of order. With great respect, one of the procedures of this Parliament is that persons are able to speak collectively of members on the other side of the chamber. If on every occasion when somebody spoke collectively of a group we were to have each and every member of that group stand up and seek to make a personal explanation, this Parliament would never function properly. I suggest to you that what is being done-

Mr Cohen:

– One member of the front bench was accused.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Oh, be quiet. I suggest that what is being done is out of order because the Leader of the Opposition did not categorically name any person or any of the Ministers. Therefore I ask you to rule accordingly.

Mr Wentworth:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will sit down.

Mr Wentworth:

– On the point of order -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will sit down. I will rule on the point of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– Could I just -

Mr SPEAKER:

-No, you cannot. I have told you to sit down.

Mr Wentworth:

– Before you rule -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! You will sit down.

Mr Wentworth:

– But Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Resume your seat! When the Treasurer was on his feet, I said that I thought he had a special position in this matter. He was the Treasurer at the time in question and the allegation was made with respect to a Treasury document. I feel that the proceedings of the House would be made a farce if a collective imputation were to be denied by every member of the House in turn.

Mr Enderby:

– But a Minister?

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is not unusual for allegations to be made against members of a particular political party, collectively. If a member makes an imputation in such broad sweeping terms, it has been usual in the past for the House not to allow personal explanations on such an imputation. I would uphold the point of order.

Mr Enderby:

- Mr Speaker, may I speak to that point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Just one moment. I would uphold that point of order. If -

Mr Crean:

– On the point of order -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! As it has been insisted upon by members of the Opposition, I have to uphold that point of order.

Mr Crean:

– May I make a statement that, I think, may throw some light on this rather curious event?

Mr Sinclair:

– Leave is granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is granted. I call the Minister for Overseas Trade.

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I think this matter arises out of a statement which the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) made the night before he left to go overseas, following the speech which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made on behalf of the Opposition when replying to the Budget. In that speech, the Leader of the Opposition made certain extravagant calculations about what he proposed to do and what the Government was proposing to do. My colleague, the Treasurer, who in all courtesy had listened to the Leader of the Opposition, made a statement before he left for overseas. The Treasury prepared an analysis of the contents of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Budget Speech by the Treasurer. That matter came up in this House the next day. From memory, I think it was about 17 or 18 August.

As usual, those prescient gentlemen of the Press who write under their own names and get hold of documents dealt with this matter. I would submit with all respect that I do not know what the document is that is supposed to have been obtained. I invite honourable members to look at the reply which I gave, because I was then the Acting Treasurer, either to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) or the Leader of the Opposition. I am not quite sure to whom I gave the reply. I virtually quoted the whole of that document as far back as August. I would suggest that those who are trying to make some great capital out of the document- I do not know how many copies of it exist- are trying to reflect upon the integrity of the Cabinet since that time. This seems to me to be, shall I say, a rather curious exercise, but not uncircumstantial in the light of what is now being attempted. I would suggest to honourable members that if Mr Oakes or whoever the person is produces the document that he now claims has been leaked and if honourable members look at what was written into Hansard on about the day after the Leader of the Oppositin made his statement they will find very little differences between what was read into Hansard and what now appears to be the document leaked 2 months later. I think this demonstrates how up-to-date the Press of Australia is.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker, on a point of order, could I suggest -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He cannot take a point of order when there is nothing before the Chair.

Mr Enderby:

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

Mr Sinclair:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr Enderby:

– I wish to deny what the Leader of the Opposition said -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Leave is not granted. The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Charles Jones:

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

Mr Sinclair:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr Charles Jones:

– What is the matter with the representatives of wealth and privilege in this place?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister w.ll resume his seat. Leave is not granted.

Mr Berinson:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it on the same matter?

Mr Berinson:

– Yes, but I am taking a much more specific point on something which was directed at me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not think I can allow a point of order. The Opposition has chosen to refuse leave.

Mr Berinson:

– It is not a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-No, I do not think I can allow a personal explanation. You can seek leave to make a statement.

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Australia · Dawson · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been specifically misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If it is specific, I call the honourable member for Dawson. .

Dr PATTERSON:

-Mr Speaker, I have been in the Parliament for only 10 years. I listened with respect -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Will the honourable gentleman say in what way he has been misrepresented?

Dr PATTERSON:

-Yes, I listened with respect to the previous speakers about decisions on collective misrepresentation.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will listen to the personal explanation.

Dr PATTERSON:

– All those have been based on infinite numbers of members of the Liberal Party, the Country Party, the Communist Party or some other organisation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable gentleman had best come to his point of order.

Dr PATTERSON:

-My point is this: A deliberate assertion was made that Government members on the front bench who number only -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It is not a point of order. I have already ruled against a personal explanation of this type.

Dr PATTERSON:

-They number only twenty -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will have to resume his seat. I have ruled against the point of order.

Mr Riordan:

– A question, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Questions are not in order. It is not question time.

Mr Riordan:

– Then I seek leave to make a statement about this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Dr Patterson:

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave because I have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr Morrison:

– I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted. The Clerk.

page 2221

CAPTAINS FLAT (ABATEMENT OF POLLUTION) AGREEMENT BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP

– I move:

This Bill approves the execution of an agreement between the Australian Government and the New South Wales Government to provide financial assistance to abate pollution from mine wastes at Captains Flat. It provides an appropriation of funds for the purpose of the agreement.

To give something of the background of this Bill, mining activities ceased at Captains Flat in 1962. 1 point out that in the 10 years before this Government came to power the previous Government was unable to reach agreement with the New South Wales Government, but this Government has been able to reach an agreement. The cessation of mining activities resulted in the accumulation of approximately 1.1 million cubic metres of tailings, slimes and fine dump materials on hillside areas above the Molonglo River to the west and “south of Captains Flat township. These works have proved a continuing and consistent source of pollution of the Molonglo River. Major remedial works are required at the source of the pollution to safeguard the Molonglo-Murrumbidgee basin and Lake Burley Griffin. Quite clearly, prevention of this pollution is a major environmental undertaking for the Australian Capital Territory and for the adjacent areas of New South Wales.

I have had a number of consultations with my colleagues, the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) and the Minister for Environment (Mr Berinson) on this question. We met with representatives of the New South Wales Government early last year. As a result of that meeting, a Joint Government Technical Committee was set up to look at the Captains Flat pollution problem and recommend on the best ways of stopping the pollution. When the Committee’s report was received, Ministers from both governments got together and drew up a list of proposals to be put to both governments. This process of cooperation and dialogue has been continued by officers of the Australian and New South Wales governments. Both governments have now reached substantial agreement on the form of joint measures to be undertaken.

The Bill and the attached Agreement before the Parliament, make the following provisions: Financial assistance for programs approved by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development in consultation with the appropriate State Minister; arrangements for carrying out programs will be as agreed between the Australian Government and the New South Wales Government; financial assistance for capital works, not expected to exceed $2.5m on the basis of fourfifths grant on one-fifth loan, interest bearing and repayable- in other words New South Wales will be meeting 20 per cent of the capital cost; financial assistance for maintenance works with half the expenditure by way of nonrepayable, non-interest bearing grant- New South Wales will be contributing the other 50 per cent of funds towards maintenance.

The terms of the proposed Agreement are broadly acceptable to the New South Wales Government. On the ground, trial embankments have been constructed and confirm the wisdom of the proposed works. The New South Wales Government plans to approve a contract in the next few weeks and this should allow remedial works to be completed in substantial measure before next winter. The works will prevent erosion and leaching from the mine waste dumps. They will minimise the flow of polluted mine water by restricting the water inflow to the mine from Forster ‘s Creek. The re-shaped dumps will be covered with layers of clay, rock and soil and will be sown with new vegetation. The works to be undertaken also include measures to protect the environment during construction. In conclusion, I express appreciation for the co-operation between the Australian and New South Wales governments, and I thank particularly the officials who were involved in producing this Agreement. A Joint Technical Committee made up of representatives of the 2 governments is continuing advisory work and will continue to report to both governments. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2222

ABORIGINAL LAND (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1975

Bill presented by Mr Les Johnson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In the field of Aboriginal affairs, this is undoubtedly the most important legislation ever to be introduced into the Australian Parliament. While several States have moved towards the recognition of Aboriginal land rights, this legislation goes much further than has previously been contemplated in Australia. This Bill will give effect to the recommendations of the second report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission- the Woodward report- and grant land rights to Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. It will provide for freehold title over all reserves and certain other lands to be vested in Aboriginal ownership and give Aboriginals control over what happens on their land, including control over mining developments.

This Bill will establish in our law those aspects of Aboriginal traditional law relating to land which Mr Justice Blackburn could not uphold in 1971 in the Gove land rights case: It creates for Aboriginals proprietary interests in, and communal title to, land, and makes that title inalienable. Although title to the land to be transferred to Aboriginal ownership will be vested in a number of Aboriginal land trusts, the land will be administered by land councils, which will be obliged to follow the wishes of the traditional Aboriginal land owners. The power to decide what happens to the land thus rests with the traditional owners whose representatives, the members of the land councils, will have available all necessary specialist advice and assistance.

Honourable members may recall that in August 1968 the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam)then Leader of the Opposition- described the 1967 referendum as ‘the most massive expression of the general will ever known in this country’. It was, he went on, ‘a virtual command by 5 700 000 Australians that the national Government should take a lead to promote (among other things) the land rights of Aboriginals’. Early in 1972 he pledged a Labor government to the establishment of community freehold ownership of land in the Northern Territory by identifiable Aboriginal communities or tribes. He further stated in his policy speech before the national election in December 1972 that a Labor government would legislate to give Aboriginals land rights, ‘not just because their case is beyond argument, but because all of us as Australians are diminished while the Aboriginals are denied their rightful place in this nation’.

Mr Chipp:

– The Attorney-General is behaving like an idiot.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-Order! If the honourable member for Hotham continues that sort of behaviour he will be doing it outside.

Mr Chipp:

– You try it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Hotham will withdraw that remark.

Mr Chipp:
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Hotham. Will you withdraw that remark?

Mr Chipp:

– Which remark?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The remark: ‘You try it’.

Mr Chipp:

– If you wish me to withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw it.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Specifically the Government is pledged to legislate to establish a system of Aboriginal tenure based on the traditional rights of clans and other tribal groups for land which is reserved for Aboriginal use and benefit and to vest such land in Aboriginal communities. That the Australian Parliament may only legislate in this direction in the Northern Territory is a matter of regret, but we have made it clear to the various State governments that we support similar recognition of Aboriginal land title in the States.

page 2223

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS COMMISSION

On 8 February 1973 the Government established the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission and appointed Mr Justice A. E. Woodward as the Commissioner to inquire into and report upon the most appropriate means to recognise and establish the traditional rights and interests of Aboriginals in and in relation to land in the Northern Territory. The Commissioner was required to report on possible arrangements for vesting title to Aboriginal reserves in an appropriate body or bodies, and on the desirability of establishing suitable procedures for the examination of claims to Aboriginal traditional rights and interests in land outside reserves. He was also to report on the effect of already existing commitments, such as Crown leases, Government contracts, mining rights or otherwise, on the attainment of Aboriginal land rights.

Mr Justice Woodward was most thorough in carrying out his commission. Following initial hearings and consultations with Aboriginal communities, he presented a first report on 19 July 1973 setting out his preliminary findings for comment and criticism by the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory. To this end 2 Aboriginal land councils were set up, one based on Darwin and the other on Alice Springs. The land councils consisted of representatives from all large Aboriginal communities in their area. They were supplied with independent legal advice and asked to consider the various points raised in the first report and to raise any other relevant matters which they wished. Mr Justice Woodward prepared his second and final report, which was presented in May 1974, in the light of their submissions and further hearings and consultations.

The Prime Minister announced on 2 July 1 974 that the Government had accepted in principle the recommendations made in this second report, and had authorised the drafting of the Bill to which I am now speaking. The Government also authorised the appointment of an Interim Land Commissioner for the Northern Territory, to ascertain the needs of Aboriginals, either as individuals or communities, for land in the Northern Territory outside existing Aboriginal reserves. Mr Justice Ward was appointed Interim Commissioner in April 1975, and this Bill provides for the permanent establishment of this Commission. Mr Justice Ward has already conducted hearings and reported on a number of land claims, including those to Kulaluk, Railway Dam, and Emery Point in Darwin, and Yarralin and Supplejack Downs in pastoral areas. A large number of further claims await his consideration.

Honourable members will recall that when the Aboriginal Loans Commission Bill and the Aboriginal Land Fund Bill were introduced last year, it was stated that those Bills were part of a series of four which the Government would bring down in order to ensure, among other things, that Aboriginal communities will be able to obtain land for social and economic purposes. With the passage of this Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill and the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill, which will simplify incorporation requirements for Aboriginal groups and communities, this important series of legislation will be complete.

page 2223

IN BRIEF

In brief, the Bill establishes land trusts to hold freehold title to Aboriginal land, and land councils to administer that land in accordance with the wishes of the traditional owners. It provides for Aboriginal ownership of all Northern Territory Aboriginal reserves, the Tanami Desert Wildlife Sanctuary, the pastoral properties of Kildurk and Willowra and the land recently acquired for the Gurindji. It establishes an Aboriginal Land Commission to advise on Aboriginal land needs, and claims to land, outside existing reserves, and future purchases of land which may also come within the provisions of the Bill.

page 2224

PRESERVES EXISTING RIGHTS

The Bill preserves existing interests in Aboriginal land- for example, the special purpose and mining leases on the Gove Peninsula and Groote Eylandt- and the existing operations of the companies concerned will not be affected. The title to areas over which there are existing conflicting interests will, however, pass to Aboriginals when the non-Aboriginal interests expire or are acquired.

page 2224

NATIONAL INTEREST

The Bill also gives Aboriginals the power of veto over mining developments on Aboriginal land, but provides that any such veto may be overridden, if such action is required in the national interest and if a proclamation to that effect is not disallowed by either House of Parliament after the proclamation has lain before the House for 15 sitting days. There will, of course, be many interpretations as to what constitutes the national interest. Mr Justice Woodward paid special attention to this term and said that it should not be invoked on a mere balance of convenience or desirability but only as a matter of necessity.

I hope that it will not be necessary to invoke the national interest provisions of this Bill, and that with goodwill from all parties- the Aboriginal landowners, the prospective miners, environmental interests and the Government- a reasonable and effective solution can in most cases be found to protect the Aboriginal interests and to meet desirable national development goals. Where such agreement cannot be reached, the Government’s consideration as to whether the national interest requires the proposed development would need to include an assessment of whether the development of a particular resource at a particular point in time was vital to Australia, whether the mineral was available elsewhere, or whether it could be left in the ground for future development without irreparable damage to Australia’s social and economic development.

Importantly, there is much significance to be placed on Mr Justice Woodward’s view that an Aboriginal veto must not be overridden unless the national interest requires that the proposed development proceed. Almost any mineral development could be said to be in the national interest but much more stringent criteria must be applied in an assessment as to whether such a development is required by the national interest. Equally important is the distinction, implicit in the use of this phrase, between the national interest on one hand and sectional interest on the other.

There are certain matters relating to the Ranger uranium project which should be mentioned. No formal claim has yet been made to the Interim Land Commissioner by Aboriginal groups in respect of the Ranger land, but should such a claim be lodged, the procedures embodied in this Bill would of course be. followed. It should be noted, however, that the Government has undertaken to honour existing approved export contracts- 5025 tonnes of uranium for Peko-EZ and Queensland Mines. International assurances have been provided by Ministers that Australia will meet the uranium requirements of our major trading partners, which could amount to a total of about 100 000 tonnes of uranium by 1990. Moreover, the very substantial increase in the national welfare which could be derived from development of the Ranger project could not lightly be overlooked. Should the Government feel obliged to invoke the national interest provisions in the Bill in view of these factors, discussions would be held with those affected. These discussions would include the matter of royalties. I should add that any decision to proceed with the development of the Ranger project will depend upon the Government’s consideration of the findings of the Ranger uranium environmental inquiry which is now taking place.

page 2224

ROYALTIES

The Bill also establishes the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account which replaces, and extends the role of, the Aborigines Benefits Trust Fund, whose establishment in 1952 by the Government of the time indicated recognition of the need to compensate Aboriginals for exploitation of their lands. Aboriginals will receive all rental payments, and mining royalties derived from their land will pass to the Trust Account for disbursement according to the formula laid down in the Bill, as proposed by the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission.

page 2225

RIGHT OF ENTRY

The Bill gives Aboriginals control over entry onto their land and the 2 kilometres of sea adjoining adjoining it. Areas such as the parts at Gove and Alyangula, and persons such as police officers and public servants in the course of their duties, will be exempted from entry permit requirements. The land councils can also authorise persons to order people, including Aboriginals, to leave a particular locality not covered by such exemptions- thus providing for local control over who is entitled to be on Aboriginal land. These provisions are consonant with those of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act passed earlier this year with the support of the Opposition Parties.

page 2225

THE ENVIRONMENT

Wildlife conservation on Aboriginal land will be managed jointly by Aboriginals and conservation interests by means of committees which will be established as recommended by Mr Justice Woodward. Because Australia is a signatory to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, and because the Cobourg Peninsula has been declared under that Convention, it will be necessary to resolve possible conflicts between environmental and Aboriginal interests in this area. The Aboriginal Land Rights Commission recommendation that Cobourg Peninsula be made Aboriginal land when this Bill becomes law has therefore not been followed at this stage. It is intended, rather, that this question be resolved by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner to be appointed under the Bill. Whatever the finding of the Land Commissioner, arrangements will be made for Aboriginals to fully participate in control and management of the Cobourg Peninsula.

page 2225

NORMAL LAWS OF NORTHERN TERRITORY APPLY

As the land councils have agreed, the normal laws of the Northern Territory continue to apply to Aboriginal land. The Bill also gives protection to Aboriginal sacred sites throughout the Northern Territory.

In proposing this legislation, the Government endorses Mr Justice Woodward’s view that cash compensation in the pockets of this generation of Aboriginals would be no answer to the legitimate land claims of a people with a distinct past who want to maintain their separate identity in the future. This legislation will at last give Aboriginal ownership in our law over land which, according to their traditional law, belongs to them, and they to it. Future generations of Aboriginals will continue to reap the benefits of the land base this Bill will provide for the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.

The Bill now before the House contains the essential features from the recommendations of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission. These recommendations, in the form of the second report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission, have been widely available to the public and, particularly, to the 2 Aboriginal land councils in the Northern Territory for over 12 months, during which time there have been numerous inquiries and representations from interested sections of the public, including the land councils, as to the nature of Mr Woodward’s recommendations. These views have been taken account of in drafting the Bill. It is reasonable, however, since the BUI itself has not been available to the public until today, that it should be made available to all who have an interest in it so that they may examine and, if they wish, make representations on the detailed provisions as now drafted.

It is therefore intended, as with the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill, that the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill should not proceed immediately through the second and third readings but lie before the House until a later date so that any representations may be taken into account before the House votes on the legislation. In this way, I believe, the Bill will, when passed, represent a coming together both of Aboriginal wishes and of the interests of other sections of the community.

The Government’s decision to legislate for Aboriginal land rights is the expression of longstanding Australian Labor Party policy and this Bill is the result of a lengthy process of consultation with the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory, investigation of their wishes and consideration of the views of pastoral, mining, environmental and other community interests. Since the recommendations of the Woodward report have been accepted in principle by all major political parties, and this Bill gives effect to those recommendations, I have every confidence that it will be acceptable to the House and have no hesitation in commending the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 2226

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Yes, by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) earlier this afternoon when I was not here. I must admit that at lunchtime the Treasurer advised me that he intended to say something. I was having discussions with the Prime Minister of Malaysia and I apologise to the Treasurer for not being able to listen to what he was saying. He accused me of being untruthful in relation to a remark in the debate this morning. That is completely and absolutely false. The claim by the Treasurer is untrue. The Opposition ‘s shadow Treasurer has advised me that the document to which I referred had been given to him directly by a Minister of the Government. I wish to read one sentence in that document: ‘In the haste of preparing the Press release it appears that some inadvertent errors were made in using the estimates we provided’. That was a Treasury sentence. The Press release referred to was the Press release of the -

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask you whether it is in order for the Leader of the Opposition to reflect on the character, honesty and decency of any Minister of the Australian Government by suggesting, without naming such Minister, that he was guilty of making a document available without authority.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I certainly am not in a position to prevent what is being said by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a matter for his conscience as to now he reacts to the request for the name.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– 1 suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Enderby:

– Are you speaking to the point of order?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Yes. I suggest that honourable gentlemen read Hansard, and that the matter of who provided the document is a matter between the person who did it and the shadow Treasurer. If he wanted to, that person could easily say so.

Mr Enderby:

-Speaking to the point of order -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The point of order has been dealt with.

page 2226

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Customs Tariff Bill 1975 now before the House proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1974. The Bill, which contains 27 Schedules, is necessary to enact tariff changes made by Tariff Proposals introduced into the House between 26 September 1974 and 21 August 1975. The tariff changes arise, in the main, out of decisions by the Government on recommendations made in reports by the Tariff Board, Industries Assistance Commission and Temporary Assistance Authority. The Bill also contains increases in customs duties on potable spirits and manufactured tobacco products which formed part of the Government’s Budgetary program. At the time the various tariff proposals implementing these changes were introduced, the origin and nature of each change was indicated. To facilitate honourable member’s research for the ensuing debate, I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard details of earlier relevant speeches and their whereabouts in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

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

Mr ENDERBY:

– I have also had prepared a comprehensive summary setting out the changes and relevant duty rates. This is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned.

page 2227

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 October on motion by Mr Whitlam:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorney General · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the 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, the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) and the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill as they are related 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 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 3 measures? I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The House is debating 3 measures which are very directly related the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill, the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) and the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill. The Opposition will not oppose the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill or the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill. I shall shortly explain the Opposition’s attitude towards the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2). The purpose of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill is to provide that the recently appointed Director of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Mr Justice Woodward, should continue to enjoy the rank and status that he enjoyed as a judge prior to his appointment as the Director of ASIO and in all respects to preserve his position having regard to his previous judicial status. The Opposition has absolutely no quarrel with this provision. I would like to take the opportunity of wishing the new Director of ASIO well in his very important and sensitive task.

The second measure involves an increase in the number of judges to be appointed to the Industrial Court. The Opposition has some real reservations, and perhaps before replying to our remarks on this measure the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) will reflect that in 1973, when his colleague the then Minister for Labor and Immigration who is now the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron) introduced amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, it was the intention of the Government then so to amend the Act as to allow it to appoint an unlimited number of judges to the Industrial Court. On that occasion the Government ultimately settled, under protest, for an amendment moved in the Senate whereby the number of additional appointments to the bench of the Commonwealth Industrial Court was limited to two. Yet the Opposition must draw the attention of the House to the fact that when the 1973 amendment was proposed by the Minister the effective strength of the Commonwealth Industrial Court was, I understand, five, in that two of the full-time members of that Court were then engaged in a full-time capacity on other matters. Of course on that occasion there was a persuasive argument for increasing the number of judges to sit on the bench of the court.

Yet on this occasion no explanation is given of why the number of persons on the court should be increased to nine. The Opposition is far from satisfied that the Government has convincingly explained to the House a justification for having an Industrial Court of 9 judges. The Opposition would in no circumstances oppose legislation to appoint an adequate number of judges for any

Commonwealth court, but like any responsible Opposition we must have regard to the number and frequency of judicial appointments. Of course it has been a feature of this Government to make a large number of judicial appointments. The Attorney-General himself will be aware of proposals of his to appoint 30 federal judges to the soon to be operative Family Court of Australia. So I say at the outset that the Opposition is concerned that the Commonwealth Industrial Court may not have a sufficient work load to justify the appointment of an additional judge.

I understand from my colleague the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) that information has been sought in another place from the Government regarding the work load of the Commonwealth Industrial Court so that the Opposition may be in a position to assess whether it should support the amendment proposed to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is the Opposition’s view and intention that whilst it will not vote against Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) in this House it reserves the right to take a different attitude in another place in the light of its assessment of the information provided by the Government in response to questions asked in another place.

Honourable members will be aware that quite apart from the effect of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill, which I dealt with a few moments ago, by administrative arrangements control of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has been transferred from the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister. During the course of this debate the Opposition would like to have an explanation from the Government as to why this has occurred. Honourable members will also be aware that the effect of the third Bill that we are considering, that is the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill, is likewise to effect a transfer of administrative control from the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister. The Opposition, whilst it will not oppose the third Bill- of course it cannot oppose the administrative changes which have brought about a transfer of control over ASIO from the Attorney-General to the Prime Ministernonetheless is curious as to why this has occurred. No convincing explanation was given by the Prime Minister during his second reading speech on the Bill as to why administrative control should be transferred from the AttorneyGeneral. The Opposition takes the view that the rights of individuals, which are so fundamentally touched by any method of telephone tapping, as it is commonly known, by any method of telecommunications interception, ought ideally to be within the responsibility of the Government’s first law officer; that is, the Attorney-General.

Honourable members, and the AttorneyGeneral himself, will recall that during debate on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill the Opposition moved an amendment to provide that discretion as to whether a decision fell within a classified area ought not to be the responsibility of the Minister who wanted the material classified but rather should be a matter for the discretion of the Attorney-General. The Opposition adheres strongly to the view that the first law officer of the Crown has a responsibility to give general legal advice to the Government. Matters which affect the individual rights of citizens are matters which ought to fall within the province of the Attorney-General. One is prompted to inquire why the Prime Minister finds it necessary to transfer administrative control over ASIO and authority to tap telephones from the Attorney-General to himself.

I think honourable members know that the Prime Minister, because of the heavy commitments of the person occupying that office, will not be able to give sufficient individual and personal attention to applications for permission to intercept telephone calls. I do not think I would be expressing a view contrary to that of anybody in this House if I said that the tapping of telephones by any government agency is a matter in respect of which permission should not be given lightly.

Mr Street:

– It needs the closest scrutiny.

Mr HOWARD:

– It needs the closest scrutiny. I thank the honourable member for Corangamite for reminding me of that. This question affects fundamentally the rights of citizens. I think all honourable members should take a particular interest in legislation which deals with this matter. The Opposition is concerned that when an application is made for permission to intercept telephone messages that application ought to receive careful and responsible consideration from a Minister of the government of the day. Without reflecting in any way on the integrity or judgment of any member of the civil service to whom responsibility of necessity would be given if the matter were within the control of the Prime Minister, we believe that such a matter ought to be one for individual ministerial discretion. We therefore view with some concern the proposal of the Government to transfer this authority from the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister. We question the absence of reasons given by the

Prime Minister. Whilst it is not the intention of the Opposition to oppose the transfer in respect of telephone message interception, we nonetheless enter our concern and our reservation.

This transfer is in the nature of an administrative arrangement. The Opposition takes the view that it ought not to oppose an administrative arrangement of that nature which is proposed by the Government. But of course it does follow a trend which emerged some months ago when the Government introduced a small measure dealing with the office of Parliamentary Counsel in which it was proposed that the control of Parliamentary Counsel be transferred from the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister. We on this side of the House cannot understand why the Prime Minister wants to take more responsibilities unto himself. I do not think anybody would disagree with the proposition that the office of Prime Minister is an extremely busy and burdensome job. For the Prime Minister to have any real interest in a matter such as whether permission should be given to tap telephones, his work load would have to be a lot lighter than it is today. That is why we are concerned about the proposal of the Government to transfer the authority from the Attorney-General. We wonder whether the Prime Minister may be losing some confidence in his colleague the Attorney-General because absolutely no explanation was given during the course of the Prime Minister’s second reading speech as to why this change should come about.

The Opposition will support the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill. We believe, in short, that the recently appointed director of that organisation, and any subsequent director of the organisation who might hold judicial office, should not by reason of that appointment lose his rank and status as a judge. We will therefore support that Bill.

We will not oppose the second reading of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, but I emphasise again that the Opposition reserves the right when this Bill comes before another place to take a different attitude. We are of the opinion, on the basis of information and also our own assessment of the situation, that there is no justification for the appointment of an extra judge, that the work load of the court is not increasing. Therefore, if on further assessment and consideration of the information supplied by the Government we remain convinced that there is no justification for appointing an extra judge, it will be our intention to take in another place a different attitude from the attitude taken here.

Finally I repeat that in respect of the third measure under cognate debate, that relating to the tapping of telephones, whilst we will not oppose the transfer of control over this matter from the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister, we are unconvinced that justification exists for it. We believe that a matter affecting the rights and privacy of individuals ought to be under the control of the principal law officer of the Government, and we are unenthusiastic about the Government deciding to effect this transfer.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-On this occasion I wish to confine my remarks to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill and the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill. As honourable members are aware, ASIO was originally established by a previous Australian Labor Party Prime Minister, Mr Chifley, on 16 March 1949. On that occasion a very significant directive was issued which stated that the security service formed part of the Attorney-General’s Department and that the Attorney-General was to be responsible for it to the Parliament. Furthermore, the directive also stated that the Director-General would have access to the Prime Minister at all times.

The amendments which have now been proposed by the Government are quite significant to the conduct of ASIO’s relations. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is taking unto himself administrative powers which previously have been vested in the Attorney-General, despite the fact that successive governments have emphasised that at all times the DirectorGeneral of ASIO was to have access to the Prime Minister. The reasons behind these changes can only be the subject of conjecture. The Prime Minister has not advised the Parliament as to why he considers them necessary. It is worth emphasising that following the undertaking contained in his policy speech on 29 April 1974 the Prime Minister established a commission of inquiry under Mr Justice Hope to conduct a judicial inquiry into the structure of the Australian security service and into methods of reviewing decisions adversely affecting citizens or migrants.

The Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill is particularly pertinent both to the inquiry conducted by Mr Justice Hope and to the amendments which have been introduced into this House. What we must keep in mind, however, is that to date no Australian Prime Minister has ever had the responsibility before Parliament for the security organisation as it is presently constituted. It was in the past, and still is, until this legislation is passed, vested in the AttorneyGeneral. Mr Chifley, when he established ASIO, and later Sir Robert Menzies, adopted the same practice in their respective directives which were issued to the Directors-General of ASIO.

It is not impossible, in fact it is quite likely, that Mr Justice Hope has already given the Prime Minister a memorandum suggesting these amendments, but it is not unreasonable for us to suggest that the exercise of responsibility conducted by the previous Attorney-General of this Commonwealth, in his actions in raiding ASIO in 1973, and the profound effect which that action had on the Organisation, could well have led the Prime Minister to conclude that he could not trust any other Minister within his ministry to conduct and oversee the vital work which is the responsibility of ASIO.

But Mr Whitlam ‘s attitude is in contrast to that of Mr Chifley, who set the tone as to how Parliament should consider questions concerning ASIO when he emphasised in this House on 9 June 1949 that ‘the Director-General had been given complete authority on security matters’ and that he did not propose to interfere with him in the discharge of his functions. It is a regrettable fact that the previous Attorney-General of this country did interfere with the discharge of those functions, and furthermore the interference was proved to be of no purpose whatever, for the document which he alleged had not been given to him was in fact in his possession all the time.

If we are to see in the amendments now proposed a diminution in that sort of ministerial activity, then of course the Opposition must applaud them. On the other hand, however, we feel quite justified in stating before this House that a government which declares itself to be in favour of a policy of open government, which declares itself to be in favour of advising the Australian people as much as it can on the reasons why actions have to be taken, should inform this House and therefore the Australian people as to why the Prime Minister considers it necessary to change the administrative arrangements concerning the conduct of the affairs of ASIO.

The legislation of 1956 upon which ASIO was founded is by its very nature less than concise, but it is worth while on this occasion emphasising what are the functions of the Organisation as set out in that Act. They are threefold. Firstly, to obtain, correlate and evaluate intelligence relevant to security and, at the discretion of the Director-General, to communicate any such intelligence to such persons, and in such manner, as the Director-General considers to be in the interests of security; secondly, to advise Ministers, where the Director-General is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to do so, in respect of matters relevant to security, insofar as those matters relate to departments of State administered by them or to authorities of the Commonwealth established by or under Acts administered by them; and thirdly, to co-operate with such departments of State and authorities of the Commonwealth and, so far as is practicable, with such departments and authorities of the States and of other countries as are capable of assisting the Organisation in the performance of its functions.

It is a regrettable fact that over the period of its existence ASIO has been on many occasions subjected to a continuing campaign of denigration, vilification and irresponsible questioning both through the media and in this Parliament. This started very early, in fact on 10 March 1949, Mr Chifley made this point:

  1. . I will not discuss in detail in this House the proposed activities of the new security organisation. It is not the practice in any country to reveal such matters. I do not propose to answer questions about the organisation unless they involve matters of great public interest. I certainly will not answer questions asked about the organisation merely for political party propaganda purposes. ‘

I applaud those sentiments, and I am sure members on all sides of this House should do so. Regrettably, however, there has always been a tendency for some people to take the view that we need not have security organisations. Unfortunately, every country- I emphasie that, every country- has a form of internal security. An effective internal intelligence organisation such as ASIO must be devoted to protecting Australia’s internal security. This is obviously essential. It is a primary responsibility of any government of the day.

There have been so many examples in recent years of spies being discovered in important positions of State overseas and of actions being taken to subjugate countries by interfering with their domestic processes that quite clearly there is a need to have an organisation capable of examining subversive activities and making sure that the government of the day is aware of the actions of individuals and organisations whose primary purpose is to subject the state to internal pressures which it could better do without. Let me give some examples, Gunther Guillaume, the third man’ in the West German civil service was later proved to be a communist spy. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr Clark, stated not so long ago that, notwithstanding detente, communist spying was on the increase. Publications on the KGB by John Barron are a revelation of the extent to which communist activists are still operating in the Western world. For example, when the Egyptians threw out the Russians in July 1972 they found a very deep and complex system of espionage throughout the Egyptian civil service and military.

In 1973 the Institute for the Study of Conflict showed that between 1485 and 2146 Soviet official representatives in Europe over a 10-year period were involved to some degree with elements of commercial, industrial or defence spying. The same was found to be the case in Mexico in 1970 and in the Sudan in 1971. Great Britain in 1971, the same year, publicly expelled 105 Soviet officials after finding evidence of a campaign of subversion and sabotage and we must not forget our own Petrov and Scripov affairs. I am not attempting on this occasion to rattle the communist can. I wish merely to make it quite clear that no State can maintain its sovereignty unless it has a system of internal surveillance such as ASIO to defend the state against those persons, both within and without, who want to see the Australian people lose their freedom.

I wish now to refer to the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill. As has already been pointed out by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), we will accept the amendments which have been proposed, but we have doubts as to whether it is necessary for the Prime Minister to take unto himself such very vital responsibilities in relation to individual rights. Prime Ministers are extremely busy people and there has always been a tendency, regrettably, to hand over to civil servants the powers which in this case should if held be the absolute preserve of the Prime Minister or of whichever Minister is given the responsibility. Delegation is a real danger in a situation such as this and unless we can be assured that the people of Australia are able to live as they wish and to say what they think in a free and open atmosphere, any suggestion of a police state must be regarded with considerable caution. The Watergate incidents could well happen here if a Prime Minister is given absolute power to supervise in any way a freedom of others.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I am inspired to speak in this debate by the remarks of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Conolly). I wish to direct my remarks in the main to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill and the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill. I want to make it clear that we do not hide the fact that the Chifley Labor Government brought about an Australian security organisation. The reasons for bringing it about were that the Japanese were knocking at our door and Australia could no longer -

Mr Howard:

– You have your history wrong, Bert. This was 1948.

Mr JAMES:

-It was after World War II when Australia was asking America or was dependent upon America for arms. The United States asked what type of security organisation we had and we had to confess that we had virtually no security organisation. So that we could be reassured by the United States that it would be forthcoming with modern arms the United States asked us to set up an Australian security organisation. We did so. We put it under the control of a judge who was trained in the rights and freedoms of the British people under British law. I am speaking off the cuff, but from memory the Australian security organisation was set up under Mr Justice Reid.

When the present Opposition came into power it put the security organisation under the control of a military person- I think it was Colonel Spry- who was not trained to the same degree as a member of the judiciary in the freedoms and rights of the British people, which applied also to the Australian people. During the long period of office of the present Liberal-Country Party Opposition it used the security organisation as a political police force. I remember allegations being made in this Parliament by the former Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden), and it was obvious from what he said that within an hour of a certain debate taking place in this chamber he got in touch with ASIO and asked what it had on its file against the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns). It is obvious that ASIO was being used as a political police force.

I appreciate some of the remarks of the honourable member for Bradfield, particularly when he said that no Australians want to see this country become a police state, but is was his Party which was close to developing this country, under ASIO and Colonel Spry, as a police state. I know from my previous occupation that many files in ASIO- I have never contributed to the compilation of any of them- could and may have wrecked the promotion prospects and the careers of many decent Australian public servants because of the methods that ASIO was using at the time of the present Opposition’s administration. That matter has been lightly treated by the Press and by members of this Parliament, but it amazed me during the last 6 months that it was disclosed by one section of the media and played down considerably when the chief director of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States had visited Australia and conferred with the administrator of ASIO. (Quorum formed) Before the call for the quorum I was informing the House that to the amazement of many Australians the director of the United States CIA was in Australia two or three years ago when the previous Government was in office conferring with the director of ASIO. I think it was Mr Helms at the time. If changes had not taken place and the present Opposition had remained in power one could well say the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was going to follow the same pattern as the American CIA which has brought disgrace to that country all over the world. It has brought the name of that great country into the gutter. That was the way we were drifting, for obvious reasons, when the Director of the American CIA saw fit to come to Australia and confer with the Director-General of ASIO.

Mr Sullivan:

– He is after you.

Mr JAMES:

– The honourable member for Riverina keeps interjecting. He reminds me of a boy who had an overdose of laxatives but was not aware of it until he took his bicycle clips off. Criticism has been made of my Government for transferring from the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) the powers of telephonic interception. I do not think the transfer is any denigration of the Attorney-General’s high office. I think it indicates the importance with which the Prime Minister regards telephone interception when the highest office holder in this country sees fit to bear the responsibility himself. The transfer is no denigration of my colleague. Every member of my party and my Government has the greatest respect for his ability and his sincerity.

Mr Mulder:

– The Liberals did it.

Mr JAMES:

– They have been criticising the transfer of the power from the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister. I repeat that the Prime Minister regards telephonic interception as vitally important and an intrusion into one’s private affairs. Let me tell a story which is worth reviving in this Parliament. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) laughs with sarcasm and irony. He is too young to know. He has a hell of a lot to learn. I would have appreciated it if he had told the Parliament in his speech, which immediately preceded mine, that, after Mr Menzies- he was not then Sir Robertthe Prime Minister of Australia had been given the important task by the British Government of negotiating with Colonel Nasser following the Suez Canal crisis, he came back to this Parliament or he had printed in a book that in Egypt Colonel Nasser- the honourable member for Bradfield served as a diplomat in Egypt and would be more aware of this fact than any member of the House, but withheld it from his speech- was virtually in charge of a police state. He said there were secret microphones and telephone tappings. Then Sir Robert proceeded to introduce telephone tapping laws into this Parliament. This was very effectively pointed out to Sir Robert by that forthright and honest politicianone of the most honest that ever pulled on a pair of boots and entered this Parliament- the late member for East Sydney, Eddie Ward.

I applaud my Government for taking the effective steps that it has taken in connection with the administration of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and for transferring the responsibility of telephone tapping to the highest man in this land, the Prime Minister. We regard telephone tapping as a serious intrusion and consider that it should be used only on very special occasions in the interests of the nation. The appointment of a judge to administer ASIO is something that the Labor Party for many years said it would do when it came into office so that the lives and careers of decent public servants and Australians shall not be put in jeopardy by scurrilous informers who can ruin careers by putting on an ASIO file something in respect of which a person has no redress.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

-My Party supports this legislation, but there are one or two queries that we would like answered. One or two matters, perhaps whilst not causing concern, give some cause for further consideration. These Bills in one sense are only machinery measures. The first and perhaps one of the important factors relating to them is that they maintain the status of Mr Justice Woodward. I think this is something that is necessary and important. If a person of his calibre and qualifications is coming in to head an organisation such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation there is need for the protection of what one might call his normal course of responsibility and his normal duty.

I am afraid that the speech of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) did nothing to clear up the query about the transfer of power for telephone tapping- I will have something to say about this as a later stage- from the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). I support the comments that have been made by my colleagues the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). One point raised by the honourable member for Hunter perhaps is important and interesting. He said that ASIO was supported by the Labor Government both when in government and when in Opposition. Too frequently we tend to think in terms of ASIO being an organisation of people hiding behind posts and in corners and trying to find out what they can about the character of different people. One of the points made by the honourable member for Hunter- in my opinion it was perhaps overemphasisedwas that a person in a position of responsibility surely should also accept with that responsibility the fact that his life is no longer the life of an individual but is the life of somebody who is dealing with the future of his country. So there should be a protection for the safety and security of the country.

I accept the fact that people given a responsibility in an organisation such as ASIO do not investigate or perhaps spy upon a person’s private life in areas where there is no necessity to do so in the interests of the safety and security of the country. A great deal is happening in the world. Comments were made about the Central Intelligence Agency and about what had happened in the relations with that organisation and the prestige of the United States of America. I do not intend to go into or debate the matter of the merits of or justifications for actions of the CIA. I would like to say one thing. There have been occasions when the CLA has taken action that has protected not only the security of the United States but the security of other countries as well. I will leave it at that.

I think we have to be aware of the situation in the international field. One of the real problems perhaps confronting our world at the moment is the increase in terrorist activity. I have been a little disappointed in the action and attitude of some people in relation to this. I have said that if this attitude develops to any marked degree international diplomacy and security will be at risk. While there may be some groups or some people who feel that at this moment it is to their advantage if this view develops much further, it will be to the detriment of every country in the world and to the detriment of the safety and security of those countries and of individuals.

I believe that organisations such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and even the Central Intelligence Agency are necessary in the international scene at the moment for the safety and security of individual countries. However, I have said that one of the areas of concern- perhaps that is putting it a little too strongly is the transfer of the control of ASIO from the AttorneyGeneral to the Prime Minister. With control goes the power to have oversight of, to check on and even to make inroads into, the lives of private individuals. We must assert without any equivocation the need to be very careful about this aspect. The protection of civil liberties must be uppermost in our minds. The point was made and I think well madethat, with all of the responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister and that the holder of that office bears as an individual, there is the danger that the Prime Minister will have less time and it will be beyond his ability to give sufficient attention to making sure that civil liberties are protected. I make the point that this is something about which we must be extremely careful. For that reason I say that we must look again and give further consideration to that aspect of the legislation. Speaking of the legislation generally, I say that we support it.

Mr Connolly:

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

Dr Klugman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-I call the honourable member for Prospect.

Mr King:

– There is a personal explanation on this side of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The next call is due to the Government side of the House. I will call the honourable member for Bradfield next to make his personal explanation. I call the honourable member for Prospect.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I realise that we are in a hurry. I wish to make 2 points very quickly. The first point does not specifically concern the legislation. I refer to the transfer of control of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to the office of Prime Minister. I put on record my reservations about a Premier or a Prime Minister being in charge of any police force. This is a point that I have made before and which the Council for Civil Liberties has also made before. I remind honourable members of what happened in New South Wales in the 1950s when the control of the police force was transferred from the Minister in charge of that force to the Premier. The difficulty that arose was that criticism of the Premier is regarded as involving a question of no confidence.

I think that ASIO ought to be prepared to take criticism. It is a very powerful organisation. It can be a most unpleasant organisation with which to have dealings. I think that it is necessary. It is extremely important that, in a political sense, criticisms of ASIO are not treated necessarily as being attacks on the Government. The organisation can be wrong. There is no necessity for the whole of the weight of a government to be used to defend ASIO or a police force against what may be legitimate criticism, as happened in New South Wales.

To deal with my second point, I refer to clause 5 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill, which provides:

The appointment of a Judge as Director, or service of a Judge as Director, does not affect the tenure of his office as a Judge or his rank, title, status, precedence, salary, annual or other allowances or other rights or privileges as the holder of his office as a Judge, and for all purposes his service as Director shall be taken to be service as the holder of his office as a Judge.

The difficulty that I see relates to the Standing Orders of this House. Standing order 75 provides that members may not criticise judges or members of the judiciary, unless a special motion of disapproval is carried. I can see difficulties arising. I would hope never to see a situation in this House in which we could not criticise the head of ASIO. That person is a public servant. Criticism ought to be able to be directed at him as it is at other public servants. Criticism of the head of ASIO should not be prevented in this House because that head is a judge who has been transferred to that position. I seek some assurance from the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) when he replies that the Government is aware of these matters.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed).

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I compliment the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) on his comments-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (MrSpeaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 7 by leave taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 8 (Transitional).

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorney General · ALP

– I propose to move amendment No. 1 circulated in my name. I seek leave to refer also to amendment No. 2, which has been circulated in my name, as the 2 amendments relate to the same matter.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral and the Opposition spokesman on this matter, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), whether they are agreeable to taking the remainder of the Bill, in which case both amendments could be moved and discussed together.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Yes.

Mr Howard:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being no objection, that course will be followed. The question is: That the remainder of the Bill be agreed to ‘.

Mr ENDERBY:

-My 2 amendments refer to clause 8 and to the Schedule which read: 8. ( 1 ) An appointment made under the Principal Act before the commencement of this Act of a person to be DirectorGeneral of Security, being an appointment for a term commencing on the date of commencement of this Act, has effect as if it were an appointment made on that date under the Principal Act as amended by this Act of the person to be Director of Security.

  1. The office of Director of Security constituted under the Principal Act as amended by this Act shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be the same office as the office of DirectorGeneral of Security constituted under the Principal Act.

SCHEDULE Section 7

page 2235

FORMAL AMENDMENTS

Sections 2 (definitions of “employee” or “employee of the Organization” ‘ and ‘ “officer” or “officer of the Organization” ‘), 7 (2) (b), 1 1 and 13.

Sections 2 (definitions of “employee” or “employee of the Organization” ‘ and ‘ “officer” or “officer of the Organization” ‘) and 7 (2) (b).

Sections 2 (definition of ‘security’), 5 (1) (b) and (c) and (2),7(l)and 10(1).

I move the following amendments:

1 ) In clause 8, add the following sub-clause: -

A determination made under section 8 or 9 of the Principal Act and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, after the commencement of this Act, have effect as if it were a determination made under section 8 or 9, as the case may be, of the Principal Act as amended by this Act, and may be revoked or varied from time to time by a further determination under section 8 or 9, as the case may be, of the Principal Act as so amended.’.

In the Schedule, after paragraph 3, insert the following paragraph:- 3a. The following provisions of the Principal Act are amended by omitting the word ‘Solicitor-General’ (wherever occurring) and substituting the words ‘Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’: -

Sections 8 and 9

These amendments are consequential upon the formal transfer of responsibility for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act from the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister. Under sections 8 and 9 of the Act as presently worded the designation, salaries and other terms and conditions of employment of officers and employees are determined from time to time by the Chairman of the Public Service Board, the Solicitor-General and the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. By virtue of section 1 8 of the Law Officers Act the reference to the Solicitor-General in these sections must be read as a reference to the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department. The effect of the amendments will be that after the legislation comes into operation on 24 November 1975 the relevant matters will be determined by the Chairman of the Public Service Board, the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Director of ASIO, but existing determinations will continue in force until revoked or varied by them.

If I may, with the understanding of my good friend the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) who sits opposite and, I hope, other members of the Committee, I will refer to some of the matters which have been referred to earlier in debate and which call for some short reply. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), I think it was, touched on some misgivings that he and I think some of his colleagues felt about the transfer. As I recall the honourable member’s comments, they were to the effect that no other Prime Minister has had responsibility for Security organisations in Australia. I suggest to him that is not substantially true- not in real fact true. I just refer him to 3 previous Prime Ministers- Mr Chifley, of course, Sir Robert Menzies and Mr Holt, two of whom were Liberal Prime Ministers. On 10 March 1 949 Mr Chifley, the then Prime Minister, said:

The Security Service will function under the administrative control of the Attorney-General’s Department but the Head of the Service will have direct access to me.

Referring to a question that had been put to him he went on to say: the honourable member for Reid has asked who will finally decide whether persons should be deported or not.

The answer was:

That decision will be made by me or in consultation with me.

That set the tone for the practice that has been followed ever since. Sir Robert Menzies in an adjournment debate in this place on 27 October 1959 had this to say:

ASIO . . . operates in a direct sense under the Prime Minister, but it is attached to the Attorney-General ‘s Department for certain administrative purposes. It reports to me on matters about which it thinks I should be informed.

Subsequently at a Press conference on 13 November 1959 Sir Robert Menzies was asked:

Which Ministers have the authority to direct the activities of the Security Service without reference to you, Sir?

I think I am correct in saying that at that time the ministerial responsibility in a direct or legalistic sense would have been with the AttorneyGeneral, but the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, said:

The Attorney-General’s Department has it for administrative purposes. I am responsible for policy and the Head of the Security Service communicates directly with me. . . .

Mr Holt on 29 August 1967 had this to say on the subject:

Security has always been a matter for the ministerial responsibility of the Prime Minister although some of the security functions are delegated to the Attorney-General.

That more or less has been the practice in large measure and in a continuing sense.

I want to touch on another aspect which I think the honourable member for Bennelong raised. As I recall his remarks he said that there was a difference with the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill and that the administration of it should not go over to the Prime Minister. I refer him back to the second reading speech in this House by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) which contains no such suggestion.

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

-The Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-I direct the attention of the Attorney-General to the fact that the Committee is dealing with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill.

Mr ENDERBY:

-Very well, I will not take any time to deal with that point. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) referred to the status of judges and said that criticism of ASIO should not be frustrated by being identified with the Government. The honourable member has now left the chamber, for some good reason I am sure, but I want to say that it has never been my experience, or, I think, the experience of any other honourable members, that merely having the Attorney-General of the day responsible for ASIO throws a screen around ASIO which protects it from criticism. I suggest that the same certainly would not apply to it being under the Prime Minister’s control. The honourable member for Prospect also raised the question of the status of judges. I suggest to him that giving Mr Justice Woodward power to retain the status of a judge would not frustrate the criticism to which he attaches so much importance, and rightly so. I hope I can deal with my final point which relates to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill and amendments. There is no objection, Mr Chairman, from the other side.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Only one Bill is before the Committee. That course may be adopted if there is no objection but I would remind the AttorneyGeneral that it will then open the debate.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I think there is an indulgence from the Opposition on this point. Opposition members asked certain questions and I am anxious to assist them. They said that they had reservations about the work load of the Industrial Court. Since the increase in the number of judges there have been enacted into law Bills relating to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and race relations and the work load on the court is increasing. The trade practices work is increasing to a very remarkable extent. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal legislation also will result in work being sent to the court and work under the foreign takeovers legislation and the race relations legislation will be sent to the court. The court also receives work under the Broadcasting and Television Act. The judges also sit as judges of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Apart from the growing work load which I assure honourable members is real, royal commissions take a very significant amount of judges’ time. In the case of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, for example, at the moment Mr Justice Fox is on the uranium inquiry and there is a request for another royal commission into Aboriginal-police relations in the Northern Territory. Given the fact that we have difficulty borrowing judges from the State systems, the work load is enormous. I do not want to say any more than that by way of assistance to honourable members.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-Briefly, I would like the indulgence of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) to make it perfectly clear that whilst the Opposition can in no way oppose the altered administrative arrangements under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation legislation, in the event of a change of government it is the intention of a Liberal-National Country Party government to reverse this Government’s decision and to return administrative control of ASIO to the Attorney-General, for reasons that were adequately canvassed during the course of the debate.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-In relation to the remarks just made by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby), I seek his indulgence to consider a report which appeared in the Canberra Times on 8 October this year. It contained extensive quotations which were purported to be from the actual directive given by no less than 3 Prime Ministers to the heads of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation stating precisely their areas of responsibility. If these quotations are correct- I would be delighted to show them to the Minister- they bring to question the substance of his remark in relation to precisely what was the position of previous Prime Ministers concerning the powers, responsibilities and authority of the heads of ASIO. As I mentioned in my speech during the second reading debate, there is no doubt that ever since the days of the establishment of ASIO under Prime Minister Chifley the Director-General has been able to act and function as an independent person, outside the normal structure of the Public Service, to report to the Prime Minister on matters of policy and otherwise to report to Ministers in relation to their specific responsibilities. For the benefit of the House I want to quote a relevant section of this report which brings into question the ministers interpretation of past events.

Mr Enderby:

– I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. If the honourable member proposes to read from a newspaper report I have no way of testing whether it is accurate.

Mr CONNOLLY:

– It is said to be an accurate statement.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-I am sorry, I do not understand the point of order.

Mr Enderby:

– The honourable member wants to read something from the Canberra Times which he says is true, which is said to come from some documents.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no substance to the point of order. The honourable member for Bradfield has taken the responsibility of saying that this statement from the Canberra Times is true. It is the honourable member’s responsibility. I also point out that the Committee has been allowed to stray from the Bill by means of the granting of indulgence. I cannot prevent the honourable member for Bradfield from speaking on this point because he is quite entitled to do so.

Mr CONNOLLY:

– It is just that I see a major distinction between the history of ASIO and what the Minister has said in this House.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that the honourable member continue with his quotation. It is not out of order.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-Thank you. The article stated:

The Prime Minister has never before had the responsibility before Parliament for the security organisation. It was vested in his Attorney-General, by the former Labor Prime Minister, Mr Chifley, when he established ASIO on March 16, 1949. Sir Robert (then Mr) Menzies continued the practice in his memorandum to the new Director-General, Brigadier Spry, on July 6, 1950.

What both Prime Ministers instructed their security chiefs was that in matters affecting total government policy they had direct access to the Prime Minister. On other matters they were to liaise with the Ministers of the various departments but only in areas affecting the operation of their departments as they pertained to security matters likely to be detrimental to the interests of the Commonwealth.

The point we have been trying to emphasise is that whilst under these proposals the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) will take on this power over ASIO there will be no one else in this country who will be able to question his decisions or prerogatives. The same thing applies to the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill. I submit these are real dangers in such a course of action for the protection of individual rights in this country.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Enderby)- by leaveproposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There has been a cognate debate on these 3 Bills and I did not realise that we had completed the Committee stage of the debate on the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill. There are one or two points I should like to make without canvassing arguments which have been presented previously. I should like it to be recorded that I too express concern at the change whereby the Prime Minister will take responsibility of authorising the interception of telephone conversations. A Prime Minister is frequently away from the capital city and away from Australia. I believe that the individual’s right to expect privacy when using his telephone is so important that this responsibility should lie at a lower level to ensure that there is every opportunity for the authorisation to be viewed by a responsible person in the political field at all times.

I have promised to keep my comments brief. I also want to draw to the attention of the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) the fact that in Brisbane on 1 September it was suggested in a magistrate’s court that the recording of a telephone conversation which was used in evidence was not an illegal action. It rather surprised me that although the Press in Brisbane gave such prominence to the fact that the manner in which the evidence had been gathered was being contested the decision that the recording was not an illegal action was simply printed without any comment. I hope that the Attorney-General, for whom I have respect in certain fields will make it quite plain that it is illegal for people to record telephone conversations without the knowledge of the other party or, alternatively, without using a device which gives a bleep every 15 seconds which indicates that the telephone conversation is being recorded.

This is a very important issue because we could well reach the stage in Australia where people will get the impression that it is not illegal to record telephone conversations. If we reach that stage we will not know where we are going. If the courts accept the tape recording of telephone conversations as evidence the next area of concern will be that people can cut tapes about, omit words and present a completely different version of the actual telephone conversation. I hope that the AttorneyGeneral will ensure that the fact that the recording of telephone conversations is illegal is widely advertised. I hope he will use his influence from one side of the country to the other to discourage acceptance of any tape evidence in court.

Finally, I should like to say that on 10 July I wrote to the AttorneyGeneral requesting information on the technical details of telephone tapping. When I say ‘technical details’ I am referring to the manner in which it is done. He passed my letter to the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) who replied to me on 8 October. The reply seemed to convey that either the departmental officers who compiled the reply simply did not understand what I was seeking or, alternatively, they did not want to understand it. They simply wrote back to me telling me how people who work on the telephone exchange wires sometimes cause noise on the lines and so on. I have again written to the Postmaster General asking him to be more specific. I should hope also that the AttorneyGeneral will use his influence to ensure that I receive a reply to this letter. My question is not motivated by ill will. I simply seek information. It is a subject in which I have been interested since the day I arrived in this Parliament. I shall continue to pursue my interest in the right of privacy for individuals.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2239

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL (No. 2) 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 8 October on motion by Mr Whitlam:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the GovernorGeneral recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Enderby) read a third time.

page 2239

TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 8 October on motion by Mr Whitlam:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Enderby) read a third time.

page 2239

LOAN BILL 1975

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I have received the following message from the Senate:

Pursuant to a Resolution passed this day the Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution agreed to by the Senate on 15 October 1975 during consideration of the Bill for ‘An Act to Authorize the Raising and Expending of Moneys for Defence Purposes ‘:

That this Bill be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people, the Senate being of the opinion that the Prime Minister and his Government no longer have the trust and confidence of the Australian people because of-

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

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

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

Motion (by Mr Enderby) agreed to:

That the message be taken into consideration at the next sitting.

page 2240

LEGAL AID BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 October on motion by Mr Enderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Howard had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the Bill be referred to a joint select committee of both Houses to inquire into and report upon:

the adequacy of existing legal aid services in Australia;

whether the provision made in the Bill is the most effective, efficient and economical method of providing legal advice and assistance;

which persons should be entitled to legal aid and what should be the basis on which advice and assistance is provided;

d ) whether proper protection of the individual ‘s right to obtain independent and confidential legal advice and assistance is provided for in existing legal aid arrangements and under the Bill;

the extent of duplication in the provision of legal advice and assistance throughout Australia and the means by which unnecessary duplication can be avoided;

the likely cost of providing legal aid services in Australia over the next five years and subsequently, and

the clauses of the Bill’.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-On the last occasion I addressed the House and was part heard on this matter, I quoted, favourably, the words of the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) when he said that ready and equal access to the law and legal processes is the birthright of every Australian. I said on that occasion- and I stand by that view- that nobody would disagree with this proposition, particularly honourable members on this side of the House. But I cautioned honourable members because I believe the Bill that we have before us- I stress this point- will not support this very desirable proposition put forward by the Attorney-General. In the words of the President of the Law Society of New South Wales in his message contained in the supplement to the Law Society Journal of August 1975:

The Bill cannot and does not seek to legislate for the provision of a total scheme of legal aid to apply to every person in need in every part of Australia.

I have said before and I will say again because I think it is essential that all honourable members understand this point: Legal aid, in the terms of this Bill, will be available only to people seeking it in relation to federal laws and matters arising out of federal laws. In matters arising under State laws legal aid will be available only to persons to whom the Government has special responsibility. They include persons in receipt of social services, newcomers to Australia, servicemen, ex-servicemen and students. That is a very limited class of persons. They are the only persons who can receive this State aid. I submit that matters arising out of State laws would be the substantive matters that are raised in our courts.

At the moment we have a variety of schemes which apply in the various States- some sponsored by the law societies, some sponsored by State governments, and the Australian Legal Aid Office. I have shown to the Attorney-General a schedule of legal aid available in New South Wales. It was sent to me by the Law Society. I seek leave to incorporate that schedule in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Enderby:

– Legal aid said to be available. On that basis leave is granted.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I accept the qualification.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Enderby:

– On the admission by my friend, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I am happy with that qualification. There may well be variations to the document. I understand that the document was prepared on information provided by the 3 major legal aid organisations to which I refer. I believe that that document, with the variety of services said to be available, demonstrates that in relation to certain matters a person can go to one organisation for aid and not to others. This means that there must be some organisations which may have more experience, which may have better qualified legal officers and which are in different positions or areas. Some organisations have inadequate funds to offer those services. This means that first-class legal aid is provided by one of those organisations and secondclass legal aid is provided by others. I do not believe that that is in the best interests of all Australians. It is essential that we have a scheme that is able to provide legal aid across the board to all Australians. This will be achieved only with the co-operation of State governments.

The amendment proposed by the Opposition is for the establishment of a joint select committee of both Houses to inquire into and report upon:

  1. whether the provision made in the Bill is the most effective, efficient and economical method of providing legal advice and assistance.

I regard this as the most important pan of the amendment because I believe that with a proper committee inquiry, with the States called upon to give evidence before such a committee, we can arrive at an arrangement of co-operative federalism. We can have the variety of legal aid offices where people can go and seek legal aid on both federal and State matters without being shunted from pillar to post. I believe that this system has been thrust upon us.

I want to quote from an article by Roman Tomasic entitled Australian Legal Aid: Policy Advisers and Government Initiatives which was prepared for the Law Foundation of New South

Wales. This article demonstrates clearly the point I am making. It says:

In a Press release dated 3 March 1974 the AttorneyGeneral announced that the Australian Government had decided to set up offices of the ALAO in the cities of Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong, Townsville, Fremantle and Alice Springs. It was not, however, until 3 April 1974 that the first report of the Legal Aid Review Committee was tabled in Parliament, some time after the decision to establish the Australian Legal Aid Office had been made. The Committee could do little else than note the existence of the ALAO though it expressed the hope that it remain only a model for a salaried service which could be reviewed as to cost and effectiveness at a later time. The possibility of such a review ever seriously being made is, as we shall soon see, quite remote.

That is certainly so because the Australian Legal Aid Office, as established then and as the then Senator Murphy when he opened the legal aid office in Blacktown asserted, was to be an office established to meet certain needs. Senator Murphy said:

We all know that there are substantial areas of unmet need on the part of ordinary people for access to the law and the legal process.

That statement was made before any reasonable inquiry had been made or any reasonable research carried out to ensure that such a service was operating within real areas of need and with the support of adequate preliminary research data. We have had before us- I quoted from this on a previous occasion- an ANOP poll conducted for the Australian Legal Aid Office which indicated a substantial level of support for legal aid and the Australian Legal Aid Office as people understood it. But I refer honourable members to the summary document circulated with the results of that poll. Regrettably the pages of the document are not numbered so honourable members may have to look at the document themselves to find the appropriate page. It states:

The communication implications of the perceived ‘function ‘ side of the study involve three main points: despite the fact that a majority of respondents saw no restriction to the scope of ALAO activity, a solid body of opinion was convinced of the reverse- that in fact the ALAO was restricted either in the sort of problem with which it would deal, or in the sort of person it would advise. this restriction in the type of person appears the major misconception that surrounds the ALAO- involving the conviction that the ALAO was primarily oriented towards advising the financially disadvantaged.

Little specific knowledge of ALAO activity existed; where such knowledge was apparent, it tended to suggest that the ALAO was primarily concerned with marital problems and property, rent and eviction matters.

This report makes it clear that when support was given to the ALAO as established it was based upon certain fundamental misconceptions. As I said on the last occasion some 85 per cent of those people who responded were in error in their conception of the nature of the ALAO service it would provide. They were therefore supporting something that the ALAO could not be. I think this is a very important point.

I believe that I have demonstrated the very essential problem that we have with different systems of legal aid operating in the States and operating under the ALAO system, which is a restricted system. In fact we have that same discrepancy here in the Australian Capital Territory. I draw the attention of honourable members to page 12 of the 1 972 report and page 1 9 of the 1973 report of the Operations of the Legal Aid Committee of the Australian Capital Territory. In each of those reports it was made clear that an ALAO was not warranted in the A.C.T. In fact the present committee which was operating in conjunction with the profession in the A.C.T. was willing and able to operate on a much expanded basis and would be able to provide the sort of service that was required. The report pleaded with the Government not to proceed with the establishment of a separate organisation but to enable the committee to move its premises and to put itself in a position where it could provide a service at a shop front level where people might want it here in the A.C.T.

I now refer to the letter from the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service which was sent in the first instance to the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) and copies of which were sent to all honourable members. Point 1 of paragraph 4 of the letter states:

The concept of the Australian Legal Aid Commission is inappropriate to the policy of self-determination of Aboriginal community groups. Aboriginal Legal Services on the other hand are an example of community control by Aborigines.

Even the Aborigines were not happy to have their legal service integrated into the ALAO service.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

-I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on legal aid in order to lay low some of the ghosts that have been raised by the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) and also to display further the concern of the Opposition with legal aid as a vital function of community service within Australia. Many times, at question time and in debate in this House, we have heard the Attorney-General try to condemn the Opposition because it dared to criticise his piece of legislation and the proposal to create the Australian Legal Aid Office. In a very neat case of logical gymnastics the learned Attorney-General has said of the Opposition that it opposes the Australian Legal Aid Office; it opposes legal aid. Of course the one does not follow from the other, but it is a good example of the way in which the AttorneyGeneral enters upon a debate of such importance and magnitude to this Parliament and to the community.

Simply because the Opposition dares to criticise the Australian Legal Aid Office does not mean, nor by any stretch of the imagination can it mean, that we are opposed to legal aid. The proposition of the honourable gentleman needs only to be re-stated to show its absurdity. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the honourable gentleman might just as well condemn members of his own party in another place who dared to criticise the Government’s national compensation scheme in the Senate committee report on the National Compensation Bill. The Opposition does desire an effective, efficient and sound scheme for legal aid throughout Australia. We acknowledge the necessity of involvement by this Parliament at the national level in legal aid alongside and in co-operation with all the legal aid schemes that are operated in the States of Australia through the law societies.

In this respect I shall speak for a moment of the experience in Western Australia in this field of legal aid. It is another example of where what is condemned by the Government as the disinterest of Opposition members in legal aid, even of our having a positive antagonism towards legal aid, can be shown to be completely wrong. I speak of my own experience as a lawyer involved in legal aid since the late 1950s, at a time in Western Australia when any lawyer who provided legal aid was not paid for it. It was a completely voluntary scheme on behalf of the legal profession, a very small profession at that time which had a vast State, geographically, to cater for. Of course, regrettably it could not cater for all the demands upon the profession. I remember in 1960 attending a meeting of the Law Society of Western Australia in Fremantle when this question was discussed. It was realised then that something had to be done to increase the availability of legal aid to people in the community who could not generally afford the ordinary professional fees. At that meeting of the Law Society in 1960 it was resolved that the Law Society should support a scheme of legal aid broadly based upon that which operated in the United Kingdom.

There were several principles involved in it: firstly, that the Law Society should sponsor it; secondly, that all members of the profession should be invited to participate and offer their services; thirdly- and probably the most important principle of all- that all persons seeking legal aid should be able to obtain the services of the lawyer of their choice; finally, that the fees payable to lawyers should be discounted to 90 per cent of those fees ordinarily chargeable for the services that were rendered. It was resolved also that the Society would approach the State Government to see if the scheme could be underwritten and also to see if the State Government would support by legislation the lodging of a proportion of solicitors’ trust funds into a bank account under the control of a legal trust with interest payable on those funds so that that interest would finance, amongst other things, the legal aid scheme.

From 1960 until 1967 the Law Society in Western Australia pursued its efforts and reached success with the passage in that year of the Legal Contribution Trust Act which gave legislative approval to all that the Law Society had required and desired for legal aid in 1960. The scheme underwritten by that statute came into force in 1 97 1 and it has continued to operate since then. All those principles that I previously mentioned were written into the Legal Contribution Trust Act. I think that the Law Society, all those pioneering lawyers in Western Australia and those who now work within the legal aid scheme can be proud of what they have done and can be proud of what they have achieved. That achievement has been acknowledged by Professor Ronald Sackville in his report to the Australian Government Commission of Inquiry into Poverty which dealt with the availability of legal aid in Australia. I note that when speaking of the Western Australia scheme, Professor Sackville said:

The scheme as it now operates is thus of recent origin. But the profession in Western Australia has a strong tradition of public service and many extensions and improvements are currently proposed.

I am glad to see that Professor Sackville has acknowledged that strong tradition of public service within the legal profession in Western Australia. It seems so often from what is said by the Attorney-General, in debating in this House and outside it the merits of legal aid, that law societies such as the Law Society in Western Australia have achieved nothing in their efforts to bring the law to those people who are otherwise unable to afford the services of a lawyer. There can be no question that the provision of legal aid is a matter of continuing concern, a matter of continuing necessity.

If I could make one criticism of the profession of which I am a member it is this: During the period of tremendous growth in Australia in the 1960s, and particularly in Western Australia, when the demands upon a very small profession were great to the point where the profession’s services were stretched not only to the limit but beyond, when we had a tremendous growth in the demand for legal services from corporations and wealthier persons within the community, the profession tended to forget that there were people who needed legal aid or who needed legal services who were not able to afford the fees that were so easily paid by corporations and others. So the tendency was for the person who did not have the ready money available to him to be put aside, whilst those who had the money were given the services that they required. I think this has probably accentuated the urgency of the need for governments to enter this field. I do not deny the necessity for governments to enter the field of legal aid, nor does the Opposition deny that. What the Opposition seeks to do is to have provided by this Parliament the most effective and the most efficient system of legal aid supported at the national level.

I again draw the attention of the House to the terms of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bennelong on behalf of the Opposition. It seeks to insert the following words: the Bill be referred to a joint select committee of both Houses to inquire into and report upon:

It then lists a number of matters. The first is: the adequacy of existing legal aid services is Australia;

Surely one needs to test the adequacy of what is already there in order to determine whether what is to be provided under the Legal Aid Bill is the most effective system of legal aid at the national level. The second matter is: whether the provision made in the Bill is the most effective, efficient and economical method of providing legal advice and assistance;

In these times particularly it ought to be abundantly clear to everyone that legal aid should not be a bottomless economic pit. We do not want a repetition of Medibank in that regard. Some restraints and constraints must be placed upon it. The third matter is: which persons should be entitled to legal aid and what should be the basis on which advice and assistance is provided;

Surely it is necessary, if there is to be an effective and efficient system of legal aid at the national level, that there should be the closest study by this Parliament of the persons who should be entitled to legal aid and what should be the basis on which advice and assistance are provided. The fourth matter is: whether proper protection of the individual’s right to obtain independent and confidential legal advice and assistance is provided for in existing legal aid arrangements and under the Bill;

Whilst the other matters I have referred to might cover the aspects of economics and adequacy of legal aid in other systems, what is fundamental to any scheme which provides legal services to the citizens of Australia is the right of citizens to competent, independent and confidential legal advice and assistance. In this regard I would luce to compare the Western Australian Legal Trust Act with the present Bill. In section 40 of the Western Australian Act an assisted person ‘s right to choose his own legal practitioner is provided by statute. I think this is something that ought to be provided by statute and it ought to be a basic principle of any legal aid scheme. When I look at clause 32 of the Legal Aid Bill now under debate I find that, rather than a statutory declaration of the right of choice of an assisted person to an independent practitioner, all that is provided is that the preference expressed by the assisted person will be taken into account by the Australian Legal Aid Office. The Office will then allocate a legal practitioner to that assisted person. A right of choice is not given by statute to an assisted person to choose his own independent practitioner. Allocation by the Legal Aid Office is not a choice that is expressed by the citizen. I consider that to be one of the most serious defects in this Bill. If the Government is not prepared voluntarily to alter it following the criticisms levelled against it by the Opposition there is all the more reason why there should be a joint committee of this House and the Senate set up to investigate the Legal Aid Bill.

There has been- since 1971 in particular- in the institution of the legal aid scheme in Western Australia under the Legal Trust Act considerable growth in legal aid through participation by the State Government, the Federal Government and the legal profession. Last year $50,000 was provided by the State Government, $ 164,4 1 8 by the Federal Government and $282,252 by way of interest on the trust accounts of solicitors- in effect, a contribution made by the banks of Australia and through the banks to the people of

Western Australia. Finally, an assessed amount of $31,000 represented the value of the discounted fees charged by the legal profession. That is an example of the co-operation being shown by all persons concerned with and involved in legal aid in giving to the people of Western Australia an effective system of legal aid. But the Law Society has not simply stood still. Having regard to the particular problems of bringing legal aid to all people in Western Australia, the law Society has sponsored a number of schemes. I mention them. They are: Rostered lawyers in police courts to help defendants in need; a flying lawyer service to remote parts of the State; a prisoners’ advice service; and a legal advice service where anyone can get initial advice for a fee of only $2. So Western Australia has everything to be proud of.

The Attorney-General might well consider an article which appeared in the West Australian of Friday, 10 October 1975, about a lawyer whom I know very well, Peter Dowding, who obtained a Churchill Fellowship to look at legal aid schemes in Canada and Britain. He has written his report and it has been summarised in the article in the West Australian of that date. Peter Dowding ‘s name might be well known to the AttorneyGeneral. I would like to draw to his attention and to the attention of the House what Mr Dowding said about the Australian Legal Aid Office. As the article points out, Mr Dowding ended his report with a broadside at the Office. The article states:

He says that to many lawyers the opening of the office was a most encouraging development- but its 18 months or so of operation had produced disillusionment among many of those who were formerly enthusiastic.

Far from providing decentralised law officers with feeling and concern for the community in which it operates, it has become a monolithic body whose decisions on priorities, staffing and accommodation are taken in Canberra , he says.

It has tried to compete with, or ignore, the already established legal aid schemes rather than to complement those schemes.

I think that is a most damning criticism of the Australian Legal Aid Office which is intended to be established by this Bill. Far from reflecting the storefront lawyers’ image which the Attorney-General so often throws at all of us who comment upon legal aid, the legal aid offices in Perth, said Mr Dowding, ‘show the opulence of a Government department with unlimited funds, and present therefore a forbidding appearance to the poor and deprived people in the community’. I suggest that the Opposition, through the speeches made on this side of the House, has presented a compelling case for a joint committee of this House and the Senate to consider the Bill put forward by the Government.

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

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– in reply- In winding up this debate I wish to begin by saying that, for a variety of reasons, the Government cannot possibly accept the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition. Before I give those reasons I shall deal briefly with some of the matters which were raised by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner), who has just resumed his seat. He quoted Mr Dowding’s comments. I was in Western Australia not long ago and I went to the Fremantle office. I can assure the honourable member that it is not the sort of office which was described in the article which he read out. It was the most informal, friendly and efficient set-up, thus encouraging people to come in off the street, that I have ever encountered. It gave full confirmation that we have achieved everything we set out to achieve when we began this enterprise.

However, the principal reason that we cannot accept the amendment is that we do not believe the motives of the Opposition. We have good reason not to believe the motives and the intentions of the Opposition. Everything it has donenot so much what it has said although it has also said things- confirms our belief that its intentions are to dismantle, destroy and bury in some way the Australian Legal Aid Office. It does not want that to be known but it has been indiscreet enough from time to time to let its hand show. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said in his speech in the Budget debateperhaps not anticipating that this debate would come on- that if the Opposition were preparing a budget it would do away with the Australian Legal Aid Office. What clearer expression of intention could there be than that?

Another point which is just as telling as any I could make regarding the Opposition’s motives and intentions is that when it was in office it committed approximately $290,000- not much more than a quarter of a million dollars- for legal aid throughout the whole of Australia in 1972-73. That was the measure of the priority which the Opposition gave to meeting the legal needs of people in such need. Our Budget, which is pruned to rock bottom in austere circumstances, provides in excess of $ 16m to meet the needs of people for legal aid services. That is a contrast of the priorities which the Opposition gives to the topic and which we give to the topic. The Opposition ‘s argument has nothing to do with the structure and form of the Legal Aid Office. When it criticises that and says ‘Let us send it to a committee in the Senate or in this place’, it really wants to bury the proposal. It has had 4 months -as we have- to consider submissions from the various legal bodies around Australia and to talk and consult with those bodies.

As the House knows, I will be moving a number of amendments to give effect to some of the suggestions but the Opposition has not put up one amendment except in effect to say: ‘Send it to a committee, bury it, destroy it, put it aside’. There is good reason why this legislation should become law. The Opposition knows as well as I do that arising out of Bannister’s case, a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, there is a possible defect in the existing law dealing with Federal legal aid, and this Bill is necessary to put it right. Opposition spokesmen have said: ‘There is no need for hurry, let us take years’. They know what they are really about and any lawyer who is listening will know what they are about- they would like that legal defect to be developed and exploited. They really want to kill the proposition completely. What is at issue in the debate on this Legal Aid Bill is the question of access to the law by those persons in the Australian community who in the past have been deprived of their right to seek redress where they have suffered certain injury, their right to representation where they are the subject of criminal or civil litigation and their right to their day in court without being deprived of it because they cannot afford it.

A number of speakers in the debate have drawn attention to the fact that more than 130 000 persons have been into the Australian Legal Aid Office in the short time it has been operating seeking assistance and getting assistance. This has occurred since April 1974 when the first regional office was opened, and there are more than thirty operating now. It is evident to the staff of the Office that the majority of these persons would not have approached a private solicitor because of their financially disadvantaged position, because of their lack of knowledge about the legal profession or because of their apprehension. Lawyers do have an aura about them which puts people off and if we are frank those of us in the profession will recognise that and accept it. The Australian Legal Aid Office tries to overcome it.

Of those who sought assistance from the Office, 21.5 per cent were pensioners- nearly a quarter- and they do not go into solicitors’ offices very often. In addition, 8 per cent were migrants. Both these groups have received far less than their fair share of services in our Australian community. In his survey of the work done by private solicitors for economically disadvantaged persons Dr Jeffrey Fitzgerald pointed out that although 16 per cent of persons could be categorised as disadvantaged, the private legal profession spent only a very small percentage of its time working for these people. We know the consequences that flow from that. We know of the similar work done by another academic in Sydney, I think, who drew attention to the fact that the number of convictions of unrepresented people in courts is so much higher than the number of convictions of people who have proper legal representation. (Quorum formed) I appreciate the Opposition’s desire to reduce my time in that way.

Solicitors’ firms tend to be situated in the centres of urban areas convenient and appropriate to commercial and financial institutions and that is why it is so important to have a salaried legal aid service which can work on the premise of need and can go to the areas and to the people who for so long have been neglected and deprived of the basic right to legal assistance. The effects of this deprivation have already been referred to by other speakers. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) made the point that the statistics of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research demonstrate that a person who is legally represented has 6 times the likelihood of outright acquittal as an unrepresented person. In addition, there are community interest groups such as consumer organisations and environmental protection bodies which are not able to afford the cost of challenging the actions of corporations and governments but which have been assisted by the Australian Legal Aid Office. They will continue to be assisted if and when this Bill becomes law. The Australian Conservation Foundation said in a Press release dated 29 September 1975:

The attitude of the Legal Aid Office so far has been to allow socially necessary challenges, such as many of these are, to proceed without the constraint of crippling costs. We applaud the record of the Australian Legal Aid Office.

Yet this is the office which members of the Opposition want to destroy. This House should be in no doubt as to the attitude of the Opposition to the ALAO. It does not at heart seek revision or amendment of the legislation. It seeks to dismantle the Office. Its shadow Attorney-General,

Senator Greenwood, who speaks for the Opposition on these matters has said that outright opposition to this Bill is the logical consequence of the speech on the Budget of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and of the Opposition’s feeling towards the Australian Legal Aid Office.

I challenge any member of the Liberal Party to say that Senator Greenwood did not use those words. Senator Greenwood added however that the public image of the Liberal Party would suffer to such an extent if this attitude was known and appreciated by the public that the Liberal Party should do everything possible to stop its attitude being known and find another way of presenting its attitude to the Bill. The Opposition has found it. It will send the Bill to a committee, bury it in a committee until people forget about it. The people of Australia will not be deceived by the specious amendment put forward. They will recognise it as an attempt to deprive a large group in our community of access to legal assistance in the many legal problems that can occur in people’s day to day lives but which in the past have been without remedy.

Let me deal with the points raised in the speech of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) who led for the Opposition. The first point I deal with is the fear the Opposition is said to have that the provision of legal aid services in Australia will lead to a bottomless pit situation and the fear that legal aid costs will become unlimited. This is the case where the legal profession, with great respect to the honourable gentleman- I am a member of the profession as is he- controls legal aid schemes. That is where we get the bottomless pit. We do not get it in a salaried service operating in conjunction with the legal profession. I accept the statement as genuine in the sense that there can be- and is overseas in some cases- bottomless pits, but I am obliged to analyse it more closely. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Greenwood) has been keen to distort the true nature of legal aid in Australia and to raise unlimited red herrings to cover up the fact that he at least is totally opposed to the concept of the Australian Legal Aid Office and by direct inference the concept of legal aid itself. When I put to him on television not long ago the proposition that this was his view, he did not deny it. I point out to the honourable member for Bennelong that his fears about a bottomless pit are groundless. Money will not and cannot be provided on a bottomless pit basis for legal aid although if the propositions of the Opposition were put forward they would perhaps produce that result. A subsidy would then be provided to the legal profession.

Clearly legal aid will have to take its place in the priorities list in a budgetary context. Economies will have to be made when the budgetary situation is such that the legal aid vote is by necessity limited, as it was indeed this year. I point out also to the honourable member that this attempt to use the British parallel to emphasise his concern about costs is also groundless because there legal aid is provided essentially on the basis of the private profession. The British system is run today as is the system that applies in the Australian States. It is a system whereby government provides the money to the legal profession to run the legal aid services on the profession’s terms. I agree with the honourable member that when the legal profession seeks to run legal aid schemes without controls or means and needs tests drawn up by a government the bottomless pit situation can develop in this context.

In this context, I refer also to the suggestion by the honourable member for Bennelong that the Australian Government has not provided clear eligibility criteria for the provision of legal aid services in Australia. Those criteria were provided in a supplemental answer to one of the honourable member’s colleagues in the Senate, Senator Marriott, not long ago. I seek leave to incorporate guidelines on this matter in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

page 2250

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

page 2250

QUESTION

MEANS AND NEEDS TEST AND CONTRIBUTIONS INTERIM GUIDELINES

I. Means and Needs Test

The tests set out in this paper are interim guidelines and not mandatory rules. They will be applied reasonably and with discretion and will not be regarded as binding in all circumstances. Cases will occur where an applicant falls within the income limit only because he is making large payments on an expensive car; a widow whose income earning capacity is limited because of a young family could be permitted a higher level of assets than an unmarried man. Cases such as these require special consideration and it must always be remembered that the real test is the inability of the applicant to afford the cost of legal assistance in the particular case.

  1. In the case of a married applicant, the combined incomes and assets of both husband and wife will be taken into account provided that they are living together. Couples living together in a de facto relationship will be regarded as husband and wife except in the case of matrimonial proceedings against a husband or wife, in which event only the income and assets of the applicant will be considered.
  2. The net weekly income of the applicant will be calculated by deducting from gross income the following items calculated on a weekly basis-
  3. income tax;
  4. superannuation contributions;
  5. board paid by applicant;
  6. rent for dwelling house in which applicant resides;
  7. . mortgage payments for dwelling house in which applicant resides;
  8. municipal rates and water rates for dwelling house in which applicant resides;
  9. maintenance payments to spouse and children of applicant;
  10. payments under hire purchase agreements and credit sales contracts for household goods and furniture used by applicant in his home;
  11. payments under hire purchase agreement and credit sales contract for motor vehicle owned and used by applicant.

  12. An applicant comes within the income guidelines if his net weekly income does not exceed-

    1. where estimated cost of the proceedings is less than $300- applicant without dependants, $50. applicant with dependant spouse, $70. - for each other dependant add, $ 1 5.
    2. where estimated cost of the proceedings is $300 or more- applicant without dependants, $60. applicant with dependant spouse, $80. for each other dependant add, $ 1 5.
  13. It is also necessary to take an applicant’s assets into account in determining whether he qualifies for legal aid. In assessing assets the following items will be excluded-
  14. an interest in a dwelling house in which applicant resides;
  15. an interest in a motor vehicle owned and used by applicant;
  16. wearing apparel, household goods and furniture and tools of trade of applicant.

The following asset limits apply-

  1. where estimated cost of proceedings is less than $300, $500
  2. where estimated cost of proceedings is $300 or more, $1,000

An allowance of $400 will be made for each dependant so that in assessing eligibility $400 will be added to an applicant’s assets for each dependant.

  1. Assets normally include money or investments which are easily realisable, e.g., bank accounts, building society deposits, shares and debentures. As with income, the assets test is an interim guideline only and not a binding rule, e.g., in some cases the value of a residence or motor vehicle will need to be taken into account if unusually high.
  2. Contributions
  3. A system of contributions applies in respect of all approvals of legal aid on and from 1 August 1975. In accordance with recent discussions held between representatives of the Office and the profession, the contributions are to be paid by legally assisted persons direct to private legal practitioners. This is an interim arrangement and it is expected that the Office will be staffed to take over the collection of contributions by the time the Legal Aid Bill is passed and comes into operation.

  4. The contribution is to be paid by the legally assisted person to the private practitioner at the time he is taking instructions and, in any event, no later than at the time the case is set down for hearing. Contributions are to be paid in a lump sum or, at most, by two payments and retained by the private practitioner as pan of his fee.

    1. Family Law
    1. For the purpose of determining the appropriate contribution, regard will be had to the gross income of the applicant as set out in the guidelines in the following paragraphs. However, in determining the actual contribution to be paid, all the circumstances will be considered including the applicant’s disposable income and disposable assets. The ranges of contributions set out in paragraph 10 should be used as guidelines only and a contribution may be waived altogether in cases of hardship.
    2. The minimum contribution will be $30 and the guiding factor in determining the contribution will be the applicant’s gross income. If an applicant’s gross income from all sources is at the rate of $5,500 per annum or less at the date of the application, the contribution will be $50-$ 100. If the gross income from all sources is more than the rate of $5,500 per annum at the date of application, the contribution will be $100-$200. In some cases it will be appropriate to consider the applicant’s income from all sources in the 12 months immediately preceding the date of the application, rather than the rate at the date of application.

    3. The applicant’s assets are relevant in assessing the actual amount of the contribution. If his disposable assets are less than $500 the contribution will be at the lower end of the range and if his disposable assets are $500-$ 1,000 the contribution will be at the higher end of the range.

    4. General Law
    1. The cost of proceedings in general law matters will vary widely from the Magistrate’s Court to the High court but the guidelines for contributions in family law will apply to general law and will be related to the cost of the proceedings. However, the minimum contribution in general law cases will be $25 but may be higher than $200 in appropriate cases.
  5. The whole or pan of the contribution in either family law or general law matters may be refunded to a legally assisted person who recovers costs.
  6. Merits

  7. In making a decision to provide legal assistance, the merits of the case must, of course, be considered and for this purpose the provisions of Clause 29 (3) of the Legal Aid Bill 1975 will be taken into account. The test is whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to grant aid and regard will be had to all relevant matters including-

    1. the nature and extent of any benefit that may accrue to the applicant from the provision of the assistance or of any detriment that the applicant may suffer if the assistance is not provided; and
    2. b) in the case of assistance in relation to a proceedingthe likelihood of the proceeding terminating in a manner favourable to the applicant.

Australian Legal Aid Office (August 1975

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

– I thank the House. Those guidelines are applied reasonably and with discretion. The real test is the inability of the applicant to afford the cost of legal assistance in the particular case. This is how it should be. The test should be flexible enough to ensure that people are truly equal before the law yet stringent enough to satisfy the honourable member’s fears that people may unjustifiably seek legal aid to cover the cost of an action that they can in fact afford.

The Bill embodies the following fundamental principles: A salaried legal service is a necessary component of a comprehensive legal aid scheme; the service should be staffed by fully qualified lawyers whose professional independence is guaranteed; the private legal profession is also a necessary component of an adequate schemethe profession should be involved in the general direction of the Office but should not dominate or control it; the Government should have a general policy role in relation to the Office, but not in any way at all related to individual matters; there should be an independent body, the members of which are drawn from all relevant areas of activity in the field to advise the Government on general policy and on grants of financial assistance- that is the Commission, the investigative body about which the honourable member for Stirling talked; there should be as much community involvement in the work of the Office as possible consistent with the professional responsibilities of its lawyers; and there should be co-operation not competition between the Office and other legal aid schemes.

The Opposition puts forward certain proposals, but there is an air of unreality in the proposals for independent commissions in the 6 States- 6 different commissions, presumably, to run legal aid. These ignore substantial existing services provided by State and Federal governments, law societies and other schemes. It is unlikely, for example, that the Queensland Government would be deterred from continuing to provide legal aid through its Public Curator and Public Defender. A similar position exists in New South Wales where there is a large salaried service operating in the criminal field, through its Public Solicitor and its Public Defender. There are voluntary schemes, in case honourable members opposite did not know about them, such as the Fitzroy Legal Service, which now operate, and no doubt Will continue to do so, outside any recognised formal scheme. The Australian Government is providing assistance under many Federal Acts. The Australian Legal Aid Office has over 400 staff and 33 offices which are open. It is recognised in the Family Law Act under which it is required to provide legal assistance. I remind honourable members of the Federal Acts, rules, etc., which specifically confer obligations on the Australian Legal Aid Office. They are: The Judiciary Act, the High Court Rules, the Defence Act, the Bankruptcy Act, the Re-Establishment and Employment Act, the Interim Forces Benefits Act, the Courts Martial

Appeals Regulations, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the Trade Practices Act, the Family Law Act, the Social Welfare Ordinance, the Legal Assistance Ordinance and the Racial Discrimination Act. Sometimes when one listens to honourable members opposite one gets the feeling that they had never heard of legal aid until the Legal Aid Bill and the Australian Legal Aid Office were brought into existence by the Whitlam Government. The offices have operated in this field for many years. The Bill is an attempt to rationalise them, but members of the Opposition have never even heard of the offices.

To hand over Federal legal aid to 6 States and 2 Territories would be completely absurd. It would perpetuate inequalities and parochial priorities. I think the simple point I can make in winding up is this: The people of Australia will not accept what members of the Opposition are trying to do with this Bill through their amendment. The amendment has been seen for what it is a back door attempt to bury the Legal Aid Bill and the Australian Legal Aid Office. No matter how much they protest, it is clear from their amendment, from what their spokesmen have said, from their actions what they are seeking to do. Their Leader, Malcolm Fraser, has said so. Nothing put forward in this debate by them, least of all by their spokesman on legal affairs, has in any way challenged the substance of the legislation. They have not put forward one amendment. All they want to do is send the Bill to a committee, after they have had 4 months to consider it. Just as they cannot deny the need and the justification for Medibank, just as they cannot put forward any alternative workable strategy to our Budget, they have not put forward any serious alternative to this Bill or justification for wanting to bury it by sending it off to a committee, just as they have done with the Securities and Corporation Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. I strongly urge that the House reject the amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Howard’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 51

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2by leave taken together, and agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.8 to 8 p.m.

Clause 3

  1. 1 ) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears-

Assistant National Director’ means an Assistant National Director of the Office;

Deputy Director’ means a Deputy Director of the Office; external Territory’ does not include Papua New Guinea; statutory member of the Office’ means the National Director, an Assistant National Director or a Deputy Director;

  1. For the purposes of this Act, enrolment as a legal practitioner of a court shall be deemed to constitute enrolment as a barrister and solicitor of that court.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I seek leave to move amendments Nos. 1 to 6 circulated in my name.

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

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

-I move:

  1. Omit the definition of ‘Assistant National Director’, substitute the following definition:- “Assistant Director” means an Assistant Director of the Office; ‘.
  2. After the definition of ‘Deputy Director’, insert the following definition:- “Director “means the Director of the Office; ‘.
  3. Omit the definition of ‘external territory’.
  4. Omit the definition of ‘National Director’.
  5. Omit the definition of ‘statutory member of the Office’, substitute the following definition:- “statutory member of the Office” means the Director, an Assistant Director ora Deputy Director; ‘.
  6. In sub-clause (S) after ‘practitioner’, insert ‘, or as a practitioner, ‘.

The amendments are designed simply to take the word ‘National’ from the titles where it occurs, it being considered that, as it is the Australian Legal Aid Office and the only one of its kind in Australia, there is no need for the additional word.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 7- by leave- taken together.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-As the Committee will be aware, clauses 4 to 7 deal with the legislative ratification of the establishment of the Australian Legal Aid Office. They outline the functions of the Office and the powers of the

Office. As the Committee is dealing with those 4 clauses together, it is therefore appropriate for the Opposition to direct a few remarks at the nature of the Australian Legal Aid Office and at the effect of this legislation on that Office as it now exists. It is also appropriate to comment on the Opposition’s proposal for reference to a committee, which I regret to say the Government has voted to reject. I say again, as I said during the second reading debate and as other Opposition speakers have said, that there is nothing in the amendment moved in this place by the Opposition, which will be moved by the Opposition in another place, which would in itself prejudice the current operation of the Australian Legal Aid Office. The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) is aware that the Austraiian Legal Aid Office has operated now for at least 18 months without the legislative ratification which is contained in the Bill we are now debating. He will be aware also, as are members of the Opposition, that there is nothing at all in the Opposition’s proposal to send this Bill to a committee which would weaken the position the Australian Legal Aid Office has enjoyed during the past 1 8 months.

For Government speakers to suggest that the Opposition’s proposal would prejudice the position of the Australian Legal Aid Office is quite misleading. We would certainly not encourage- we would actively discourage- a committee from taking months, perhaps even years, as the Attorney-General suggested, to consider this Bill. That is not our intention. If this legislation is to be referred to a Senate committee, which now appears to be the only course because the Government has indicated in this place that it does not accept the idea of a joint committee, the Opposition would hope that a committee report would be available early in the new year. Far from that killing the Bill, far from that burying legal aid, it would give to the members of this House more objective information regarding the most effective way in which legal aid can be provided in Australia than is available presently. It is a fairly common device of Government Ministers and speakers when the Opposition proposes that matters be referred to Committees to suggest this back-door way of killing a Bill.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We heard those replies from the Government when we suggested during the course of debate on the National Compensation Bill that that legislation should be referred to a committee. Of course honourable members opposite as well as on this side of the chamber know what happened when that Bill went to a Senate committee. It was examined in great detail by that committee, very substantial amendments were recommended by that committee and those recommendations enjoyed the support of the 3 Government senators who sat on that committee. So to suggest that by referring this legislation to a committee we would weaken the position of the Australian Legal Aid Office or that we are trying to kill legal aid in Australia is to be quite misleading.

Mr Mathews:

– What did Senator Greenwood mean?

Mr HOWARD:

-For the benefit of the honourable member for Casey, it would give to members of this place -

Mr Enderby:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member’s remarks have nothing to do with the clauses that are before the Committee. If he wanted to make these remarks- indeed he has made them before- he should have made them at the second reading stage of the debate when he was speaking to his own amendment which failed.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-I cannot uphold the point of order. In fact clauses 6 and 7, if honourable members look at the marginal notes, cover the functions and powers of the office.

Mr HOWARD:

-I am indebted to the Committee. For the benefit of the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews), the purpose of sending the legislation to a committee is to provide honourable members with more detail and more objective information than is presently available. If we examine carefully the speeches made by Government supporters in this place we will be aware that there has been a very systematic campaign to misrepresent the position regarding legal aid in Australia. Selective figures have been cited regarding the operation of private legal aid schemes. There has been an attempt to denigrate the effectiveness of State schemes and private voluntary schemes that operate in Australia at the present time and an attempt to erect the Australian Legal Aid Office as being the one and only method by which effective legal aid can be provided in Australia. What we want to do is to send this legislation to a committee. I would have hoped that Government supporters might have been prepared to allow members of the House of Representatives- and I know there are many members of the House of Representatives on the Government side as well as on the Opposition side who are very interested in legal aid- to sit on that committee. I would have liked to see the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) sitting on that committee. I know he is interested in legal aid and I accept that he has a genuine interest in it, and he is not a lawyer. It would be a good thing if we could have on the committee a few non-lawyers who have a genuine social interest in legal aid because it is a social problem and it is a matter -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I have allowed the honourable member considerable latitude. Clause 6 and clause 7 of the Bill deal with the functions and powers of the Office. The honourable member is now becoming involved in a general debate.

Mr HOWARD:

-I accept that, Mr Chairman. The Opposition says again that nothing in our proposal will prejudice the operations of the Legal Aid Office. If our amendment had been accepted in the spirit in which it was intended the members of the committee from both Houses of this Parliament would have had an opportunity of examining the way in which the Legal Aid Office has functioned since it was established by the Government some 18 months ago. The committee would have had an opportunity of knowing whether legal aid is currently being provided by that Office in the most economical fashion. The Attorney-General made a fairly wide assertion in his reply to the second reading debate when he said that the only way to provide legal aid economically was to have an Australian Legal Aid Office and that it is really when there are non-government schemes that you get a bottomless pit. I do not think it will come as any surprise to honourable members on this side of the chamber for me to say that that would be contrary to the experience of public versus private administration in many other fields. In fact, there is very real evidence around Australia that the current operation of the Legal Aid Office might be run on more economical lines, and in saying that I do not mean that the day to day administration of the Office is spendthrift or careless. I am not suggesting that for a moment. What I am suggesting is that the way in which the Australian Legal Aid Office has operated is a matter that could properly be examined by the sort of committee that the Opposition had in mind, but the Government has chosen to use its weight of numbers to defeat that proposal. The Government has decided to misrepresent our attitude to legal aid. The Government has said that if our amendment were accepted the Legal Aid Bill would be buried and that we would bring to a halt the operations of the Australian Legal Aid Office. That is completely untrue and completely without foundation.

My final remark is again to express the concern that I expressed during the second reading debate regarding the tenuous constitutional right of the Australian Government to make provision for legal aid. The Attorney-General knows well that this Parliament has no specific power to make provision for legal aid. He knows well that unless the legislative powers of the Australian Parliament and the various State Parliaments are pooled we are not going to have a comprehensive legal aid scheme in Australia. The sort of power to provide the legal aid that is spelt out in clause 6 is a very limited power. Although it may stretch the power of this Parliament to its fullest extent it is nonetheless a very limited power. This demonstrates that unless there is a co-operative approach between the Federal Government, the State governments and the private profession towards the provision of legal aid we will not be able to cover the field.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

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

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

-The question which I endeavoured to ask the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) while he was addressing the Committee was what Senator Greenwood meant by his remarks. We have just heard from the honourable member a very elaborate defence of the Opposition’s intentions in regard to this Bill and an argument purporting to establish that the Opposition is sincere in its attempt to have a committee established to investigate all the implications of the Bill. It would be easier for the Committee to take this suggestion on the part of the honourable member seriously if Senator Greenwood, the principal Opposition spokesman on these matters, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) himself, were not so firmly on the record as expressing adamant opposition not only to the Bill itself but to the whole concept of legal aid at the Federal level.

So I rise at this point simply to press my question on the honourable gentleman and to ask him whether before the vote is taken on this clause he will not explain to the Committee what was the meaning of Senator Greenwood’s comments which have figured so prominently in the debate already.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– I wish to speak particularly on clause 6 because it does raise very directly a matter referred to in the Opposition’s amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. One of the matters which we sought to have referred to a joint select committee, that is a committee made up of members from both sides of this place and the other place, was the extent of duplication in the provision of legal advice and assistance throughout Australia and the means by which unnecessary duplication can be avoided. When we look at clause 6 we see immediately that not only will there be duplication and overlapping but also there will quite positively be confusion. I can think of innumerable examples where confusion will arise and where in a sense- and I speak in legal terminologythere will be a conflict of jurisdiction. The State legal aid schemes at present are comprehensive schemes that are unlimited in their application. Legal aid may be given to a person seeking assistance whether the legal matter arises under State law or Federal law. However, because of the constitutional limitations of this Parliament, clause 6 of the Bill must limit the granting of legal aid by the Australian Legal Aid Office to matters which come within the lawmaking powers of the Commonwealth or to matters incidental to those powers. That is how clause 6 is expressed.

What happens, might I ask the learned Attorney-General (Mr Enderby), when a person seeking assistance is confronted with a legal matter involving both State and Commonwealth law and that person does not fall within the particular class of persons comprehended by Commonwealth law- for example, pensioners, migrants and the like? What happens when the person seeking assistance does not fall within one of those classes? Let me give an example. It is within the constitutional power of this Parliament to make laws with respect to banking. If a customer of a bank is sued by a bank for a debt, the debt being an overdraft which has not been paid, and the customer believes he has a claim against the bank for common law negligence quite unrelated to any banking power exercised by the Commonwealth, will that person have to go into the Australian Legal Aid Office and have his application approved by it and then have to go to a State scheme and obtain legal aid for his counter claim against the bank? That seems to be the clear implication of the operation of clause 6. If, however, that person went, for example, to the Law Society of Western Australia and qualified for legal aid under its scheme, no obligation about conflict of jurisdiction would arise. Aid can be granted by the Law Society of Western Australia without qualification and difficulty.

I will give another example relating to an ordinary builder. The person for whom a job is done gives a cheque to the builder in payment. He then makes an inspection of the work done, is dissatisfied with it and stops payment of the cheque. The builder then sues under the Bills of Exchange Act. The person for whom the job was done then sues for negligence, for bad workmanship. That counter claim for damages for bad workmanship would not be a matter coming within any law of the Commonwealth. The person concerned, the home owner, might then go to the Australian Legal Aid Office and qualify for assistance in defending the action relating to the cheque but not for legal aid to support his claim against the builder for damages for breach of contract. What does that home owner have to do- go down the street and apply again to the Law Society of Western Australia?

These simple examples highlight one of the matters that the Opposition sought to be investigated by a joint committee of the 2 Houses of Parliament. How does the Attorney-General rationalise that situation so as to provide a truly comprehensive legal aid scheme throughout the Commonwealth, funded by the Commonwealth, by the State governments, by the profession and by trust accounts. Again I instance, as I indicated in my speech during the second reading debate on this Bill, the situation in Western Australia through the Legal Contribution Trust Act. It is no good the honourable and learned AttorneyGeneral condemning and criticising the Opposition for making a point such as that and then going on to say, in the most illogical manner, that therefore the Opposition is against legal aid. The truth, Mr Chairman, is that the Opposition is for a comprehensive national legal aid scheme which is efficient, effective and economical. We believe that such a scheme can be introduced in co-operation with the States, building upon the firm foundation already created over years of experience through the schemes introduced by the States and by the law societies, representing the profession. I make a comment which relates to clause 6, sub-clause (2). It speaks of the provision of legal assistance and states:

  1. . by making available the services of members of the Office or by arranging for the services of private legal practitioners . . .

That leaves it completely open for the Government to decide, as a matter of policy, that legal aid would be provided predominantly by the services of members of the Office. There is no restraint in this Bill to require the Government to use predominantly the services of private practitioners, thus giving to people seeking assistance a right of choice of private practitioner. What is available to a government is the opportunity to bureaucratise legal aid. The Opposition sees that as something which would be bad for people who require legal aid. There can be nothing worse than the growth of a bureaucracy in this field; for people who seek legal aid, who seek to obtain justice as they see it, to be dependent upon a bureaucratic service of legal aid. Yet, as I say, there is nothing in this Bill to limit the discretion of a government to implement, as a matter of policy, a salaried legal service for legal aid. I ask the Attorney-General: Why is that? What is the policy of this Government with regard to the bureaucratisation of legal aid through a massive, centralised Australian Legal Aid Office.

It is all very well for the Attorney-General in his second reading speech to speak of providing a better and more rational approach to the need for Federal grants to assist legal aid schemes conducted by State governments. Of course, the constitutional doubt over the validity of this legislation can be easily avoided by the Government, as the Attorney-General knows, by the making of grants under section 96 to the States in order to build upon that foundation to which I have already referred of the legal aid services provided by the States in co-operation with the law societies in each State. In that way the fear of bureaucratisation about which the Opposition is concerned can be avoided. That is one of the matters which we sought to have investigated by a joint committee of the 2 Houses.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

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

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-l would like to respond very briefly to the question asked of me by the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews). He asked me to comment upon the significance of statements made by both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and Senator Greenwood on the subject of the Australian Legal Aid Office. For his benefit and for the benefit of other honourable gentlemen I read the relevant extract from the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition during the Budget debate. He stated:

We would have abolished-

Would have- the Department of the Media, as was announced earlier, the Prices Justification Tribunal, the Australian Legal Aid Office . . .

Subsequently he stated:

This could have been done while maintaining grants to the States and to Aborigines for legal aid . . .

Of course, the point which the Leader of the Opposition was making on that occasion was within the context of an alternative Budget which would have been presented by the Opposition if it had been the Government at the time the Government’s Budget was presented in August. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent in what Mr Fraser said on that occasion and the approach that the Opposition is now taking to refer this matter to the consideration of a committee. In no way can the statement of the Leader of the Opposition be honestly construed as expressing opposition to legal aid. I say again that it is totally misleading of the Attorney-General or any other member of the Government to suggest that because we disagree with the method chosen by the Government to provide legal aid in Australia we are opposed to legal aid itself.

So far as Senator Greenwood is concerned, I invite members on the Government side during the course of this debate to draw to my attention the public comments that Senator Greenwood has made about the existence of the Australian Legal Aid Office. Senator Greenwood will have an opportunity of expressing his views on the matter when it comes up for debate in another place. I do not wish to pre-empt anything that Senator Greenwood has to say on the subject of legal aid or on the manner in which it can be provided. I will say this and say it very firmly, that Senator Greenwood, along with other members of the Opposition’s Attorney-General’s committee who have given the matter of legal aid very careful consideration, are committed, as is the Leader of the Opposition, to the provision of adequate legal aid facilities in Australia. Because we may not necessarily agree with the method the Government has chosen to provide those services we ought not to be described as being opposed to legal aid.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I should like to reply briefly to the points raised by Opposition spokesmen. There can be little doubt, I would suggest, to anyone listening that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) indicated quite clearly that he would dismantle the Australian Legal Aid Office. Similarly I put it to Opposition spokesmen- who know the facts- that their shadow Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, said: ‘We shall not retain or establish a Commonwealth employed salaried legal aid service’. Let Opposition members deny that.

Mr Howard:

– When did he say that?

Mr ENDERBY:

-Let them deny it. Honourable members opposite know the truth of the facts. Did I not put it to Senator Greenwood on a television interview and did he not deny that he had used words along those lines? Did he not also say that the risk of opposing the Bill outright, which nevertheless is the logical consequence of the arguments raised, is that the Opposition would be castigated for opposing legal aid? Did he not go on to indicate that a better and more acceptable way of opposing the legislation must be found to placate public opinion? There is definitely silence on the Opposition side now.

Mr Howard:

- Senator Greenwood was pretty accurate in his description of what the Government would do. You are misrepresenting his position.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-Order! I think that a resonable comment or a question is allowed, but I do not think a speech is allowed by the honourable member for Bennelong.

Mr ENDERBY:

– It is very revealing that the Opposition spokesmen on the subject are now silent.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I should like to comment briefly. I shall not allow that challenge from the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) to pass, because honourable members on this side of the chamber do believe in legal aid. We believe that this Bill should be considered by a committee so that we can better understand what the Government is proposing and perhaps suggest improvement No matter what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or any other honourable member on this side has said, it must not be construed as a question of our being opposed to legal aid. It is a question of from where legal aid is best administered. Whether the Federal Government helps the States to allow them to broaden their own systems or whether another system is best for Australia, is the question we pose. To suggest that we are totally opposed to legal aid is simply another case of misleading comment.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 8

  1. 1 ) In the performance of its function, the Office shall -

    1. ensure that its activities are carried on consistently with, and do not prejudice, the independence of the private legal profession; (0 make available, where appropriate, the premises of local offices for use outside office hours by persons engaged in the provision of voluntary legal assistance otherwise than under this Act or by persons engaged in the provision of services related or ancillary to the provision of legal assistance;
    2. endeavour to secure the services of language interpreters, marriage guidance counsellors, welfare officers and other appropriate persons to assist legally assisted persons in connexion with matters in respect of which they are provided with legal assistance;

Is the Committee agreeable to that course being followed?

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause ( 1 ) (f) omit ‘voluntary ‘.

In sub-clause (1 ) (g) omit ‘guidance’.

I think the amendments speak for themselves. The word ‘voluntary’ is ambiguous and may exclude from the use of the premises of the Office persons employed by non-profit legal aid schemes, such as the Detroit scheme, and matters of that sort. So it is thought desirable to make the change. The omission of the word ‘guidance’ as is proposed by the other amendment simply brings about compliance with the dimensions of the Family Law Act.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9

  1. For the purposes of the application of sub-section (1) in respect of a member of the Office who is practising as, or performing any of the functions of, a solicitor, or is exercising a right of audience in a court, in a State or Territory on be half of a legally assisted person, the Deputy Director for that State or Territory and the National Director and the Assistant National Directors shall be deemed to be a firm of solicitors lawfully practising in partnership in that State or Territory and retained by the person to act on his behalf and any members of the staff of the Office who are employed in that State or Territory shall be deemed to be employed by that firm.
The CHAIRMAN:

– Two amendments have also been circulated in relation to this clause. Is the Committee agreeable to those amendments being moved together?

Mr Howard:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

-There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

-I move:

In sub-clause (3) before ‘Director’ omit ‘National.

In sub-clause (3) before ‘Directors’ omit ‘National ‘.

Those amendments are consistent with those moved earlier and they simply seek to delete the word ‘National’ which seems to be unnecessary.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10

  1. There is established by this section an Australian Legal Aid Office Board of Management, which shall be consituted as provided by sub-section 11(1).
  2. The Board is charged with the general direction of the Office.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

At the end of sub-clause (2), add ‘with respect to matters of policy’.

The purpose of adding the words ‘with respect to matters of policy ‘ is to make it clear that we wish to ensure the independence of the Office. The amendment makes it clear that the function of the Board of Management will be to initiate and determine the policy to be followed by the Office.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) has just told the Committee that the purpose of the amendment he has moved is to make it perfectly clear that the function of the Board of Management is to initiate and determine the policy to be followed by the Office. I draw to the attention of the CommitteeI think I may do this having regard to the nature of the clause under discussion the provisions of clause 13 which provides that the Attorney-General shall be kept informed of proposals with respect to matters of policy in relation to the functioning of the Office. It therefore seems strange to me, in view of the wording of clause 13, that the Attorney-General can argue that the effect of his amendment is to make it clear that the function of the Board of Management is to initiate and determine the policy to be followed by the Office. Sub-clause (3) of clause 13 makes it clear that if the Attorney-General and the Board are unable to reach agreement the GovernorGeneral may, by order in other words, the Government, the AttorneyGeneraldetermine the policy to be followed by the Board in relation to that matter. I seek the Attorney General’s guidance on who is to have the ultimate authority to determine the policy of the Board if there is a disagreement.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I would have thought that the Government’s policy was reasonably clear. It begins with the proposition that the Office, employing solicitors and bringing into being a solicitor and client relationship between the solicitor or the lawyer employed in the Office and client, with complete independence, should at the same time, consistent with proper democratic principles, I would have thought, be accountable ultimately to the Parliament. The Office can be accountable to the Parliament only through a Minister, and it seems reasonable that the Minister should be the Attorney-General, it being a matter related to the law. If there were no policy accountability, in the ultimate it would be a complete abdication for which the Government could be held responsible. The device used, the machinery used, the system used in the 2 clauses that have been referred to is one borrowed from many other institutions which have existed for many years and which were the creatures of Liberal-Country Party governments in fact. One that comes specifically to my mind in which this sort of aim is intended is the National Capital Development Commission which is located in this very city of Canberra. I may be wrong, but I think the Reserve Bank of Australia is another one. There are many others.

It is desired to give the National Capital Development Commission complete independence in relation to the building, construction and planning of the city of Canberra. That body has all the integrity that comes from being independent. But because government provides the money, and governments have to take the blame when things go wrong, there has to be some policy relationship between a body that is independent on practical day to day matters and the ultimate question of policy. We accept that device, that machine, that system of resolving a dispute that honourable members opposite or someone on their behalf evolved many years ago and we think it is appropriate in this situation as well. I envisage that the Attorney-General would hardly ever come into a matter- in fact we have taken out the word ‘matter’. One cannot abdicate or hand over the expenditure of taxpayers’ money to a board to let it set its priorities, which might be inconsistent with the priorities generally, from a policy point of view, of the government of the day. For example, if the board were given complete independence it might want to locate all the offices in, say -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Wodonga.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I do not know about Wodonga. Without giving offence to certain groups of people, I was about to refer to what some people call the silvertail suburbs. The Legal Aid Office is intended to meet need. It is intended to be in areas principally where pensioners, migrants and low income earners are found. Obviously, if a board with complete independence located it somewhere else, the Government would rightly be criticised. The Government might want to say: ‘Hold on as a matter of policy. Some kind of different guidelines should be adopted, not in specific matters but, say, in the matter of location.’ It might be appropriate, as the taxpayers’ money is being spent and as it is not a bottomless pit, for guidelines on contribution tests to be discussed and laid before the Parliament. They would have to be laid before the Parliament because the board is required to be party to reports to the Parliament where they can be debated and discussed as we are discussing this matter here and now. One cannot abdicate responsibility. That is where the Government differs from its opponents in relation to the fundamental issue. They want to hand legal aid over to the profession; the Government does not.

Mr Howard:

– You just want to run it yourself.

Mr ENDERBY:

-No, we do not. It would become a subsidy for the legal profession. It would become a subsidy for lawyers as it has become in large measure in England. No responsible government can allow taxpayers’ money to subsidise the legal profession. I am a member of the legal profession and I am proud of it, but it would be an abdication of responsibility to set up a board, give it to some lawyers and say: ‘Here are $Xm every year. Spend it as you like. ‘ I have read out and put to my friends on the opposite side what their leader on this subject in the Senate has said about dismantling the salaried service. I do not for one moment suggest that the salaried service should be the only one. It should not. The private profession must continue and must flourish. The independence of the profession is basic. But it cannot be doubted, and it has been the experience of salaried services overseas, particularly in Canada, that three times more cases- for example, undefended divorcescan be handled by the salaried service than by farming them out to the legal profession.

Let us examine the logic of that statement. In the future if the government of the day- it may be a Liberal-National Country Party Government or an Australian Labor Party Government, I do not know- says, in the overall budgetary context, ‘We can afford $20m for legal aid this year’ and it is handed over to the private profession where it would be used in the normal way- solicitors briefing counsel and so on- the money would go one-third of the way that it would go if it were spent the other way. A proper balance has to be achieved. I suggest to honourable members that it is all very well to be proud to belong to the legal profession, but the clientsthe people whom the legal profession is supposed to serve- do not always see it that way. The legal profession is not the most popular of professions, I submit.

Mr Howard:

– You are very sensitive about that, are you not?

Mr ENDERBY:

– I suggest that you are. It is not the most popular of professions. Representatives of certain lawyer groups have persuaded Opposition members in the party room to take the stand they have taken in order to dismantle the ALAO and to fund the law society schemes with whatever limited funds they could find. This Government has funded the law society schemes to a far greater extent than the previous Government did. The record proves that. The best it ever came up with was $290,000 back in 1972. We have spent sixty times that amount. (Quorum formed)

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-I would not have spoken again on this clause if the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) had given me a satisfactory assurance that the effect of the amendment that he has just moved is to make it clear beyond doubt that in matters of policy, the final determination is to be made by the Board of Management. Whilst the Attorney-General spent a considerable period talking about the responsibility of government regarding the provision of funds, he was not prepared to concede that, having decided that a certain allocation of funds should be made to a particular service, those persons who were regarded by the Government as being expert in that service should have the responsibility of deciding how the money should be expended. I have a number of other remarks to make on this matter but I think that in deference to you, Mr Chairman, I should make them during the debate on clause 1 3.

Mr VINER:
Stirling (8.43

– I wish to express some concern at what the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) has said. He has made no clearer the Government’s attitude towards the role of the Board and whether it is to be independent of government to spend the funds appropriated to it in the way in which the Board considers appropriate, or whether the Board will be controlled by the Government and if so to what extent in the way in which it spends the funds appropriated to it. If the Board is to function with any sort of efficiency it must know where it stands. It is all very well for the Attorney-General to go on as he so often does, using words and more words without explaining to us just what the Government’s intention is. It is a very easy and convenient argument- again it is one which the AttorneyGeneral always uses- to make lawyers the chopping block and to accuse the Opposition of having vested interests and not being concerned about the needs of those who. require legal assistance.

There really comes the time when the honourable gentleman cries ‘wolf once too often. I think that time has come. However much he might try to twist and turn the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Greenwood), he cannot escape the statements of the Opposition with regard to its attitude towards legal aid. I think we will find that the more we get into the body of this Bill, the more deficient will be the Attorney-General’s explanations of its content and the more inadequate will be displayed the understanding of the Attorney-General as to what he is about. He has said that the Board may be limited by the funds it receives appropriated in the overall budgetary context. I remind the honourable gentleman that justice is never cheap. Everybody claims justice for himself. One has only to be involved in a court case, being counsel for one or other of the litigants, to see that to exactly the same extent as the plaintiff claims that justice is on his side so the defendant claims that justice is on his side also.

Justice is never cheap but the opportunity to obtain justice, according to the litigants or the persons caused, must be made available to them. If a board is constituted which does not know whether the policy which it determines for the spending of money appropriated to it will be overturned tomorrow by the government what independence of action does that board have? How effectively can it fulfil the functions given to it by the legislation? Nothing that the AttorneyGeneral has said in explanation has alleviated our concern as to just what will be the true role and function of the Board, even with these words added to give it some responsibility with regard to matters of policy. I think even though we are in Committee honourable members deserve a further and certainly a better explanation than we have already received from the AttorneyGeneral.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 1 1.

  1. 1 ) The Board shall consist of-

    1. a Chairman;
    2. the National Director; and
    3. c) one other member.

  2. The members of the Board other than the National Director shall be appointed by the Governor-General and shall be so appointed to hold office on a part-time basis.

The CHAIRMAN:

- (Dr Jenkins)-In calling on clause 11,1 make the same request as I made with other clauses. The two proposed amendments are related. Is leave granted for the Attorney-General to move both amendments together? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

  1. . In sub-clause ( 1 )( b ), omit’ National ‘.
  2. In sub-clause (2), omit ‘National ‘.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13.

  1. In the event of a difference of opinion between the Attorney-General and the Board as to the policy to be followed by the office in relation to any matter, the AttorneyGeneral and the Board shall endeavour to reach agreement.
  2. If the Attorney-General and the Board are unable to reach agreement, the GovernorGeneral may, by order, determine the policy to be followed by the Board in relation to that matter.
The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee to allow both amendments to be moved together? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

  1. In sub-clause (2), omitin relation to any matter’.

  2. Omit sub-clause (3), substitute the following sub-clause:

    1. If the Attorney-General and the Board are unable to reach agreement as to the policy to be followed by the Board, the GovernorGeneral may, by order, determine the policy to be followed by the Board.’.

I do not think I need add anything further to what I said in relation to one of the clauses dealt with earlier.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) and I have already indicated that we do not agree with the attitude of the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) that he should have the final say regarding matters of policy. He equates this power with the overall fiscal responsibility of any government to see what is done with the money that it allocates for a particular government service. If that is the case, the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) might argue that he should have the final say in matters of policy regarding the various educational institutions to which this Government allocates funds.

The truth of the matter is that the Government’s proposals in this Bill fly in the face of the recommendations of its own law and poverty commissioner, Professor Ronald Sackville who, in his report on legal aid services in Australia, recommended that the provision of legal aid at a federal level should be controlled by an independent legal aid commission. He stressed that it was important that a Government, having decided to allocate a certain amount of funds, should then leave it to a commission of people skilled in the provision of legal aid services not dominated, as the Attorney-General incorrectly perceives to be the persistent attitude of the Opposition, by the legal profession. The AttorneyGeneral is, as I said by way of interjection, very sensitive about this. He is the person who, during the course of this debate, has constantly brought up this subject; it is not Opposition speakers. For the Attorney-General to allege as he did a few moments ago that the legal profession’s lobbies have reached into the Party room and that we have all been lined up to take a particular attitude is absolute nonsense. It is not worthy of the Attorney-General to make such a suggestion any more than it has been worthy of other members of the Government to make suggestions of that nature.

The Government’s proposals are contrary to what Professor Sackville recommended. They are, in fact, contrary to the view expressed by the Law Council of Australia. They are inconsistent with the American experience where in the past 2 years it has been found necessary to vest the administration of all federal legal aid services in a separate statutory corporation. That is the view that I certainly take and which I know that a number of Opposition members interested in legal aid take. It is that if we want to have a legal aid operation on a Federal level, we should have an independent body. We would have preferred there to be a Federal legal aid commission with some executory and not advisory powers. At the State level there could also be, as the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) outlined, the State legal aid commissions to decide on the allocation of funds. We are not suggesting that the Government should abdicate interest in the provision of legal aid. Of course, the Government has to be interested, but to suggest that the Government is being irresponsible because it hands over the administration of legal aid to people whom it chooses on the basis of their expertise to administer legal aid is absolute nonsense. That is what the Attorney-General is arguing.

Of course, the truth is that the AttorneyGeneral says that either he or any subsequent Attorney-General in either a government of his ilk or a government formed from this side of the chamber will be a better judge of community need than people who are skilled in the sort of criteria that ought to apply to the provision of legal aid services. If the right people are chosen to administer legal aid services in Australia, the right decisions will be made as to those areas that should be given priority, those persons who should have assistance and generally the direction that legal aid should take. We are unhappy with this provision. We think that if there is to be a Federal apparatus to govern the distribution of funds and to determine matters of policy in legal aid, it ought to be an independent body. It ought to be made up of persons who are chosen on the basis of their experience in the provision of legal aid. It ought not to be made up exclusively of lawyers. Of course it should involve people who are concerned at the social welfare aspects of legal aid and who have had experience in the needs of people in the legal aid area.

We are very disappointed that this, along with many of the other controversial aspects of this Bill, could not be made the subject of a committee inquiry. There is a genuine area of doubt and concern regarding the way in which legal aid services are to be administered. Why does not the Government agree to a committee composed of members from both sides of both Houses of Parliament taking an objective look at the matter?

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– I really wonder how long this Committee has to continue to hear the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) say things like, ‘I do not think I need to add anything to what I said before’. This is a very important Bill. I would have thought that this Committee deserved a better explanation from the honourable gentleman about an amendment that he proposes on a matter which is at the heart of the operation of the legal aid scheme which the Government proposes. I hope that as we go through this Bill with the innumerable important clauses that we have to consider in Committee we will not have the Attorney-General continuing to say that he does not think he needs to add anything.

This amendment is of fundamental importance to the whole operation of the scheme. What is to be the function and the power of the Board with respect to policy? As the amendment is proposed, the Board may be overruled by the Governor-General. As we know, many constitutional matters have been raised in recent days. Perhaps the Opposition ought to remind the honourable gentleman that the GovernorGeneral acts upon the advice of the Government of the day. No doubt, if the Attorney-General is in disagreement with the Board, he will report to the Cabinet and the Cabinet will advise the Governor-General to act in accordance with the Attorney-General’s recommendation.

What sort of position are members of the Board to be placed in when they, with their expertness- I would hope that they would be appointed because of their expertness in this field of legal aid- come into direct conflict with the Government? If the Opposition proposals advanced by the honourable member for Bennelong were accepted, the Board would be independent with regard to the policy that it pursues within the framework of the Act and to the limit of the funds that are provided to it. So there would be no clash between the Government and the Board. But no, the Attorney-General, in his wisdom, believes that he ought to have the overriding power with respect to the policy of the Board. I would have thought that the purpose of the legislation is to express adequately within its terms what the policy of the Government is so as to provide not only the means of administration of the scheme but also an expression of the purpose of the Government’s proposals. Then within that purpose and within the powers that are granted to the Board by the legislation the Board can operate to give the kind of legal aid which the Government considers appropriate.

Again I refer to what the honourable member for Bennelong has said. He said that in other countries seeking to provide legal aid to persons in need it has been found that the most effective manner of giving that legal aid is through an agency of the Government which is independent. The Government’s function, once having established the agency and expressed its purpose in the legislation creating it, is to provide funds for the agency so that the agency can go about its business. But this Government, as we see so often in so many fields, wants to keep all the strings in its own hands. It wants to be able to tell the Board of its own creation what to do. What does the Government fear of the Board, of the members of the Board which it will appoint? Does the Government not have any trust in the members of the Board which it appoints? What are the fears that it has, and why? Again I refer to what the honourable member for Bennelong has” pointed out. Professor Sackville in his report recommended that the provision of legal aid at a national level should be by way of an independent board able to provide legal aid where there is need, and that such a board should be funded as required by the Government.

So I again express the hope that as we go through this Bill looking at different clauses which are of great significance we will not find the Attorney-General just flippantly saying to the Committee: ‘I do not think I need to add anything’. I rather venture to suggest that as we go on it will become abundantly clear that the Attorney-General has not got anything to add because he really does not know the great problems that are being created by his own legislation.

I again draw the attention of the Committee to one of the terms of reference sought by the Opposition in regard to the establishment of a joint select committee- a committee of both Houses of the Parliament- that is, an examination of the clauses of the Bill. This is a very good illustration of the kind of thing that such a joint select committee could investigate. It could come up with a firm recommendation to the Parliament that the Board should be independent or that in some respects the Government should have power to override the Board in the policy that it wants to pursue. If legal aid is to function effectively, efficiently and economically through the Board which the Government creates then the Government must have confidence in the members that it appoints to that Board and if it has confidence in the capacity of those members then surely it ought to have sufficient confidence in their ability to determine the appropriate policy to give effect to a legal aid scheme at the national level.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 16- by leave- taken together.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-These clauses deal with the establishment and functions of the Australian Legal Aid Commission. If ever one can find a fairly empty gesture in this Bill one can find it Part IV, which provides for the establishment of an Australian Legal Aid Commission. The Opposition would have been very interested in an Australian Legal Aid Commission that had a bit of executive power but when one reads, particularly later on in Part IV, the provisions relating to the functions of the Commission one finds that it does not.

At this stage I would like to direct my remarks particularly to clauses 15 and 16. The Committee will be aware that the Commission is to consist of a maximum number of 1 3 Commissioners, which number is to include a Chairman and a Commissioner appointed by it to represent the Attorney-General and not less than 6 nor more than 1 1 other Commissioners. I have said before in this debate, as have other Opposition speakers, that I do not believe that the lawyersindeed, the private practitioners in the lawshould dominate the bodies which are in control or are advising in legal aid matters, but the Opposition does believe that there ought to be a slightly more generous provision for private legal practitioners than the grudging acknowledgement which is given in clauses 15 and 16.

I invite the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby ) to deny that clauses 15 and 16, as they stand, do not guarantee more than one out of thirteen of the Commissioners shall be private legal practitioners. I am not suggesting that there should be ten out of the thirteen or even seven out of the thirteen; I am suggesting that the Government might be a little more willing to acknowledge that there are many private legal practitioners in Australia who have a good deal of knowledge about how effectively one can provide legal aid and that their expertise ought to be acknowledged instead of it being specified, as clause 16 does, that one of the categories of persons that has to produce a candidate for appointment to the Commission is the category of those who have had experience or knowledge in any other field relative to the duties of a Commissioner. Of course, honourable gentlemen on this side of the chamber know very well that that leaves an extraordinarily wide discretion with the Attorney-General and that we might well end up with some people whose expertise in the provision of legal aid services in less than satisfactory.

What the Opposition does say about this clause is that there ought to be adequate provision for the private legal profession insofar as the membership of the Board is concerned. We do not specify the precise number. We are not that dogmatic. We do say that a guarantee of not more than one private legal practitioner- I stress the word ‘private’- is not satisfactory. We think that the Government, in drafting clauses 15 and 16, has not given sufficient acknowledgement to the contribution that private legal practitioners can make.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 17.

  1. 1 ) The functions of the Commission are

    1. to assess, and report to the Attorney-General, what should be the respective roles of private legal practitioners, legal practitioners employed by Governments, and other bodies providing legal services, in the provision of legal assistance in Australia to persons who are unable to afford the full cost of legal services;
    2. to advise the Attorney-General as to the desirability of granting financial assistance to bodies administering schemes for the provision of legal assistance in Australia, or proposing to administer such schemes, and as to the amount of financial assistance that should be granted and the conditions upon which the financial assistance should be granted;
    3. to advise the Attorney-General on any other matters relating to the provision of legal assistance; and
The CHAIRMAN:

– Once again I seek the leave of the Committee for the Attorney-General to move his amendments together. There being no objection, that course may be followed.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

-With the leave of the Committee, I move:

  1. . In subclause ( 1 ) (c) before ‘ private ‘, insert ‘ the Office, ‘
  2. In subclause ( I ) ( f) omit ‘ and ‘
  3. After paragraph ( f) of sub-clause ( 1 ), insert the following paragraph:- (fa) to advise the Attorney-General as to the educational programs that would be most effective in promoting an understanding by the public, or by sections of the public who have special needs in this respect, of their rights, powers, privileges and duties under the laws of Australia and of the Territories; and ‘.

With regard to the first amendment, it is considered desirable to make it clear that the Commission may assist and report to the AttorneyGeneral of the day on the roles of all bodies, including the Australian Legal Aid Office, interested in the provision of legal services. The second amendment is, as it appears, only a formal drafting amendment consequential upon the addition of the new subclause 1 (fa). The final amendment inserts a new paragraph which gives the Commission, within its general research and advice functions, a role in the vital field of public education and is cognate to that providing for a public education role for the Office.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Opposition is disappointed that the proposed Legal Aid Commission’s functions are to be only advisory. The amendments of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) improve the situation a little although they do not alter the basic advisory capacity of the Commission, and the Commission will not have any executorial authority and will not meet the criteria for a satisfactory Commission suggested by Professor Sackville and the Law Council of Australia. However, the Attorney-General’s third amendment is a considerable improvement. I regard the provision of information to members of the public as to the availability of legal aid services as being an essential element in the provision of adequate legal aid facilities. It is all very well to have good legal aid facilities, but unless the people who need legal aid assistance are aware that those facilities exist and are made aware of the locations of offices, advisory centres and inquiry centres, the legal aid service is of absolutely no use to them. I am glad to see specific acknowledgment of that in the Attorney-General’s amendment, and I think his third amendment considerably improves the clause.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– I wish to support the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) in expressing the Opposition’s disappointment that the functions of the Commission are to be only advisory and that it is not to have any executive function. I think there needs to be an explanation in Committee by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) concerning the relationship of the functions of the Commission to the functions of the Board and of the Office. There ought to be a relationship between the functions of the Board with respect to matters of policy and the functions of the Commission with respect to those matters which are outlined in clause 17. For example, the first function is expressed to be the ascertainment and review of the extent of the need for legal assistance in Australia and the making of recommendations from time to time to the Attorney-General as to the most effective, economical and desirable means of satisfying that need.

As I perceive the matter, in considering matters of policy the Board could cover the same field because if the Board is to manage the affairs of the Office in a way which will give effective, economical and desirable legal assistance to people in need, it must consider the whole range of ways and means of providing legal aid to those people. It must consider policy as well as administration. It will therefore necessarily be covering the same ground as the Commission. I ask the Attorney-General to explain to the Committee what will be the relationship between the 2 bodies. Is there to be any overlap? How will they relate to each other?

I also point out to the Committee that there is within the provisions of clause 17 the seeds of difficulty, if not confrontation, between the Commission and the Board particularly having regard to the matter we have already discussed, that is, the power of the Attorney-General through his Government and the GovernorGeneral to override the views of the Board on matters of policy. If the Commission is to make recommendations to the Attorney-General which differ from the views of the Board I can perceive the situation where the Board and the Commission will come into conflict. That, of course, would be undesirable. The AttorneyGeneral may say that he in his office can resolve the conflict. He may well be the arbiter of the conflict. However, it would seem that if he is to be the arbiter he must be a biased arbiter because he would almost necessarily have to override the Board and favour the Commission.

Mr Enderby:

– Why?

Mr VINER:

– My assertion could be answered by someone saying that the Attorney-General would override the Commission and accept the views of the Board. That simply points up the problem I see in the future relationship between the functions of the Commission and of the Board. If this were thought through it would be seen that the recommendations of the Opposition and of Professor Sackville and of the Law Council of Australia that the Commission has an executive function would be far the most preferable role for the Commission to play. That would necessarily mean amending the functions of the Board particularly on policy matters and, having regard to the matters which both the honourable member for Bennelong and I have referred to in this debate, highlights the fact that there is a grave need for this Bill to be referred to a joint select committee of the 2 Houses.

One question that could be critically examined by such a committee is: What are the most efficient and effective roles for the Commission, the Board and the Office? Here I would have thought that the skills that could be brought to bear on a committee of members of both Houses, which would receive the advice of and the benefit of the critical examination of persons called before the committee, would be welcomed by the Government. However, regrettably the Attorney-General just casts it aside with that flippant argument he uses constantly and in a most illogical manner that because the Opposition seeks to be critical of the Bill we are against legal aid. It may be that the only retort, let alone reply, from the Attorney-General will be: I have nothing more to add.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19.

  1. 1 ) The Commission shall furnish to the Attorney-General such reports as the Attorney-General requires.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Omit sub-clause (1), substitute the following subclauses:

The Commission shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and furnish to the AttorneyGeneral a report of the operations of the Commission during that year. ( 1 A) In addition to reports referred to in sub-section ( 1 ), the Commission shall prepare and furnish to the AttorneyGeneral such reports as the Attorney-General requires and may, from time to time, prepare and furnish to the

Attorney-General such other reports as the Commission thinks fit.’.

The proposed new sub-clauses add to the duty in the Commission to report when the AttorneyGeneral so requires a duty to report annually and provide that the Commission may report from time to time as it thinks appropriate. The proposed new sub-clauses give the Commission more power.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– May I seek the cooperation of the Committee on a matter of procedure? I suggest that we take clauses 20 to 25 of the Bill together and also amendments 20 to 32 which have been circulated by the AttorneyGeneral and all of which have the same effect. There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Clause 20.

There shall be a National Director of the Office and such number of Assistant National Directors of the Office as the Governor-General, by writing signed by him, determines.

Clause 21.

  1. 1) A person is not eligible for appointment as a statutory member of the Office unless-

    1. in the case of the National Director or an Assistant National Director- he is enrolled as a barrister, as a solicitor, or as a barrister and solicitor, of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; or
    2. b) in the case of the Deputy Director for a State or internal Territory- he is enrolled as a barrister and solicitor, or as a solicitor, of the Supreme Court of that State or Territory, and he has, during the period of S years immediately preceding his appointment, engaged for a period of not less than 2 years, or for periods the aggregate of which is not less than 2 years, in work of a professional legal nature that, in the opinion of the Governor-General, is adequate to qualify him to perform the duties required to be performed by that statutory member of the Office.

  2. In forming an opinion for the purposes of sub-section ( 1 ) in relation to the appointment of a person as the Deputy Director for a State or Territory, the Governor-General shall have regard to the requirements under the law of that State or Territory that have to be fulfilled by a person before a certificate entitling him to practise without restriction as a barrister and solicitor, or as a solicitor, in that State or Territory may be issued to him.

Clause 22.

  1. 1 ) The National Director shall manage the affairs of the Office under the general direction of the Board.
  2. The Assistant National Directors shall perform such duties in relation to the management of the affairs of the Office as the National Director directs.

Clause 23.

  1. I ) There shall, in respect of each State and internal Teritory, be a Deputy Director of the Office for that State or Territory.

    1. The National Director shall, in respect of each prescribed external Territory, by writing signed by him, appoint a person who is the Deputy Director for a State or an internal Territory also to be the Deputy Director for that external Territory.
    2. The Deputy Director for a State or Territory shall, under the National Director, manage the affairs of the Office in that State or Territory.

Clause 24.

  1. The National Director may, on behalf of and in the name of the Office employ as members of the staff of the Office such persons as he thinks necessary.
  2. The National Director shall not employ a person as a member of the staff of the Office if, upon the employment of that person, the number of members of the staff of the Office would exceed the number of persons that the AttorneyGeneral has authorized the office to employ as members of the staff of the Office.

Clause 25.

  1. The National Director may, either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing signed by him, delegate to another member of the Office any of his powers under this Act other than this power of delegation.
  2. A power so delegated, when exercised by the delegate, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been exercised by the National Director.
  3. A delegation under this section does not prevent the exercise of a power by the National Director.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I thank you for the suggestion, Mr Chairman, and I thank my colleagues for the co-operation. I move:

The amendments are simply to delete the word National’ as has been done before.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Opposition’s worry about this group of clauses is directed to the Government’s unwillingness to subject members of the Australian Legal Aid Office, wherever they may practise, to the full practising requirements of individual law societies in Australia. I would seriously entreat the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) in speaking to these clauses to explain to the Opposition why the Government is reluctant to take this step. If indeed the Government is serious in acknowledging the place of the private legal profession in Australia, if it is serious in co-operating with the States in the provision of legal aid services, if it is serious in imposing upon members of the Australian Legal Aid Office precisely the same professional obligations as are imposed upon members of the private legal profession, and if it is serious about providing to clients of the Australian Legal Aid Office exactly the same confidentiality of advice and assistance as a person enjoys when engaging a private practitioner on his or her own account, the Attorney-General ought reasonably to change the Bill as it now stands to provide that in all respects members of the Australian Legal Aid Office shall be required not only to comply with admission requirements of the individual State and territorial supreme courts but also to comply with the practising requirements of the law societies of the individual States.

If it is desired by the Government not to develop in our community 2 categories of practitioners, those employed on a salaried basis by the Government and those engaged in private practice, the Government will subject the members of the Australian Legal Aid Office to precisely the same restrictions and privileges as private legal practitioners. I regard this and I know- I make no apology for expressing this view- that the legal profession views this as a very important matter. The honourable gentleman and other honourable members will be aware of the obligations which flow from the issue of a practising certificate and the obligations which are imposed upon persons when applying initially for a practising certificate and subsequently when they apply for renewal of such practising certificates.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Is the honourable member discussing clauses 20 to 25 or is he already on to clause 26?

Mr HOWARD:

-Mr Chairman, I take your point; clause 26 is more directly related although I would have thought my remarks are relevant to clause 21.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think the honourable member realises that I am not trying to be restrictive.

Mr HOWARD:

– I think you are being very reasonable. I thought it more appropriate to direct my comments to clause 2 1 because I see in that clause what I call a very grudging acknowledgment by the Attorney-General of the requirements of the various States regarding practising certificates. He says that the Governor-General shall have regard to the requirements under the law that have to be fulfilled by a person before a certificate entitling him to practise may be issued to him. There is no obligation placed upon the Governor-General or the Attorney-General himself to ensure that those persons hold these certificates. We are a little concerned about that aspect. I would like the Attorney-General to explain why he has not felt able to go the additional distance and impose that obligation on all members of the Legal Aid Office. I am at a loss to know why he is not prepared to do that.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I accept what the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has said about the practising certificate requirement. There is strong feeling about it in the legal profession. That is understandable. I do not know whether he has had the chance to read the judgments in Bannister’s case but he will find expressed there a point of view by some of the judges of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory which suggests that it is inconsistent that a practising certificate be required with a salaried service. It is the policy in the Australian Legal Aid Office to have people who have only practising certificates. It is my understanding that all but perhaps one or two, or a few more, have practising certificates at the moment. It is certainly firm policy. The local Australian Capital Territory ordinance- the honourable gentleman may be familiar with it- followed the judgment in the Bannister case. I should make it clear that the Government does not accept the law as stated in Bannister’s case. An appeal has been lodged. It exposes an area of uncertain law. In the case of the Australian Capital Territory ordinance, the solution adopted was to make it a requirement that the officers of the Office have the same qualifications as they would be required to have were they coming up for a practising certificate from the Australian Capital Territory Law Society. That seemed to meet the requirements of the profession in Canberra. A similar approach has been adopted in the Bill. There are other problems apart from the expressions of opinion in Bannister’s case. The fact is that the requirements of the 6 States are not the same. It was thought that this was the best way of solving the problem.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26.

  1. In practising as a solicitor or performing any of the functions of a solicitor in pursuance of this section-

    1. a statutory member of the Office has all the rights and privileges of a solicitor; and
    2. a member of the staff of the Office has all the rights and privileges of a solicitor employed by a person practising as a solicitor on his own account.

  2. This section applies in relation to a person acting in the office of a statutory member of the Office in like manner as it applies in relation to the statutory member of the Office concerned.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-Once more I seek leave of the Committee for the AttorneyGeneral to move 2 amendments together. There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

  1. In sub-clause (6) (a) after ‘solicitor’, insert ‘practising on his own account ‘.
  2. After sub-clause ( 8 ), insert the following sub-clauses: (8a) This section applies in relation to a member of the staff of the Office who is in charge of a local office established by the Office in like manner as it applies in relation to a statutory member of the Office. (8b) A certificate given by a statutory member of the Office stating that the Office has established a local office in a locality specified in the certificate and that a person specified in the certificate is a member of the staff of the Office and is in charge of that local office is prima facie evidence of the matters certified. (8c) A document purporting to be a certificate given under sub-section (8B) shall, unless the contrary is established, be deemed to be such a certificate and to have been duly given.’.

The first amendment makes it clear that a statutory member- that is, the Director, assistant director and deputy director of the Australian Legal Aid Office- when acting as a solicitor does so as a principal. In other words, he must be admitted as a solicitor in the particular jurisdiction. That is referred to in clause 26 (4). As a matter of policy, he will be required to hold a practising certificate under the relevant State or Territory legislation. The second amendment seeks to insert 3 new sub-clauses. They give lawyers of the Office who are in charge of local offices the same rights to practise as a solicitor who is a principal in a firm. As a matter of policy, all such lawyers will hold practising certificates under the relevant State or Territory legislation.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

-I will not canvass the area already covered by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) in speaking about practising certificates. It is a very important matter; it is a very delicate matter as well. It is hard to understand why as a matter of policy the Government should require that officers of the Australian Legal Aid Office have practising certificates but not be prepared to make it a legislative requirement. It is hard to understand if it is good enough as a matter of policy why it is not good enough as a matter of legislation.

I do want to raise a matter which I think can throw very grave doubt upon the effectiveness of clause 26 of the Bill and that is the constitutional validity of this clause. I refer particularly to subclause (2) which provides:

Subject to sub-section (4), a statutory member of the Office is entitled to practise as a solicitor, and to perform the functions of a solicitor, in any State or Territory and in any federal court and in any court of the State or Territory and has a right of audience in any federal court and any court of a State or Territory.

There can be no question about the constitutional validity of that provision with regard to federal courts or courts in a territory. But I do seriously question the constitutional validity of it with respect to courts of a State. I do so because legislative power with respect to persons who may practise in courts in a State and those who have the right of audience in a court of a State is exclusively the jurisdiction of a State parliament. There is just no question about that. It is exclusively the prerogative of a State parliament.

Clause 26 would seek to assert that the Commonwealth by virtue of exercising a legislative power with respect to legal aid can thereby go on to provide that officers of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Office by virtue of that fact may practise as a solicitor and have a right of audience. To some extent that problem is overcome by subsection (4) which does require that an officer of the Legal Aid Office comply with the requirements of the law of a State relating to admission and enrolment as a solicitor or a barrister and a solicitor. Nevertheless the presumption under clause 26 is that the Commonwealth can assert the power to declare a person who is not otherwise eligible to practise as a solicitor in a State or to have the right of audience before the court of a State notwithstanding the law of that State. States require not only that a person be admitted or enrolled to practise as a barrister or as a solicitor but also that he should have a practising certificate. This clause declares that it has effect notwithstanding the laws of a State regarding practice certificates.

Why is it that the Government might consider it necessary as a matter of policy that practitioners who are members of the Legal Aid Office should have a practising certificate but do not require it as a matter of statute? It seems to me, Mr Chairman, that it comes back to this assertion of a constitutional power in the Commonwealth to be able to declare, notwithstanding the law of a State, that a person employed under Commonwealth law can practise as a solicitor. With regard to that constitutional proposition I think there is grave doubt about it. I ask the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby): Why is it that the Commonwealth even wishes to assert that power? Why is it that it does not make a very simple legislative requirement that those officers of the Legal Aid Office employed in a State shall be enrolled and shall be eligible to practise in the courts of that State? If they are not they cannot practise as solicitors or as officers of the Legal Aid Office. That is a simple situation.

All that the honourable gentleman does in putting forward a clause of this kind is to complicate the question. It might be said: ‘Well, in practice, nobody is going to question the matter.’ But some day someone will. Then we will be in a great deal of trouble. We will not only have the Bannister case to fight in the High Court but we will have theSmith case, the Jones case and other cases. As I perceive it, we will be letting ourselves in for a whole new world of litigation. This situation can be easily overcome. Why does not the Government as a simple matter require that all officers practising as solicitors employed by the Legal Aid Office must be admitted or enrolled in the State in which they are going to be employed and must be eligible according to the laws of the State to practise as solicitors?

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28.

  1. 1 ) An application for legal assistance under this Act shall be decided by an appropriate member of the Office in accordance with arrangements made or approved by the National Director.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause ( 1 ) omit ‘National ‘.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29.

  1. In the making of a decision whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to provide legal assistance to a person, regard shall be had to all relevant matters, including-

    1. the nature and extent of any benefit that may accrue to the person from the provision of the assistance or of any detriment that the person may suffer if the assistance is not provided; and
    2. in the case of assistance in relation to a proceedingthe likelihood of the proceeding terminating in a manner favourable to the person.

  2. The regulations may authorize the provision of legal assistance under this Act in such cases as are specified in, or ascertained in accordance with, the regulations, being cases involving-

    1. the institution of proceedings for the purpose of obtaining a decision by a court where it is in the public interest to obtain such a decision; or
    2. the institution of proceedings relating to the protection, maintenance and preservation of the natural or cultural environment of Australia (including those places, being components of that environment, that have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the community).
The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-Is it the wish of the Committee to follow the previous course with regard to the three circulated amendments in respect of this clause? There being no objection, that procedure will be followed.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

  1. In sub-clause (3), omit paragraph (a) of sub-section ( 1 ), substitute the following paragraph:

    1. the nature and extent of any benefit that may accrue to the person, to the community or to any section of the community from the provision of the assistance or of any detriment that may be suffered by the person, by the community or by any section of the community if the assistance is not provided; and ‘.

  2. Omit sub-clause (4), substitute the following sub-clause:

    1. In a case involving-
    1. a question of public importance; or
    2. the protection, maintenance or preservation of the natural or cultural environment of Australia (including any place, being a component of that environment, that has aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the community) if the provision of legal assistance under this Act to a person is not authorised by the preceding sub-sections of this section, legal assistance may nevertheless be provided to the person under this Act in such circumstances as are specified in, or ascertained in accordance with, the regulations. ‘.

  3. At the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause:

    1. Legal assistance shall not be provided under this Act to a person in or in connexion with an application made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under sub-section 36(3).’.

The first amendment enables consideration to be given to the benefit to the community that might result from professional legal assistance to a particular applicant as well as the benefit to the applicant himself. Any disadvantage to the community which might arise out of the provision of assistance to an individual is irrelevant. The purpose of the second amendment is to make it clear in a case involving a question of public importance or the preservation of the national environment that where the provision of legal assistance is not otherwise authorised- under the Act legal aid may be provided if the special criteria to be prescribed by the regulations are satisfied. Legal assistance still may be granted in a . case that satisfies the requirements of sub-clauses ( 1 ), (2) and (3) of clause 29 although it raises questions of public importance or the national environment. In respect of the third amendment it seemed to the Government that it would not be appropriate for the Office to decide upon the provision of legal assistance for appeals against its decisions. Provision is made in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to enable the Attorney-General in appropriate cases to make arrangements for assistance to be provided if necessary.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Opposition regards clause 29 as being one of the more important clauses of the Bill. Quite clearly any system for the provision of legal aid must contain clear eligibility criteria and any government in drawing up legal aid legislation must be concerned to ensure that on the one hand legal aid reaches those who need it and on the other hand that the provision of legal aid facilities is not abused by those who do not need them. I say at this stage that many members of the Opposition are concerned about the implications of sub-clause (4) of clause 29. 1 think it is opening a potential Pandora’s box to have in a Bill a provision which ultimately in matters of policy leaves it to the Attorney-General, the Government of the day, to decide whether or not legal aid may be granted for certain categories of action. I think it is opening a Pandora’s box to provide in a Bill that legal aid shall be given in any matter involving public interest without requiring the person seeking the legal aid, or the group of persons, to comply with the eligibility criteria laid down in respect of the pursuit of individual rights and individual actions.

Why is it that the Government believes it should provide for the pursuit of an individual action which might, according to the political view of the government of the day, be in the public interest? I think all honourable members would agree that the assessment of public interest in this context is an extraordinarily broad one and subject very much to the value judgment of the government of the day, be it a Labor government or a government of our persuasion. The Opposition is concerned about this clause. I do not say that under no circumstances should such a provision exist, but it does open a new area. It means that if a person has a public interest action involving the environment, irrespective of whether that person complies with the eligibility criteria that a person with a private action might have to comply with, that person might become eligible for legal aid. It opens up the spectre of vexatious actions in many cases which could become extremely costly.

The Opposition does not say that under no circumstances should such a provision be made but we think it ought to be looked at very carefully. We would like a committee to have the benefit of the experience of persons who have seen this type of thing operate overseas, particularly in the

United States of America where I understand that in many legal aid systems provision is made for this type of action. We would like to know of the experience over there. We would like to know the cost. We would like to know whether such a thing has been abused. We would like to know the number of persons or number of groups of persons who have been able to obtain legal aid for environmental and public interest actions. We would like to know which of those persons would or would not have complied with the eligibility criteria if the matter in respect of which they wanted assistance had become a private action.

I hope the Attorney-General will take note of the Opposition’s views on this matter because we regard the question of the criteria for assistance as being at the heart of any legal aid system, not because we take a miserly approach but because we, as a Parliament, ought to be concerned about what this Bill is committing this Government to, for the time being anyway, and future governments as well so far as the provision of legal aid is concerned. I say again that this is precisely the sort of matter that a committee could have examined with profit. It may well be that in the light of that examination those of us on the Opposition side who are worried about this category of assistance would have had our fears allayed. I cannot go further, Mr Chairman, than to express concern about it. I know other members of the Opposition are in the same position. They do not know whether this is a desirable trend and we would like to know a lot more about it. I think it would repay study by people interested in the subject of legal aid if that sort of clause, in parrticular, were the subject of a committee examination.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– I think this is another example of the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) saying: ‘I have nothing more to add to the wording of the amendment’. Really, that is all that the honourable member did in introducing it. I admit that he went a little further than so many of his ministerial colleagues who simply say: ‘I move the amendment standing in my name’. However, that does not tell us very much about why the Government is amending its Bill. What new information has it obtained which has caused it to change its mind? What new considerations have been brought to bear in order to compel it it amend its own Bill? The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has pointed this up very well in referring to the proposed amendment to sub-clause (4) of clause 29 which relates to matters of public importance and matters affecting the protection, maintenance or preservation of the natural or cultural environment of Australia. I ask the AttorneyGeneral for some examples of the deficiencies in the provisions of the Bill and of the benefits in the amendment which has now been introduced. What has the Government discovered since it introduced the Bill which has caused it to withdraw completely the original clause and to put forward a new one?

I think the Government, through the Attorney-General, ought to follow the precept that, generally speaking, good government is government by legislation; bad government is government by regulation and that is what the Attorney-General proposes to adopt in the amendment which he has moved. The regulations will prescribe the circumstances where it is considered that legal assistance ought to be given in matters of public importance or matters affecting the environment and culture. Will the AttorneyGeneral be good enough to give the Committee the benefit of his knowledge as to what criteria will be included in the regulation? I should have thought that before the Committee can approve the amendment it will need an indication of what the criteria will be because, as we know so well, the regulations will control the benefit conferred by this amendment. The criteria expressed in the regulations may limit or expand the availability of legal assistance to persons who want it.

It is not a mean request to make of the Attorney-General to ask what the criteria will be in the regulations. Maybe we will simply get the answer from the honourable gentleman that he has nothing more to add. That is another very good reason why the whole Bill should be referred to a joint select committee. The committee could examine the full implications of this amendment to see whether it is better for the criteria to be expressed in legislation rather than in regulations. The Opposition does not deny that there is an important area of need in matters of public importance. However, that may be gauged by the day, according to circumstances or events at the time, or in matters of natural or cultural environment. We do not deny that there is a need for legal assistance in those areas. Examples occur every day. Groups within the community concerned about the impact of an export industry or of the construction of highways on the environment may wish to bring either an individual or a collective action to try to control the damage which will be done, as they see it, by such an industry or by such a thing as a highway. There are ready made examples in every State.

We have Fraser Island in Queensland. We have the wood chip industry in New South Wales and Western Australia. We have highways being driven in places all the time which the local community does not desire. These are ready made situations where the community may need legal assistance because, collectively, it cannot provide the necessary funds to fight an action which maybe has to go right to the High Court.

Another matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee is contained in subclause ( 1 ) of clause 29 which deals with the eligibility of a person for legal assistance. Some words of uncertain application are used in that sub-clause, maybe necessarily uncertain but nevertheless uncertain. For example, a person can receive legal assistance if and only if he is in need of legal assistance because his financial or other circumstances place him at a disadvantage in obtaining legal advice. What kind of circumstances other than financial would make a person eligible to receive legal assistance? What disadvantage is it that the Government has in contemplation which would have to exist before a person finds himself eligible for legal assistance.

We know also, only too well, that the criteria of eligibility for legal assistance, a means test if you like, or a circumstance test, if I may pick up the language of the Bill, will determine the extent of the funding that will be required from the Government. It will determine whether or not legal aid in Australia is to become a bottomless pit, like Medibank, or is to be controlled in some way by the Government. We know also that Australia at the present time is facing a Budget deficit of $2, 800m. It is estimated, on the most reliable estimation, according to the published figures of the Government up to now, that that Budget deficit is likely to finish up at $3,500,000 and may well go further. If we have, as well as Medibank, a bottomless pit of legal aid, how high will that Budget deficit go? We have heard examples in debate of what has happened in Britain. There has been a doubling and even a trebling of legal aid in Britain in a matter of a few years. Is that the prospect with which Australia is to be faced? I think there is only one answer to that question. If this legal aid scheme is to be administered as it is proposed by this Government Australia will be facing a bottomless pit in legal aid similar to that which it is facing in respect of Medibank. We know that there are people in need of legal aid. However much we may desire to provide all people in need with legal aid, nevertheless there are always economic constraints upon us. And that is one of the realities which the Opposition would like a joint select committee of this House and of the Senate to consider.

I refer again to the motion moved by the Opposition for the appointment of that joint select committee. One of the terms of reference we sought to have included was that the committee should inquire into and report upon which persons should be entitled to legal aid and what should be the basis upon which advice and assistance is provided. That is a proper matter of inquiry. We have heard nothing from the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) either at the second reading stage or during the debate on this clause to give the Opposition any confidence that the Government will seek to provide proper legal assistance to people who are truly in need in a way which is economic and efficient.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

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

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 3 1 .

  1. The National Director shall, from time to time, make known to the public, in such manner as he considers appropriate, the circumstances in which legally assisted persons will be required to make payments to the Office in accordance with this section and the nature and extent of the payments that will be required to be made.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The amendment once again is related to the word ‘National’.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 (Arranging for services of private legal practitioners).

Mr VINER:
Stirling

-Clause 32 is one which ought to give the Committee serious concern. I referred to it in my speech at the second reading stage, and I think it deserves the close examination of this Committee. Firstly, it enables to be prepared lists of private legal practitioners who are willing to act as barristers or solicitors on behalf of legally assisted persons, with regard to a particular class of matter in particular courts or in particular localities. That is something which is generally done in most if not all legal aid schemes administered by law societies in each of the States. Legal practitioners can place their names on the list according to the areas of law in which they work, according to their availability and to their general desire to participate in a legal aid scheme. But my experience in Western Australia is that most members of the profession, particularly those on the litigious side of the profession, do readily put their names on a list or a panel. That provision of the clause is therefore unexceptional and admirable in itself.

However, it is the next part of the clause which I think ought to give the Committee great concern, because it does not give to a person receiving legal assistance a statutory right to choose his or her legal practitioner. I contrast this clause with section 40 of the Western Australian Legal Contribution Trust Act which gives a clear right of choice to a person receiving legal aid to have a practitioner of his choice. This clause, however, simply allows a legally assisted person to express his preference. Surely that is a totally inadequate statutory right. Why does the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) want to retain in the hands of the officers of the Legal Aid Office the right to say to Bill Smith or Phyllis Jones: ‘You cannot have the lawyer that you prefer. I am going to send you off to someone else’. What paternalism is involved in that concept? I have heard the AttorneyGeneral so many times in this chamber condemn what he has regarded as paternalism on the part of the Opposition. Why is the Attorney-General so paternalistic? Why does he deny to a person who wants legal advice the ability to make his own choice rather than expressing his preference?

Furthermore, the evil, if what is contained in this clause might be described in terms as strong as that, is compounded by giving to the Legal Aid Office the authority to allocate the work, which comes into the Office and which is concerned with legally assisted persons, to barristers or solicitors who are on the list. Again the concept of allocation has an inbuilt element of paternalism. Knowing very well the people involved in the legal profession, I have no doubt that, in a spirit of co-operation, they will be prepared to take the work which is allocated to them. But surely we are not concerned with that side of the equation. What we are concerned with is the right of the person who is seeking legal assistance.

If there is one thing that is fundamental in our democracy, in our system of British justice, in our understanding of the common law rights of the citizen, it is that each citizen not only should have the opportunity to receive the services of the law but also should have the right to obtain the services of the lawyer of his choice, who is independent of everyone- government and individuals. Thereby the law, through the lawyer who provides the services, may stand as a bulwark between the government and the citizen or, in litigation or conflict between citizens, may stand up for the rights of one citizen against another before the independent courts of the land. I see this as fundamental to any legal aid scheme, whether it be State or national. I am pleased to see that in Western Australia this right of choice is given statutory recognition- but not by this Government in our national Parliament. I repeat that this is a clause which would obviously receive the closest scrutiny by a joint select committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate if the Attorney-General had only conceded the value of such scrutiny as proposed by the Opposition.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 33.

  1. Where any moneys (being wholly or partly moneys recovered in respect of costs) are recovered by a legally assisted person (whether in a proceeding or by virtue of a settlement or compromise), the person is liable to pay to the Office the amount (if any) remaining after deducting from so much of the moneys as is recovered in respect of costs any amount or amounts paid by the person to the Office under section 3 1 in relation to the legal assistance, and the amount that a person is so liable to pay is recoverable by the Office by action in a court of competent jurisdiction as a debt due and payable to the Office.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Omit sub-clause (2), substitute the following subclauses:

Where an amount is recovered by a legally assisted person (whether in a proceeding or by virtue of a settlement or compromise) in respect of the matter in which the legal assistance is given, the person is liable to pay to the Office so much of that amount as the Office determines but the amount so determined shall not exceed the amount by which the sum of-

the ordinary professional costs (including solicitor and client costs) of the legal services provided to the person in the proceeding or matter in respect of which legal assistance was provided; and

any disbursements (including barristers’ fees) and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in or in connexion with the provision of those services, exceeds any amount, or the sum of any amounts, paid by the person to the Office under section 3 1 in relation to the legal assistance.

The amount that a person is liable to pay to the Office under sub-section (2) is recoverable by the Office by action in a court of competent jurisdiction as a debt due and payable to the Office.’.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a successful assisted person who recovers a verdict can be required to pay to the Office the full professional costs of disbursement of his case. He should not make a profit from the grant of legal assistance.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34.

  1. A request under sub-section ( 1 ) shall be decided by an appropriate statutory member of the Office in accordance with arrangements made or approved by the National Director.

Mr ENDERBY (Canberra)AttorneyGeneral) (9.57)- I move:

In sub-clause (2), omit ‘National’.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

– I wish briefly to express a concern which really follows upon the concern I expressed in relation to subclause (4) of clause 29, and that is that a party or group of persons may, under the fairly wide criteria which I envisage under clause 29, be given legal assistance in respect of an action which does not involve the prosecution of individual rights, which does not involve an attempt to recover damages or to assert a claim to property, but which might, for example, involve an environmental action against a particular company, either large or small. I merely express a concern at the interrelation of sub-clause (4) of clause 29 and the less than strong injunction given to the Legal Aid Office- and indirectly to the Government- to ensure that a party against whom an action has been taken can recover costs awarded in that party’s favour. I have a real concern in this area. I regret that just as the concern of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) about a previous clause discussed cannot be subject to an investigation of a committee, my concern in respect of these 2 clauses likewise cannot be examined by a committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35.

  1. 1 ) Where a decision in relation to the provision of legal assistance or in relation to the making or any payment in respect of costs, including a decision reconsidering or reviewing a previous decision, is made under this Act, the office shall communicate the decision to any person affected by the decision.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause (1), omit ‘communicate the decision to any person affected by the decision’, and substitute ‘, within 14 days after the decision is made, communicate the decision to the person who applied for the legal assistance or for the payment, as the case may be’.

An applicant for legal assistance or payment of costs under clause 34 must be notified of the decision on his application within 1 4 days of the decision. Under this amendment, notification is to be given only to the applicant. This should be a matter of confidence and privacy between the office and the applicant. The office must inform the applicant of his rights.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36.

  1. ( 1 ) Where a decision has been made-

    1. refusing to provide legal assistance under this Act;
    2. refusing to provide legal assistance under this Act of the nature, or to the extent, applied for,
    3. imposing a condition on the provision of legal assistance under this Act or varying adversely to a legally assisted person a condition so imposed;
    4. terminating the provision of legal assistance under this Act; or
    5. refusing to pay the whole or a part of any amount that the Office has been requested to pay under section 34, a person affected by the decision may, by notice in writing to the Office, request that the decision be reconsidered.

    1. Where a notice requesting that a decision be reconsidered is received by the Office, the decision shall be reconsidered-

    2. in a case to which paragraph (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) applies- by an appropriate member of the Office; or
    3. in a case to which paragraph ( 1 ) (e) applies- by an appropriate statutory member of the Office, in accordance with arrangements made or approved by the National Director and may either be confirmed or be varied.

Mr CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins)-May I suggest that the Committee give the AttorneyGeneral leave to move all 3 circulated amendments together. There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

  1. In sub clause (1), omit ‘a person affected by the decision’, substitute ‘the person who applied for the legal assistance or for the payment’.
  2. In sub clause (2), omit ‘National’.

  3. Omit sub-clause (3), substitute the following subclause:

    1. Where a decision is confirmed or varied following a reconsideration of the decision under sub-section (2), the person who requested the reconsideration may make an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision.’.

The first amendment is consequential upon that proposed in sub-clause (1) of clause 35 providing for the notification of decisions to applicants only. The second amendment omits the word National’ from the title which has been a consequence of many of the amendments. Amendment number 45 is a drafting amendment clarifying the class of persons who may seek a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 37 to 39- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 40.

  1. 1 ) A member of the Office who is required in accordance with arrangements referred to in sub-section 28 ( 1 ) to decide an application for legal assistance under this Act may, if he thinks it desirable to do so, refer the application to an appropriate consultative committee for a recommendation as to-

    1. whether, having regard to the provisions of this Act, the application should be granted or refused;
    2. if the committee recommends that the application should be granted- whether, having regard to the provisions of sub-section 31 (2), the provision of the assistance should be without charge or be subject to either or both of the conditions referred to in subsection 31 (l);and
    3. if the committee recommends that the provision of the assistance should be subject to a condition that the legally assisted person pay to the Office a contribution towards the cost to the Office of providing the assistance-the amount of the contribution that the person should pay.

  2. A statutory member of the Office who is required in accordance with arrangements referred to in sub-section 34 (2) to decide a request made under sub-section 34 ( 1 ) may, if he thinks it desirable to do so, refer the request to an appropriate general consultative committee for a recommendation as to the decision that, having regard to the requirements of sub-sections 34 (3) and (4), should be made in respect of the request.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause:-

Where the Office has established a local office, the Office shall encourage persons living, or carrying on a business, profession or trade, in the locality where the office is established to form a committee to serve as a basis for the establishment by the Attorney-General of a local consultative committee in that locality. ‘.

Amendment number 46 arises out of Part VII of the Bill which deals with consultative committees which it is hoped will come into being to involve the work of the Office and the Office itself more closely with the community it serves. The present clause involves consultative committees in the consideration of particular cases with a consequential disclosure of confidential information about applicants. The basic function of these committees is to provide a focal point for cooperation between the community and the local office- co-operation that will enable the office to ascertain more readily and respond more appropriately to community needs. The committee will therefore comprise a significant proportion of lay people drawn from the community of which the applicant himself could be a member. We believe that it is essential to maintain the traditional relationship of solicitor and client between lawyers of the office and their clients. The lawyers should not be placed in the position of disclosing confidential information. The provisions of the clause are therefore inappropriate in their present form. That is what has led to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

-Clause 72 of the Bill, referring to the Legal Aid Office, states:

The Office shall indemnify a member of the Office against any liability incurred by him for any negligent act or omission by him in the course of the performance of his duties or in good faith in the purported performance of those duties.

By virtue of the provisions of the Act, those duties could involve a member of the Office acting as a solicitor or a barrister for a legally assisted person. The effect of this clause is that a member of the Office when so acting, shall be indemnified by the Office for any negligent act or commission by him in performing those duties.

I question the reason why that favour should be bestowed upon members of the Legal Office when they are acting as solicitors for legally assisted persons. That provision seems to stand awkwardly alongside, for example, clause 26 of the Bill which authorises a member of the Legal Office to practise as a solicitor in the State where he is employed by the Office and other provisions of the Bill which otherwise seek to place a member of the Legal Aid Office acting as a solicitor in the same role, status and legal standing as a private lawyer who is engaged by the Office to perform legal services for a legally assisted person. That private lawyer going into court or doing other legal work for a legally assisted person, if negligent or otherwise committing some wrongful act in the course of performing his professional duty, is liable at law in damages to the legally assisted person.

Remember also that under the provisions of the legislation legal assistance may be given to a person, either by a member of the Legal Aid Office or by a private lawyer. When that choice can be made by the Legal Aid Office and the member of the Office chooses to do the legal work himself or herself, why then, in performing professional duties in the same way as those duties would be performed if they were given to a private lawyer, should a member of the Legal Aid Office receive immunity by virtue of clause 72? I do not want to appear harsh upon members of the Legal Aid Office. Some of those who are members of the Office in Western Australia are good professional friends of mine and I should not want them to think that I am seeking to do them harm by suggesting that they should be under the same obligations and liability at law as a private lawyer to whom a legally assisted person is referred.

I would have thought that equality ought to prevail, that the legal services provided by a member of the Office should carry the same legal responsibility and liability as legal services provided by a private lawyer. I do not think a solicitor who is a member of the Legal Aid Office should be put in the same position, for example, as a Public Servant who may be immune from legal responsibility for negligence or the like in the performance of certain duties. That is not the standing of a solicitor who is a member of the Legal Aid Office. I think this clause requires some explanation by the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby). There ought to be some good policy reason which caused Government to make this provision in the Bill. I think we ought to hear about it from the Attorney-General.

I know that as the Opposition has been proceeding through this Committee stage, being critical where criticism of the provisions of the Bill is deserved, the honourable gentleman has been rather huffing and puffing in exasperation as though he wants to hurry the Bill through this chamber- it being now 10 minutes past 10 p.m. Nevertheless, all the matters raised by the Opposition are matters of serious concern.

Again, clause 72, as is the case with all those clauses we have considered in Committee tonight, would be covered by the terms of the motion moved by the Opposition for the reference of this Bill to a joint select committee of this chamber and the Senate. All these matters that we have referred to and many others as well would receive the critical examination of such a committee. No doubt, it may be exasperating to the Minister to have his Bill put under the microscope. Certainly, it has been exasperating for us to find that he has not been prepared to respond in a way which I think a Bill of this importance deserves. Perhaps if a joint select committee had been established this Parliament would have been better off because the Parliament, through such a committee, would not have been circumscribed by the restraints of a Committee stage debate conducted as it has been by the honourable gentleman.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Enderby)- by leaveread a third time.

page 2275

APPROPRIATION BILLS 1975-76

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received the following message from the Senate:

Pursuant to a resolution passed this day the Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution agreed to by the Senate on 16 October 1 975 during consideration of each of the Bills intituled:

A Bill for an Act to appropriate certain sums out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1976’;

A Bill for an Act to appropriate a sum out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for certain expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1 976 ‘, viz.:

That this Bill be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people, the Senate being of the opinion that the Prime Minister and his Government no longer have the trust and confidence of the Australian people because of-

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

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

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

Motion (by Mr Enderby) agreed to:

That the message be taken into consideration at the next sitting.

The Clerk:

– Notice has been received from the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) that at the next day of sitting he shall move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent-

an Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 [No. 2] and an Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 [No. 2]-

being presented together at this sitting and read a first time together and one motion being moved without delay and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the Committee’s report stage, and the third readings, of the Bills together, and

b) being considered in one Committee of the Whole.

a Minister making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of an Appropriation Bill (No. I) 1975-76 [No. 2] and an Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 [No. 2].

page 2276

TRAVEL AGENTS BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 March on motion by Mr Stewart:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Media · Maribyrnong · ALP

- Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the 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 the Travel Agents (Deposits and Levies) Bill as they are related measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to take that course? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The Travel Agents Bill and the Travel Agents (Deposits and Levies) Bill are not of a controversial nature. The Opposition largely supports them. Some amendments will be put by the Opposition and some by the Government which the Opposition will support. In talking about the travel industry we are talking about an industry which has made substantial development throughout Australia. There will of course be an enormous growth within the industry not only within Australia but also outside Australia. I would hope that all governments would wish to encourage the development and growth because the tourist industry- that is really what these bills are about- is one of the great growth industries of the world. When we consider that there is a gap of about $ 1 70m between what we earn from the tourist industry within Australia and what Australians spend overseas, there is much we can do to encourage a stable travel industry. We want to continue to encourage Australians travelling’ overseas, but we want to encourage many more people from other countries to visit us. In the internal travel industry we want to have the highest possible standards.

The Bills have been on the notice paper now for some months. As I indicated earlier, they have our support. We will in the Committee stage take the opportunity of making some comments upon the Government’s amendments and would hope that the Government would consider very closely the amendments that we put to it. I compliment the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) on his capacity to consult. He is one of the few Ministers in the present Government who have widely done that. He has had substantial consultation with the industry, and that is important if it is going to be successful and do the job that we all want it to do. The Minister has practised federalism. He has consulted with the States. Everybody will appreciate that the State governments have a very real and vital role in the tourist industry- a very real and vital role associated with this sort of legislation. Agreement with the States is going to mean so much more effective legislation, rather than different legislation in the various States of Australia.

Mr Graham:

– He should be a Liberal.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Let us not give him too great a compliment, but he certainly practises many of the elements of government which we encourage. This is one of the reasons he has been successful in his area whereas so many of his colleagues who have practised confrontation rather than consultation and who have practised centralism have been such dismal failures. However, the co-operation of the Minister for Tourism and Recreation has been evident. If we get co-operation between a federal government, State governments and the industry we will have stable growth and we will have the efficiency and the integrity we would all seek in every industry. This will ensure ethical conduct and it will ensure the maintenance of standards. It will also mean financial responsibility and financial stability.

About 1500 agencies are involved in this industry throughout Australia. I have been informed that the annual commission sales are of the order of about $400m. That is a considerable turnover for any industry. Of course, it has contact with many Australians. I suppose that most Australians would have contact with the travel industry at some stage during the year. We recognise this as being important consumer legislation. The main thrust of these Bills is the protection of the consumers. We support that concept as long as in doing it the position remains workable for the travel agents themselves.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Tourism and Recreation acknowledged, and rightly so, that the overwhelming majority of agents have conducted their businesses in an honest and capable manner. In the period of nearly 3 years that I have been a member of Parliament I have not had one complaint from any of my constituents about this industry and those who are involved in it, but we are aware that there have been cases of dishonesty and incompetence. I hope that members of the Opposition will see fit during the debate to raise the matters which have come to their attention. The one that is in the minds of us all is the collapse of Travel House of Australia Pty Ltd in 1972, as a result of which literally hundreds of Australians were stranded in many parts of the world. That was of concern to the Government of the day. It was certainly of concern to the industry. I pay a compliment to my good colleague and friend the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), who raised this particular matter very enthusiastically and properly in the House. I know that he was very concerned, that he did speak to a number of people about it and, indeed, that he acted very responsibly in bringing to the attention of the Parliament this regrettable lapse of competence and integrity by that company.

I do not want to make detailed references to the Bill. Part I defines what the Government means regarding the business of a travel agent and refers to the appointment of a registrar of travel agents. Part II establishes the principal board which will be responsible for the conduct of this legislation. It will be called the Travel Agents Regulation Board. We were concerned about the membership of the Board being restrictive. The Government is to move an amendment, which the Opposition will support, that widens the membership of the Board, giving greater representation to the States and greater representation to the industry. That is essential and desirable.

Part III refers to the restrictions that the legislation will place upon the conducting of their business by travel agents and lists the penalties that will be incurred if the legislation is not followed in practice. In some cases the penalties are quite severe. The Opposition agrees with that because, as I have said it recognises that this is important consumer protection legislation and that the penalties that flow from the ignoring of these restrictions and requirements are as necessary in this legislation as they are in similar types of legislation. Part III of the Bill also refers to the requirement that each authorised travel agency must be under the control of a registered travel agent manager. That is designed to ensure that the person who conducts the agency after it has been licensed will be somebody who has competence and expertise in this industry. That is also desirable. It should be not only of benefit to the industry but also should provide a greater degree of service to all Australians.

Part IV goes on to analyse the 2 principal requirements. Firstly with regard to the licensing of the travel agency as a business, what the legislation demands and what we want to see is that people of integrity get licences. We want to be sure that people who get a licence have financial stability. We want to be sure, with regard to the travel agent, the manager who will have responsibility for the immediate control of the agency, that minimum standards have been set up and that the minimum qualifications and minimum requirements for experience are met. The Opposition completely supports those requirements.

Part V goes into substantial detail as to what accounts and records would be needed to be maintained and kept. The provisions are proper; they are necessary. It is important that we have proper accounting procedures. I believe they are laid out quite effectively in the legislation and we have the added protection of the proposed fidelity fund. Part VI details the duties of the licensed travel agents. As time is pressing I will not go into detail on the later Parts of the Bill, but they refer to such matters as when a cancellation of a licence may be required, and the right of appeal. That latter provision is awfully important because a travel agent could be incorrectly charged with incompetence or lack of integrity, and a right of appeal is necessary. Experience will teach us in regard to the setting up of the fidelity fund, but the concept is good. It is accepted by the industry, it is accepted by the Government and of course it is accepted by the Opposition.

As I indicated earlier, we will have some detailed comments to make in the Committee stage. I know that the Minister will deeply consider the amendments. I think we have 9 amendments to propose in the Committee stage. We believe that they will improve the Bill and make it more workable for the industry. However, we are overwhelmingly in favour of these Bills. We suggest that once they become law it will be necessary to review the Act in the light of experience. It is essential that the capacity for consultation with the industry and those involved in it should continue. As the legislation is seen to work and more amendments and alterations are required, after consultation with the industry we should seek with alacrity to maintain and improve the legislation.

It is terribly important that we appreciate that legislation such as this is not designed in any way to hamper private enterprise. It is designed to assist it. I want to take the opportunity to indicate broadly the importance that the Opposition places upon any legislation such as this serving to assist to maintain free enterprise in a free and proper manner. Our whole tourist industry has been largely developed by private enterprise and the skill of individuals. This sort of legislation is valuable to the Parliament and to the nation only if it adds to the stability of the industry and if it gives to the industry the standards that it has sought to maintain and wishes to maintain. I think the Minister who has been in charge of this portfolio has accepted that view. I have discussed this matter with the Travel Agents’ Association, with the Australian National Travel Association and with many operators in my electorate.

As I represent the electorate of McPherson, which is deeply involved with the tourist industry, I am well aware of the need for this legislation. I am well aware of the disappointment of a number of people that there has been some delay in getting it into the House and through the Parliament. It has not been anybody’s fault. It has not been the Government’s fault and it has certainly not been the Opposition’s fault that there has been a considerable delay in commencing this debate. At least the Bill has given us the opportunity of having the widest consultation. I think that only a matter of weeks ago further amendments were put to the Minister which he has considered. The delay has given the greatest opportunity for everybody to study the Bill and to that extent has .made some contribution to having more effective and efficient legislation. As I said, the Opposition basically supports the legislation. We believe it is workable. We believe it is in the interests of Australians, in the interests of industry and in the interests of good government that this sort of consumer protection legislation should go through.

Debate interrupted.

page 2278

ADJOURNMENT

Rejection of Appropriation Bills

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being half past 10 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July 1 974 1 put the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– I want to speak to the House about the Opposition’s threatened rejection of the Appropriation Bills. I speak as a Labor back bencher. I speak as one who has been in this Parliament for 29 years, who has sat through 29 Budgets and the reign of 7 Prime Ministers. For months large sections of the media have been relentlessly brainwashing and bludgeoning the people of Australia into accepting the concept of another Federal election, the third in 3 years. The media and their mates, the members of the Opposition, together with their powerful friends the bankers, investors, big business, cartels, monopolies and others, have formed a partnership to destroy this Government by hook or by crook.

Let us not underestimate the power of the Press and todays television coverage. Mr Syme, once chief of the Age, speaking in 1929 or 1930, said he could make and unmake governments. Interestingly, the media create the issues by constant propaganda and use the Opposition to feed the material into this House and the Senate. They are trying to create a situation of doom and disaster. By constant repetition, Goebbels-like, they brainwash the people into believing things are bad when the majority of Australians have never had it so good. Their latest excursion into Alice in Wonderland is to convince the Frasers, the Anthonys, the Lynchs, the Greenwoods, the Withers and the Sinclairs that the best method of getting their way is to refuse supply in the Senate, an unprecedented act of political banditry never before attempted in any upper House in the world.

The Opposition’s action is political banditry, colossal arrogance, massive irresponsibility and sickening conceit unequalled in our parliamentary history. So desperate for power is the Opposition that it is prepared to plunge Australia into a constitutional crisis of frightening proportions. What has the Opposition to offer Australia anyway? The Opposition has established itself as the most negative, most destructive, most barren Opposition in our history. It has obstructed this Government in everything it has tried to do, especially in the Senate. Its cynicism, egotism and misrepresentation of Labor’s policy is frightening and outrageous. The Opposition has contributed scarcely one new idea to the debates in the past 2’/2 years. It is still the merchant of the status quo and the architect of conservatism. It fights progress. It is the mental and economic dinosaur of this century. It has used its majority in the Senate with ruthlessness, malice and irresponsibility. It would prostitute the democratic processes by rejection of the Appropriation Bills. It wants to march this nation backwards into spoils for the strong and to hell with the weak.

Australian electors put Labor into office in December, 1972, for 3 years, that is, till December this year. But that was not to be. The arrogant Opposition, through threats of refusing Supply in May 1974, forced a double dissolution.

It was completely unnecessary. Labor was again elected in May 1974 till May 1977. Still not satisfied, still acting as if they are God’s chosen people born to rule, still smarting in Opposition, still refusing to accept the umpire’s decision, members of this miserable Opposition are again threatening to plunge Australia into another federal election by Christmas. If the Opposition succeeds with this banditry and gets its shabby, sordid way, it will mean 3 elections in 3 years at a cost of $7m in election costs alone. All these attempts to bypass decency, tradition, fair play and convention are nothing less than prostitution of our democratic processes. A few men in the Press have seen the light. Laurie Oakes’ excellent articles over the last 3 days come to my mind.

Let us reverse this situation and put Labor in Opposition with a majority in the Senate. Imagine Labor trying to engineer an election in like circumstances. What screaming headlines we would see in the Press and on the television. The Media would be writing about Labor’s irresponsibility for hitting the nation with an unnecessary election only 18 months after the last one, causing confusion and uncertainty and lack of confidence such as the Opposition is responsible for at this moment. We would see in the Press stories tearing Labor to pieces for a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money. But not so today. The Opposition’s banditry is praised and supported by large areas of the Press and the media. Honourable members should read the shocking and ridiculous leading articles in the Press of today and yesterday. One newspaper, I believe, is an exception. I refer to the Adelaide Advertiser. Good luck to it. The other newspapers have not a word, not a line of criticism about the waste of taxpayers’ money or about forcing the country into another election. The Press bosses want Labor defeated, so like Syme of the Age 45 years ago- the policy did not change under the previous editor- they are out to destroy this Government by hook or by crook.

Senator Steele Hall laid it on the line in the Senate yesterday. He said some very fiery and truthful things about the Opposition. I have not time to read them but they are on page 1 175 of yesterday’s Senate Hansard Also in the Press on 2 October Senator Steele Hall warned Mr Fraser that a rejection of the Budget would destroy the stability of Australian politics. He said that by blocking the Budget Mr Fraser ‘s leadership capacity would automatically degenerate to the disadvantage of the Liberal Party. Senator Bunton also made an excellent speech on this matter last night. Eight professors around Australia, none of them belonging to a political party, made a joint statement, as reported in the Press of Saturday, 1 1 October. They warned that any move to reject the Budget by the Opposition in the Senate would threaten the stability of Australian society and parliamentary government. They said the move was a constitutional impropriety of the first order. They went on to say that for any party to depart from convention for immediate partisan advantage would jeopardise the consensus on which our system of government depends. Further, they said that the use of such power by the Senate would be deplorable and would debase the constitutional system.

The Methodist and Presbyterian Churches annual conferences met in Melbourne at the same time this week and, unbeknowns to each other, passed resolutions condemning the Opposition for knocking out Supply in the Senate. An article appeared in the Age under the headline: Churches Hit at Threat to Supply’. The article stated:

The Methodist and Presbyterian Churches have condemned the threatened rejection of Supply by the Senate . . .

This is the first time in history that 2 great churches, representing 100 000 communicants in Victoria and Tasmania, have come out with an identical political statement. The statement is not against parties. It has nothing to do with parties. It is just that the 2 churches can see what this move will do to the country and to the people of Australia. Mr Hogan, the chief in the Australian Farmers Federation, last week expressed deep concern on behalf of his organisation at the Opposition’s move. The late Sir Isaac Isaacs and Sir Robert Menzies would not be found in this company. They would strongly oppose this shabby, dangerous action by the Opposition. This attempt to circumvent tradition and the Constitution is an act of sheer anarchy- no matter what one may term it it is blatant political anarchywhich will add fuel to the fires of anarchy in the nation. It could sow the seeds of violent revolution in a few years time. If the Liberals and National Country Party senators do this thing and reject Supply how can they ever again rise against the forces of violence and anarchy in our community? They are sowing the seeds of anarchy and will be showing disrespect and contempt for law and authority which they have accused unionists and others of showing time and time again. Do not let us ever hear honourable members opposite get up in this House again and attack anarchist activity or violence in this country, for they are the architects of the same thing by taking this wretched and shabby action. If they get away with this rejection of Supply eventually we will see the disintegration of the Senate and later still its demise, and that might be a darn good thing for this country. Perhaps, after all, the members of the Opposition in this critical situation deserve to be named the political and constitutional barbarians of the 20th century. If they force an election, a part election in the Senate, in these unprecedented and dangerous circumstances, the people of Australia should reject them like we reject banditry at any level anywhere.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

-I wish to make one or two comments about the speech which has just been delivered by my old friend, the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), who was a member of the House of Representatives in 1949 when I was first elected to the House. I have listened to some fascinating speeches since then. I must say that his speech tonight was the most amazing tirade I have heard. It was largely complaint. It was fundamentally bereft of any intellectual integrity. It was utter bunkum, if I may use a rather famous Aboriginal word.

The fact is that my friends in the Australian Labor Party are complaining about the electoral processes of Australia because they know they will be beaten at the next poll. If they genuinely believed that there was any hope in the world of their winning an election there would not be one word of complaint. They know that the economic circumstances have created the environment in Australia which make it absolutely essential that there be an election. If the people of Australia are prepared to support them, the people will put them back. If the people do that, may the Lord have mercy upon them. There is no doubt that honourable members opposite are responsible for the state of the economy and the state of the nation at present. There are 250 000-odd people unemployed, 75 000 under training and an inflation rate of 18 per cent. Their Ministers have threatened their trade union colleagues with a reference to a 28 per cent inflation rate and 750 000 unemployed. Yet they cannot understand exactly what this means. It means terror to the ordinary people of Australia who understand that they have only one way open to them to save their destiny, and that is at the ballot box.

Of course it is because they are frightened of defeat that words such as banditry are used. It is utter drivel. It is a manifestation of their terror and of their conviction that they will be defeated. They know they will be defeated. That is why they are complaining. In the parliamentary system there is an upper House and a lower House.

In 1974, starting from nothing, the people of Australia had the right to put people into government here. They did that. They also put people into the Senate as a check and a balance. If honourable members opposite understood anything at all about the parliamentary system they would realise that the Senate is a check, a balance and a House of review. The reason for the existence of the Senate is to act as a check upon a government that needs to be checked. During the last three or four months people have been thrown out of the ministry for what is almost an absolute straightforward personal misdemeanor and dishonesty. Honourable members opposite know perfectly well that that is true.

When that situation exists it is reasonable that the people of Australia ought to exercise their full responsibility, which is at the ballot box. The nearest approach to the current circumstances were those that existed in 1931 when 5 great socialist friends of honourable members opposite crossed the floor to vote with Latham to defeat the Scullin Government. The wheel of history is turning again.

Mr Duthie:

– They were rats.

Mr GRAHAM:

-Men like Eddie Ward, Sol Rosevear and Rowley James have been called rats. What a lovely expression when one is talking about members of Parliament who discharged their normal duty. The honourable member has the gall to refer to them tonight as rodents. I say that he is not really a member of the House of Representatives; he is simply a person who believes that he has some God-given Divine right to sit in this place. Nothing is further from the truth. The price of democracy is eternal vigilance. The real duty of the people of Australia is to get off their backsides, vote and get rid of these charlatans who are posturing as a government. They are barely worthy of the title ‘honourable gentlemen’. That is the simple fact. The Senate will give the people of Australia that chance. The Senate does not sack the Government; it gives the people of Australia a chance to do it. The people of Australia will put the Government up in the air like an Australian football and kick it out into the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and that is where the Government belongs.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I take the opportunity to participate in this debate to raise a very real grievance, to take up some of the points which were made by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) and to answer some of the idiotic outbursts of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham). The grievance that was raised and the points of view expressed by the honourable member for Wilmot are shared by the vast majority of Australians. The issue before this Parliament now is perhaps the most serious to come before it since Federation. I refer to the threat to our economy, the threat to our institution of Government and the threat to our whole Australian way of life posed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser), that man of principle who seems hellbent on destroying the principles and conventions on which our system of government depends. The array of pseudo-intellectuals who sit on the other side of the chamber, aided by the honourable member for North Sydney and some of his cohorts, are the individuals who never accepted the election results in 1972. The honourable member for North Sydney talks about the Government going to the ballot box.

This Government has twice faced the ballot box- in 1972 when it was elected and last year. If there is any indication that the electorate wishes to express a view, that wish can be satisfied at a half Senate election. In the Senate a phoney amendment has been tagged on to the Appropriation Bills. The amendment is phoney; the Opposition has given itself a bit of elbow room. I predict that the Opposition will be back here screaming for the passage of that legislation within 2 weeks or 3 weeks. If the Opposition was fair dinkum, it would remove that amendmentthat tag- and let the Senate go to the ballot box in normal circumstances with the normal constitutional steps being taken. But these are individuals who believe that they were born to rule. They adopt a patronising attitude and will not debate with those individuals whom they believe are not their equivalent when judged by their level of academic learning. They believe that in this chamber they still wear the wigs and gowns that they wear outside. But anyone who is elected to this chamber is regarded in the same way as any other individual. We go the way of all flesh. The people of Australia will rebuke and reject those responsible for this act of barbarism, as it has been described by the honourable member for Wilmot.

Some months ago, the hapless Captain Bill, bleeding profusely from between the shoulder blades, vacated the leadership of the Opposition and was replaced by that dashing and decisive defender of the Constitution, the old squire of Wannon. There was no beating around the bush by the honourable member for Wannon, the present Leader of the Opposition. There were no vague threats to withhold supply. A clear and firm assurance came from the gutless wonder that supply would only be blocked -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Order! That ‘gutless wonder’ talk is just not nice. It is surely unparliamentary.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Melbourne.

Mr INNES:

– A clear and firm assurance was given that supply would only be blocked in the case of ‘reprehensible* or ‘quite extraordinary’ circumstances. That clear and firm assurance lasted a good 5 minutes. It was only 5 minutes before the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) rushed in from the wings, waving his arms about, and pointing to the small printthe .:4.., the ‘buts’ and the ‘maybes’. It was only 5 minutes before the media barons stepped up their campaign of lies and slander. It was only 10 minutes before the mining companies put in their order for a new government. It was only 15 minutes before the mysterious Khemlani arrived heralding his pathetic tale. I understand that Khemlani went home today and that, before he left Australia, he indicated clearly and unequivocally that he was entitled to no money from the Australian Government. Great stuff! The Herald and Weekly Times organisation which obviously brought the guy out here failed in its attempt to dupe the people of Australia.

It was only 20 minutes before the country realised that Captain Bill had been replaced by a jellyfish. He had been replaced by a jellyfish which tossed whichever way the tide turned. That situation still remains. It is a tragedy and a disgrace that the fate of a democratically elected government should depend on the whim of an individual who is controlled by vested interests including the Press barons. This fact was illustrated clearly by Senator Steele Hall yesterday in the other place. Let me read from Hansard what Senator Steele Hall said. He refers to an answer given by the Leader of the Opposition at his Press conference yesterday when he said in reply to a question:

I suggest that you read this morning’s newspapers.

Senator Steele Hall stated:

Of course, what this man of principle neglected to tell that conference was that yesterday he rang the newspaper proprietors around Australia and asked them to write what they wrote this morning.

That was on 14 October. The next morning in the Age out came an editorial which was a switch from the line taken in editorials up to that point of time. The editorial in the Age of 15 October stated:

We will say it straight, and clear, and at once. The Whitlam Government has run its course; it must go now, and preferably by the honourable course of resignation . . .

Graham Perkin has spent his whole life defending the right of that newspaper to remain in an independent position. It is well known- journalists around this place will tell honourable members this-that he was absolutely dismayed and deeply hurt that Fairfax would stand over him and have him write an editorial at the behest of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– It is a shameful statement that you make tonight.

Mr INNES:

– It is a disgrace and an indictment of the Opposition.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– It is a shameful statement that you make tonight.

Mr INNES:

– Does the honourable member not like to hear it?

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– You should be ashamed of yourself for making a statement like that.

Mr INNES:

-Do you not like to hear it? Eight weeks ago the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) introduced a Budget designed to deal with an unprecedented and alarming economic situation. Every serious economic commentator in the country recognised the Budget as a reasonable and responsible response to a difficult situation. The Budget presented a valuable opportunity to discuss and analyse the economy in a responsible manner. But that seems to be the least of the Opposition’s concern.

Apart from some featherbrained schemes dreamt up by ‘Would You Believe’ Baume, an individual of dubious character, and a reckless decision to destroy the Australian Legal Aid Office, there has been no real debate on the Budget and no examination of the economy. I challenge the Opposition to produce constitutional authorities with one-tenth of the authority of Professor Sawer, Professor Zines, Professor Castles or Professor Howard. What do they have to say about the present threat of a rejection of Supply? The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) spelt out clearly what they believed would happen. They commented on the present tactics of the Opposition as follows:

The reduction of an ultimate constitutional sanction- if indeed it should ever be used at all- to the level of a routine political tactic is a debasing of our constitutional system and the democratic values it is supposed to protect. It is to be deplored.

Indeed it is to be deplored. I believe that the majority of Australians have had a bellyfull of the Leader of the Opposition’s sanctimonious cant. They are sick to death of the uncertainty- an uncertainty that is endangering this country’s chances of economic recovery; an uncertainty that is threatening their way of life.

The time has come for the Leader of the Opposition to lay his cards on the table. He has precisely 2 choices. One is the honourable course to follow- to retreat from his incredibly dangerous position and make a clear declaration that he will allow the democratically elected Government of Australia to get on with the business of governing free from the threat of Senate obstruction. He should make a clear declaration- not one hedged with fine print; not one covered in ifs and buts, but a clear declaration that the Government can get on with the job it was elected to do. The other course is to shed any veneer of principleto lay bare the hypocrisy of his pretence to statesmanship by the use of his numbers in the Senate to defeat the expressed wishes of the people. He should do away with the phoney amendment to which I have referred that has been added to the Bills that have been set aside or held up in the other place. This second course has little to recommend it in the way of decency. It does, however, have the grace of some sort of honesty. It is perhaps better to be an honest dingo than a shiftless, spineless jellyfish.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– To describe the 2 previous speakers on the Government side as producing emotional speeches would be an understatement. It is a pity that both speakers have lost sight of the realities of politics and what politics are all about. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes), reeled off the names of 8 professors who had suggested that what is being done is improper, but that is simply a ploy, a tactic, which could be used by anybody. At the click of my fingers I could produce the names of 8 professors who would say that what the Opposition is doing is right. In the academic field there is always a difference of opinion and one could call on people whose opinion has great weight to say that one ‘s case is right.

I ask members of the Government and their supporters whether they believe that the Opposition enjoys what it is endeavouring to do. We of the Opposition have been forced into this situation by the ineptitude, the bungling and the mismanagement that we have seen reigning supreme in this country in the last 1 8 months or so. We did not lightly take the decision that Supply should be deferred. It was an agonising decision for a great number of members of the Opposition, both here and in the other place.

Mr Cope:

– You have a pained expression now.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Looking at the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) causes it. Honourable members on this side of the House recognise that the democratic system under which we live is precious. We have no intention of prostituting that ourselves, of raping it or tearing it apart, as previous speakers on the government side have suggested. But when we look back at the dramas of recent months, when we look at the backbenches on the government side on which sit former Ministers who have been sacked for misleading this Parliament, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam), and the people of Australia, and when we consider the Cabinet reshuffles which have taken place, it is little wonder that the people of Australia have little confidence in the Government which now administers this nation

If we have made a mistake, if the people do not want another say about the future of this country, surely come the next election, whether it be for half the Senate or for the House of Representatives, we on this side will pay the price if we have misjudged the mood of the nation. I sincerely believe that the people of Australia who live under a Constitution which contains the safeguard of an Upper House, really want another say. It is wrong for the Government to claim that the Senate is indulging in an improper practice. I am proud to say that I represent an electorate which was named after Sir Samuel Griffith, one of the fathers of our Constitution. The founders of our Constitution had the wisdom to foresee some 76 years ago a situation in which chaos would reign so supreme that the people, by means of the Upper House, should be given another say as to whether they wanted the Government of the day to continue.

It is only because of this chaos that the Senate gave notice and then in fact voted to defer Supply. It was for no other reason. It is regrettable that members of the Government have suggested that that action simply is a selfish endeavour on the part of honourable members on this side of the Parliament to get back into power. The previous speaker suggested that Malcolm Fraser, the Leader of the Opposition, spent Sunday night or Monday night on the telephone ringing all the editors of the various newspapers throughout Australia. That was yet another regrettable comment by a supporter of the Government. The honourable member must think that the editors of our newspapers are but saplings that can be bent at whim. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition suddenly blinks his eyes and they drag out the editorials that they had stored away months ago. I conclude by saying -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday next.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2284

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Canberra: Traffic Survey (Question No. 3048)

Mr Lusher:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the purpose of the traffic survey being conducted at Hall on the Barton Highway near the A.C.T./New South Wales border.
  2. 2 ) Will the results of the survey be made public as soon as possible.
  3. Will he incorporate the contents of the questionnaire in the answer to this question.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The traffic survey at Hall is one of a number of similar surveys being conducted in Canberra and is part of a joint study by the Department of the Capital Territory, Department of Tourism and Recreation and the National Capital Development Commission. The aim of the survey is to establish a significant data base for research and analysis of the usage and requirements for visitor facilities in Canberra.

Objectives included in the survey aim at identifying visitor preferences for accommodation, modes of travel and use of national monument areas, parks and scenic spaces.

  1. ) The results of the survey will be made public as soon as possible after completion.
  2. Two questionnaires are being used in this traffic survey. One questionnaire is completed on initial contact with the visitor at the survey point, the other is issued to the visitor with the request to answer the questions on the form and return the questionnaire to the survey organisers. Copies of the two forms have been provided to the honourable member.

Overseas Loan Raisings

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) asked me on 14 October (Hansard, page 2031) what inquiries did I 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 and what efforts did I make to inform myself on this matter?

Mr Clyde Cameron made no such statement. On 14 October 1975 Mr Cameron explained (Hansard, page 2033) what he meant in his speech on 9 July 1975 (Hansard, pages 3654-6). That explanation accorded with my understanding of his original remarks.

Department of Urban and Regional Development: Grants (Question No. 2062)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

When will he answer my Question No. 1561 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1 974.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the answer to Question No. 1561 which I gave on 9 October 1975 (Hansard, page 2020).

Department of the Media: Reports (Question No. 2594)

Mr Kerin:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. What reports, excluding annual reports, have been produced by his Department, by authorities for which he is responsible, and ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc., within his portfolio, since 5 December 1972.
  2. Which of these reports have not been published, and when does he expect them to be published.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 2586 which appeared in Hansard(page 3545) on 5 June 1975.

Since that time I have announced in Parliament that a report of the Departments of the Media and of Education, entitled ‘Television Equipment in Australian Schools 1974’, is available in the Parliamentary Library and have released an information paper by the Department of the Media entitled ‘A consideration of the implications of section 13 of the Australian Labor Party’s media platform*. With the Postmaster-General, I have released a report on cable television services in Australia. Further details of publications are given in the annual reports of the Department and authorities for which I am responsible.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Conference on Science and Broadcasting (Question No. 2981)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. Did the ABC recently conduct a two day Conference on Science and Broadcasting.
  2. If so, how much did the conference cost the ABC, and how many people had their travel and accommodation costs paid for by the ABC.
  3. What was the main purpose of the conference.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. It is not possible to provide a total cost for the conference because of components like the salaries of those attending and various overhead costs. Two people had their travel and accommodation costs paid by the ABC.
  3. To promote closer understanding between the scientific community and the ABC and to examine problems relating to the broadcasting of science information in feature programs, News Bulletins and Public Affairs programs in radio and television, to promote the flow of information from scientist to broadcaster direct or through information officers of universities or scientific institutions, and generally to assist in the creation of an intellectual climate within which both scientists and the ABC can work together to serve the interests of both broadcaster and scientist; and to follow up the initiatives of the ABC’s Science Advisory Committee.

Department of Administrative Services: Safety (Question No. 31 16)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. Which sections of his Depanment are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Mr Daly:
Minister for Administrative Services · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 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 House of Representatives question No. 3116 (Hansard, 1 October 1975, page 1598).

Department of Education: Safety (Question No. 3120)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which sections of his Department are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Mr Beazley:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– 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, page 1598).

Department of Urban and Regional Development: Safety (Question No. 3124)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which sections of his Department are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 31 10 on 1 October 1975 (Hansard, page 1598).

Department of Labor and Immigration: Safety (Question No. 3130)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Which sections of the Department of Labor and Immigration are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to question No. 3110 (Hansard, page 1598 of 1 October 1975).

Tick Inspectors (Question No. 3143)

Mr O’Keefe:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) ls it a fact that 140 tick officers have been sacked.
  2. If so, does this mean that tick protection on the Queensland/New South Wales border is inadequate.
  3. What is the exact position with regard to tick inspectors in this particular area.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

As the honourable member may be aware, administrative responsibility for the cattle tick control program in the State of New South Wales rests with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. The involvement of the Australian Government is restricted to representation on the Cattle Tick Control Commission, the body responsible for recommending tick control policy to New South Wales.

The Minister has ascertained that recent speculation that the funds currently made available by the New South Wales Government for cattle tick control would necessitate the retrenchment of 140 tick inspectors has not proven correct. The number of retrenchments necessary has been reduced by something of the order of 50.

The Minister advises that the Cattle Tick Control Commission met on 15 September 1975 and reviewed policy in the light of available resources. Included in its recommendations was acceptance of the importance of adequate border controls.

The exact disposition of tick inspectors in New South Wales is within the sphere of responsibility of the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture and is not a matter about which the Australian Government maintains records.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3271)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the facts of the report from Mr McKay, Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, recording that the Trade Commissioner in Milan had reported an apparent loan of $A500 million was being sought for Australia, and that promissory notes to this effect, giving the terms as a 20-year compound loan resulting in a total repayment of $A2,486 million, with the signature of the former Minister for Minerals and Energy on them, had been lodged with the small German Bank, Wurttembergische in Ulme.
  2. In particular, has the former Minister for Minerals and Energy signed on behalf of the Government any promissory notes.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer given to a Question on Notice (Hansard, 2 September 1975 page 899).

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3273)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report that Australia was seeking a loan of $US4 billion, directly or indirectly, through the Mercantile Bank and Trustee Company Limited of Freeport, Bahamas.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to a letter dated 28 April 1975 signed by Mr Robert E. Cordes President, and Mr Robert N. Lightbourne, Assistant Vice-President, advising that the Reserve Bank of Australia would provide promissory notes for $US 19.89 billion, maturing m 20 years, if SUS4.267 billion were deposited in a New York bank on behalf of the Reserve Bank within 30 days.
  3. Does he have any information at all on this matter; if so, what are the details.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1), (2) and (3) A copy of a document, purporting to be a letter dated 28 April 1975 signed by Mr Robert E. Cordes and Mr Robert N. Lightbourne, was one of a series of documents forwarded on 7 July 1975 to me and the Leader of the Opposition by the Editor of The Age newspaper. The Government has no knowledge of the persons or the company named and has had no contact with them.

Government Cars: Cost (Question No. 3280)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What has been the hourly or mileage cost calculation used in the answers recently provided on the cost of official and ministerial car transport.
  2. What is the present hourly rate imputed by the Department of the Capital Territory and by his Department in the provision of this transport.
  3. If there is a significant difference between the two departments, why is this so.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the consideration of my Department’s Estimates, under Division 575- Conveyance of Members of Parliament and Others, by Senate Estimates Committee B on 2 October 1975 (Estimates Committee Hansard, pages 327-328).

Australin Capital Territory: Municipal Rates (Question No. 2967)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. By what percentage have ‘municipal’ rates in the A.C.T. risen since the change of government in December 1972.
  2. What are the details of these increases for each financial year.
Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

By government decision there were substantial increases in general and water rates in the A.C.T. following the abolition of land rent from 1 January 1971.

Since then there has been a continuing policy of fixing rate levels to keep pace with increasing costs and to reduce the historical gap between expenditures and revenue.

Table 1 demonstrates the deficits each year since 1971. Table 2 shows actual rate increases for each year and Table 3 shows percentage increases for the period.

The disallowance by the Senate of a section of the Sewerage Rates Ordinance 1973 resulted in the commercial properties having more than 2 flushing units paying only $ 1 5 basic charge and being charged $ 1 5 per each flushing unit in excess of 2 for the year 1973-74. These charges remained at the same level as for the previous year.

In the following year the charges for these properties were adjusted to a basic rate of $26.50 per annum plus $25 for each unit in excess of 2. This resulted in an increase in 1 974-75 of 76.67 per cent in the basic charge and 66.67 per cent in the excess charge.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751016_reps_29_hor97/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant