House of Representatives
11 November 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 1 1.45 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2913

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Motion of Censure

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I accept the notice of motion given on 6 November by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) as a censure motion for the purposes of standing order 1 10. I take it that the notice of motion will now be called on.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · WannonLeader of the Opposition · LP

-I move-

That this House censures the Government and its Ministers:

1 ) for their stated intention to continue to govern without the approval of the Parliament to the Appropriation Bills;

for concealing from the Parliament the procedures and the practices which it intends to follow in the event of the Appropriation Bills failing to pass;

for the grave threat to the Australian Constitution resulting from the attempt by the Prime Minister to reduce the power of the Australian Senate; and

for the risk to democracy in the failure of the Government to call a general election in accordance with custom and convention.

The evasion and contempt of Parliament and of the Constitution have become a critical issue in the attempt of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to hang onto power. He believes that he alone is the Constitution; that he alone is the Parliament. The Parliament is very clearly the Queen- in our case the Governor-General- the Senate and the House of Representatives. All have a proper part and proper powers under the Constitution. The Prime Minister cannot pre-empt their powers and their prerogatives. The Government is more and more characterised by efforts to throw off the constitutional restraints. This was symbolised by the loans affair but is part of a much larger pattern. We know quite well of the avoidance of the Loan Council by saying that $4,000m was to be borrowed for temporary purposes. How false; how shallow; how deceitful that was. Charges were made about that, time and time again. But the Prime Minister can go around the country and say that no charges, no allegations have been made. That particular technique was perfected in another country but this Prime Minister seems able to pursue it and to ignore the facts and the charges which to this day remain unanswered.

The documents also make it quite plain that the parliamentary appropriation of commission was avoided by proposing to pay a higher rate of interest on that loan which would have cost the Australian taxpayers in repayment, an additional $2 billion. Under those circumstances what nonsense does that make of the Prime Minister’s oft-repeated phrase: ‘No commission will be payable’? He knew commission would require an appropriation and that that would not come through the Parliament. Therefore he made the determination to pay a higher rate of interest at a total cost of $2 billion. There is a refusal to answer questions when the going gets tough. He is scared of being tangled in the web of deceit and deception. It is not a coincidence that the refusal to answer questions comes as the net tightens. It is not a coincidence that requests to put questions on the notice paper come as the net tightens. It is not a coincidence that the questions put on the notice paper are answered with no facts at all or a minimum of words or in the most contradictory manner. One paragraph in a particular answer said that there is no need to go to the Loan Council because the loan was for temporary purposes. The last sentence of the same paragraph said that the loan, if and when consummated, would be taken to the Loan Council. Both statements clearly could not have been correct. The words that the Prime Minister used in that answer about going to the Loan Council were a clear denial of the terms of the Executive Council Minute of 1 3 December last year.

The Prime Minister has himself stated the principles by which he ought to be judged’There is no excuse for not telling the truth and the whole truth to Parliament.’ He spoke that of the former Deputy Prime Minister when criticising him on a television program. There should be no place for verbal trickery in this Parliament. The principle for sacking the former Minister for Minerals and Energy was that ‘the Parliament must be able to accept assurances given to it by a Minister and if those assurances prove to be misleading the Minister concerned must be held responsible’. Despite these sentiments, fine as they are, there is a continual web of evasions and halftruths. When he was asked whether evidence had been suppressed, when he was asked whether papers had been destroyed, he said that he needed time to think. He said: ‘Put it on the notice paper.’ He could not answer. Then he suggested that this was an imputation against public servants because they held documents and files. Of course Ministers- I presume even in his Government- have occasionally been known to ask for documents and files. The question is unanswered to this day.

Have documents in relation to the loans affair been destroyed by the Prime Minister’s direction or by the direction of any other Minister? Did he have discussions with Mr Connor after 20 May? He answers: ‘I suppose I would have had some conversation with the Minister every day’. That is an equivocation; a half-truth; neither one thing nor the other. That is what will finish him in the end. And then there are the more recent charges by his agent, his intermediary, the person who was good enough to pursue $4,000m for this Government for 12 months- Mr Khemlani’s charges. He only denied those relating to a Mr Anderson. There was no statement denying the substantial truth of the document which has been tabled in the Senate. There has been a denial of one small and relatively unimportant part of it, but the document stands, so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, virtually unimpaired. He has said something about contacts with Mr Anderson. I would like to see a denial that he has ever spoken to Mr Anderson- a denial in the Prime Minister’s own words. We have not had it.

On 2 1 October was he or were his Ministers aware of negotiations after 20 May? He has evaded answering that question. There has never been a straight answer, even though we know quite well that he directed that all the documents be placed over his desk so that he could keep personal charge of the loan letters. How many honourable members sitting behind the Prime Minister believe that he knew nothing, believe that he was telling the truth? Does the former Deputy Prime Minister believe that he was telling the truth? The honourable gentleman has said that he was in fact not telling the truth. He used the word, I think, ‘ lie ‘, even though it was in relation to the Prime Minister. What about what the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr Stewart) said when he was asked a simple question the other day? Listen to this for an answer. He said:

As the Vice-President of the Executive Council, I have no information that would put the blame on anybody who was associated with the loans affair; nor do I have information that would completely exonerate anybody, if there was any blame attached to anybody.

What does that mean? What he was saying was that as Vice-President of the Executive Council he did not know. He was not saying that he did not know as a man, as a person. He strictly qualified a highly equivocal statement, making it quite plain that he knew and could speak if he wished to. Will he take the opportunity to assure the House that he knows nothing? Now we have the refusal of the Prime Minister to answer further questions. There must be a presumption of guilt, contempt of Parliament, of a massive cover-up because he is frightened to face up to the whole truth.

Let us look at some critical dates- 13 December, when the Prime Minister was involved, and then 7 January, when the former Deputy Prime Minister revoked the authority, to his credit, but as soon as the Prime Minister came back from overseas on 27 January he reinstated it. On 20 May he revoked it because the Government was pursuing an American loan. We were not told the reasons at the time. We did not know them until the minute was tabled. What was the conversation with the former Minister for Minerals and Energy at the time? Did Gough say to Rex: ‘Go on. We can easily get another authority at a moment’s notice’, or was it the other way around? Can anyone believe that he did not know, when only 3 days later there were telexes interchanged, when in the same month of May he said that all messages must pass over his desk? In the time since, with the exception of today, there have been the gagging of Opposition motions, the gagging of debates, refusal to debate publicly on 3 major television programs, refusal to answer questions in this House, refusal to face the questioning of the Press over any of these matters- over Mr Connor’s resignation, over the new loans information, the noconfidence motions- and the treatment of this Parliament, with respect to you Mr Speaker, has been contemptible from this Government. There have been 10 gags in 1 1 days. There has been a refusal to recognise the constitutional right and position of the Senate; a refusal to recognise that Australia is a federation and despite the best efforts of this Government will remain a federation. We know quite well his past attitude’abolish the States’. In a Chifley Lecture he said:

The role of Labor State members of Parliament is to bring about their own dissolution.

Is that not an attack on State governments more direct, quite direct? Have not his policies over 3 years been designed to put that policy into effect by making the States merely a post box for the policies of this Government? If he cannot abolish he seeks to dictate to them through the financial power. Now he says he wants to smash the Senate unilaterally, to tear up the Constitution of which he is only a part, this Parliament and the representatives in this place are only a part.

There is a great misinterpretation of the role of the Senate on the part of the Prime Minister. It is not only his own view. He ignores recent High Court judgments. Mr Justice Stephen said:

In my view the concept underlying the Commonwealth’s submissions disclose a serious misconception of the place of the Senate as a legislative chamber. The Senate except as to money Bills possesses legislative power in no way inferior to the House. It has full power . . . in the case of money Bills . . . freely to request amendment or to reject outright.

Mr Justice Mason said:

It cannot be suggested that the Senate has a duty to pass a Bill transmitted to it by the House of Representatives. In the exercise of its powers under section S3 the Senate deliberates upon proposed laws initiated by the House. Its power to pass or reject them is unconfined by section 53 or any other provision of the Constitution and its power to otherwise deal with them is also unconfined save in so far as contrary provision is made by the exceptions which, as I have said, have no application in this case.

Mr Justice Gibbs said:

Under the Constitution the Senate does not occupy a subordinate place in the exercise of legislative power. It is an essential pan of the Parliament in which the legislative power of the Commonwealth is vested.

And so it goes on. A final judgment by the Chief Justice:

The Senate is not a mere House of review. Rather it is a House which may examine a proposed law from a standpoint different from that which the House of Representatives may have taken.

Those judgments are all affirming the power of the Senate; all denying the stand taken by this Prime Minister who seeks to destroy the Senate. It is worth noting that even if there were no States in Australia, even if the Prime Minister had his wish in relation to that, we would still need a Senate elected as the Senate is elected with the powers that the Senate has, to protect those areas and those regions which have fewer people in them than Melbourne and Sydney. It is the protector of the 4 small States and it is essential that that protection remain.

The Prime Minister does not understand the nature of Australian society. Other more compact societies see the need for federalism, for decentralisation. He sees only the need for a gathering in of power into his own hands. His centralist dreams are inappropriate and out of touch with the needs of this time and his refusal to face the truth about Australia and its Constitution is leading him deeper and deeper into unconstitutional actions. He is painfully learning the fact that Australia is a federation with a distribution of powers appropriate to a federation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Macarthur will remove that, or remove himself from the chamber.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– He has not said that he would accept the Governor-General’s decision taken in accordance with his constitutional prerogative. There are circumstances, as

I have said repeatedly, where a GovernorGeneral may have to act as the ultimate protector of the Constitution. He ignores that prerogative. He ignores a quotation of the most distinguished Prime Minister this country has had, who said recently: … I think it would be a singular piece of impertinence on the part of the Prime Minister to go to the Governor-General, whose reputation is high, and who understands these things very well, and ask him for a premature ‘half Senate’ election, calculated and designed, hopefully, because of the recent legislation about senators from the Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, to give the Government control of the Senate for a month or two, in which time, of course, all their legislation which now has been attacked in the Senate, could be carried, with permanent, (and I think damaging) effects on the Australian political structure. To offer advice to the Governor-General on the lines that have been hinted at would, I think, be both improper and insulting. There is no legal principle that permits a wrong doer to profit from his own actions.

Then we have a situation in which Senator Wriedt, in the Senate on 22 October, affirmed support for that statement completely and absolutely. There is no monolithic support for this Prime Minister. His contempt for procedures was symbolised by an attitude to a former Speaker and now his attitude to the Constitution and the powers of the Constitution and the place of this Parliament is culminated by his proposal to govern without parliamentary approval of funds. This is the last safeguard of democracy. As every Liberal and National Country Party Leader, State and Federal, from all over Australia said not so long ago: To try to govern without appropriation of money by Parliament is the first significant step on the path to an Australian dictatorship. That view is not overstated. It is an exact description of the events. It is an exact description of the attitudes which have been depicted by this present Prime Minister.

Is this Parliament allowed to know what matters have been proposed to the banks? Is it allowed to know whether sections 8, 10 and 1 1 of the Reserve Bank Act, or section 9 of the Commonwealth Banks Act, or sections 62 or 70 of the Audit Act are to be relied upon, or is there just to be a request, a worthless piece of paper, asking the banks to put their depositor’s funds at risk and to put their assets at risk to meet Commonwealth debts? Is that device to be used because the Prime Minister knows full well that if there is to be a guarantee the Government would immediately be outside the Constitution and acting illegally? There are some views that there could then be a process of criminal conspiracy between the banks and the Government to evade the processes of Parliament and the laws of the Constitution. This is the depth to which this person has sunk in his attempt to stay in power.

There is a threat to democracy in Australia but there is only a threat to democracy when a Prime Minister is frightened to face his masters, the electors of Australia. That is the position of this Prime Minister. He is frightened to face his masters. It is not only the Prime Minister but other ministers who have been affected by this approach- this contempt for normal procedures. The present Treasurer (Mr Hayden) who, before certain events of a week or two ago, had more respect than he has now, has given Budget information to Mr Hawke. He said quite plainly that it does not matter, that it is proper. The Prime Minister in his defence said the Premiers get the same information, all the information. The Premiers do not and the Prime Minister now knows it. But he misled the Parliament in relation to that matter. The Premiers do get some small advance notice of States grants legislation- money for schools and money for roads- but as to the revenue proposals and the excise proposals, these in the past have been held absolute because of the possibility of large and massive financial gain. It was that principle that the present Treasurer breached. He claims that he has done a right and that he will do it again for political advantage.

The destruction of the ethics and standards of parliamentary government over the last 3 years has brought this Parliament to a lower level than any in the 20 years in which I have been in it. It has been brought to this level by the actions of this Prime Minister and this Government. This Government has not only been bedevilled by massive incompetence and sheer extravagance but also by scandal after scandal because the Prime Minister has been incapable of setting standards of behaviour for his Ministers, their staffs or for himself.

The Leader of the House (Mr Daly) has also attempted to coerce the Opposition by producing a list of members whom he says have travelled. In this way the Government is trying to stop people travelling around the country to put their case. The Government is frightened to answer questions; it is frightened to face the people of Australia.

An attempt to centralise all power in the Australian Labor Party in Canberra has led to a colossal explosion in government spending. How many people realise that in 72 years of Australian federation the Budget reached $ 10,000m but in the next 2Vi years it went to $22,000m. That is the principal source- the main source- of all the economic problems facing Australia at the present time. It is the fundamental failure to provide a decent and stable government for Australians.

We have seen the results in massive inflation and the highest rate of unemployment since the depression. How many Ministers have said that they would resign if unemployment reached a certain level and now sit on the Treasury bench and say that it does not matter? One Minister said that only another 150 000 people were unemployed, and it is in the records of this Parliament for those who wish to look at it. We have the highest interest rates in our history and in spite of the closest of close relationships with that redoubtable President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, massive industrial unrest. There are now more than 300 000 people unemployed. We were told just shortly after the Budget was presented that 400 000 people would be unemployed as a result of the Budget. What kind of Budget, what kind of Government, is that? The Prime Minister is the destroyer not only of the future economic life for many thousands of people throughout Australia but also is the destroyer of the Australian Labor Party, as ultimately he will prove to be.

This Government must face the people. It is no point to suggest that that can happen merely by holding a half Senate election. Are we to have a situation in which the loser gains control, in which there will be no Supply and in which the Prime Minister demonstrates his continual evasion of responsibility? What threatens democracy is the Prime Minister’s direct refusal to face the electors of Australia. But there is a pattern in his evasions. He evaded responsibility over a former Deputy Prime Minister by saying, ‘He is all to blame and I am innocent’, though the letter was in his hand for days or weeks. In respect of the former Minister for Minerals and Energy the Prime Minister said: ‘He is all to blame and I am innocent.’ If the Prime Minister were innocent of knowledge he has to be incompetent as a Prime Minister. If he wishes to be that incompetent, let him proclaim it, but if he is not incompetent he himself is party to the deceptions of this Parliament.

The main charges against this Government are charges of massive incompetence and destruction of the Australian economy and doing harm to many people who have retired and who cannot rebuild their lives. The savings of these people have been destroyed and they are dependent until they die on the beneficence of this man, of this Prime Minister, of this Government. In the Australian tradition they would have wanted to be independent but they cannot because their savings have been destroyed. It is the incompetence, the massive economic mismangement which is the principal charge. But when added to that are the scandals, and the incapacity to set standards, this Government deserves the contempt of the Australian people and the contempt of this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Anthony:

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

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– This is a notable parliamentary occasion- notable at least for its novelty. At last it has come- a censure motion on the Government from the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Through the actions of this Leader of the Opposition, this nation has been plunged into an unprecedented constitutional crisis. Through the actions of this Leader of the Opposition, a Budget passed again and again in this House has been blocked in the Senate. Through this Leader of the Opposition, the . right of the elected Government of Australia to govern is under challenge. And above all, through the actions of this Leader of the Opposition, the fundamental right of the House of Representatives is threatened. Yet through all the months during which he was working himself up to take the plunge, through all the weeks of the crisis he has created, he has never before taken the course which would bring on a debate of no confidence in or censure of the Government or on any Minister- on this issue, on the Budget itself or on any of the pseudo-issues which were to be used to justify the extraordinary conduct of the Opposition and the unconstitutional conduct of the Senate.

True, on 23 October, the Leader of the Opposition made a specious effort when he moved suspension of Standing Orders at the deathknock, 20 minutes before, as he well knew, the House was due to adjourn. He withdrew the motion from the notice paper. It could never be debated and it was never intended to be debated. And true, the Leader of the Opposition has been very free outside the Parliament with allegations and smears, not just against the Government, but against public servants. But in this House, in the one proper place, he has never until today brought forward a serious censure motion. Outside the House and by proxy in the Senatedisgracefully by the stolen proxy of a dead Senator’s vote- he has been prepared to say that the conduct of the Government justifies any extreme course, justifies tearing up the Constitution, justifies economic disruption and chaos. But in this House, where the real issue is to be decided- no charges, no censure. It all illustrates perfectly the whole approach of the Leader of the Opposition and it further illustrates the real principle involved in this issue. The issue at stake is the basic constitutional rights of this House.

The whole tactic of the Leader of the Opposition has been to bypass this House, to undermine its established rights and authority- rights and authority which have never been challenged since Federation and would not be challenged in any other country with a comparable system of government. The people of Australia have already shown how clearly they grasp the basic principle at stake. I am not sure whether they, or indeed all members of this House, yet fully realise the inordinate and unprecedented pretensions now being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Senate. It is more than just a claim to equality in money matters with this House. The new preposterous claim is that the Senate- not even an elected majority but a mere accidental half of the Senate- can dictate to the House of Representatives our own dissolution. That is, the Senate claims the right to send this House to the people without itself facing the people. That is the claim made for the Senate in the messages returned to us by the Senate.

The Senate cannot be dissolved except at the times and in the terms strictly laid down by the Constitution. This House has no power to dissolve the Senate. Yet the Senate now purports to have such power over this House. The Senate is saying that every 6 months it has the power to require an election for this House, while its own term must remain inviolate under the Constitution. What member of this House could tolerate such a claim? What government worth its salt- what government, formed in this House and this House alone, responsible to the majority of this House and this House alone- could submit to such a claim? Yet it is the Leader of the Opposition in this House- an office-bearer in this House, an aspirant for the Prime Ministership of Australia which can only be conferred by the majority in this House and this House alonewho is spearheading this attack upon this House and orchestrating the actions of the Senate. Not the least extraordinary and reprehensible aspect of his conduct is that he would sell out the rights of this House. And, of course, in so doing he would sell out the rights of the Australian people by the selling the people ‘s House down the drain.

The Leader of the Opposition’s motion- his first censure motion ever against the Governmenttalks about unconstitutional conduct. Sure, that is the issue today- but from what source does it spring? I remind the House that the Australian Senate cannot originate a taxing Bill or an appropriation Bill. It cannot amend a taxing Bill, or a Bill appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of Government. It cannot amend any Bill so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people. On the other hand, the Senate may return to the House any Bill which it cannot amend, with a request for amendment. The Senate has not done that. It has not complied with the clear procedures of the Constitution. The Senate has gone on strike. But without daring to allow senators to vote the clear rejection or acceptance of the Budget, the Opposition in the Senate claims authority to nullify a Bill which it cannot even amend. This means that, if a Government with a clear majority in the House of Representatives presents its Budget to Parliament, and then brings into the House of Representatives financial measures to give effect to that Budget, and has them passed by the House and sent up to the Senate, a hostile Senate could effectively reject them- without even voting on them. This, of course, would create an impossible situation and would make popular government unworkable.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest that honourable members of the Opposition show the House the courtesy of ceasing their continuous conversation. It almost appears to be a planned operation. (Mr McLeay interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for Boothby answers me back I will name him. I suggest that the honourable members remain silent.

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

– You did not tell that to honourable members on the Government side 10 minutes ago.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honourable members on the Government side were told exactly the same thing.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Whoever commands a majority in this House forms a government, and has the right to govern for a normal 3-year term. The Senate, as a second chamber, plays no part in the determination of which political party, or group of parties, shall form the government. The Leader of the Opposition asserts that my Government is threatening the Constitution through an attempt to reduce the powers of the

Senate. Of course, the exact reverse is true. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to reduce the powers of the House of Representatives in a way never attempted in Australia. I am not trying to reduce any legitimate legislative power of the Senate. I am determined to protect this House and to prevent usurpation by the Senate.

Next let me turn to another element in the honourable gentleman’s motion- his complaint that we have concealed the ways in which we intend to help those adversely affected by the Senate’s unwillingness to pass the Budget. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he considers that it would be wrong for the Government to take any action which would ease the hardship which he threatens, and wrong for us to try to minimise the harm to the economy. We shall do all in our constitutional and legal power to do that- to prevent hardship, to protect the economy.

This Labor Government will not take the same callous attitude to the welfare of the people of Australia which the Opposition has already demonstrated. The real issue at stake is the right of the majority in the House of Representatives to govern. There can be no abandonment of this principle- and certainly not in the face of blackmail. The only honourable, the only sensible way for the crisis to be brought to an end is for the Senate today to pass the Appropriation Bills. On the other hand, for as long as the Senate continues its strike, the Government will do all in its power- its legal and constitutional power- to ease the impact of the Opposition’s unprincipled, unprecedented and unconstitutional action. We have seen the spectacle this week of the Leader of the Opposition leaning on the banks; pressuring them against doing their duty; attempting to intimidate them against doing what is right and proper. The Leader of the Opposition only a fortnight ago said:

I have already said that we would not want to see any individual government employee hurt or damaged as a result of what is happening.

Fine, but he has changed his tune in the last 48 hours, as soon as co-operation from the banks appeared likely. In the face of the reckless course taken by the Opposition, we must do our best to alleviate hardship, to make the best alternative arrangements. That is what we are talking to the banks about. There can be no objection to what we are doing.

Throughout its consideration of the action that might be taken the Government has insisted that it must have opinions from the law officers- the

Attorney-General and the SolicitorGeneralthat there should be no conflict with the Constitution, the Audit Act, or any other law. Officials have had discussions with representatives of the banks about the steps that might be taken to facilitate access to credit for its employees and supplies for the amounts the Government will owe them but will not be able to pay them if the Budget Bills are not passed this month. But even the best arrangements we can make with the banks will still leave thousands of persons and businesses damaged by what the Opposition has done.

Mr Speaker, I have spoken about the steps the Government can take to ease the consequences of the Opposition’s actions. But let there be no illusions about the overall gravity of the situation produced by the Opposition’s actions. By stopping the passage of the Appropriation Bills in the Senate, the Opposition has set a course which is fraught with the most perilous financial and economic consequences. The full implementation of this Government’s economic strategy is being frustrated and the recovery of our economy hampered.

Tentative signs of economic recovery have been emerging now for several weeks. According to the latest economic data, the housing sector is well on the road to healthier levels of activity. Rural export prospects are improving. Increases in wage rates are slowing. Overtime earnings are increasing. Short to medium interest rates have been easing downward. Consumption expenditure has been rising at a modest rate. The production statistics suggest that output is on the road back. The balance of trade continues to be favourable. The June quarter national accounts showed a heartening recovery in almost all the major elements of gross domestic product and spending. The consumer price index for the September quarter has shown, either with or without the effect of the reduction of Medical fund contribution, that there was a further considerable easing in the inflation rate.

These are the key factors to recovery- the very factors already put at risk by the Leader of the Opposition. This is economic sabotage. The return of business confidence was delicately poised for recovery. It would have been bolstered by our Budget. Apart from the reduction in company income tax, it could be expected that the cut in personal income tax, which for pay purposes operates from 1 January next, and the further expansion of government outlays would have the effect of giving a major boost to spending to which the more astute and better managed businesses would have been able to respond. There is now the real prospect that this recovery will be destroyed by the cloak of uncertainty thrown over the future by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), a would-be Treasurer, has stated that he considers that stopping the Appropriation Bills has little effect on economic activity and on economic management in the community. The truth is, as the real Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has already said, that long standing government contracts are likely to dry up; investment decisions are already being postponed; the purchase of major consumer items, such as refrigerators, cars and television sets is already being delayed; retail sales are already affected, but nobody can predict by how much. At the crucial pre- Christmas period, at this very period purses are being tightened.

Let me remind honourable members that the Appropriation Bills Nos 1 and 2, now blocked in the Senate, provide for outlays of over $9 billion in this financial year, or around $25m per day for the remainder of the year. In other words, failure to pass these Bills means there will be a firstround effect of a shortfall of expenditure throughout the economy of some $2 5 m a day, 7 days a week, until the Bills are passed. The exact effects of this are incalculable but, quite clearly, it would be disastrous to many people and businesses in Australia.

By mid-November, the Government will not be able to meet its commitments in respect of certain works and construction. By the end of December, the Government will be completely unable to meet any of its commitments in the field of construction. Already the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) has delayed contracts worth over $8m. The building and construction industry has gone through a severe recession and if the $ 1000m that will directly flow to it as a result of the Budget is deferred or delayed it will not only have a direct and serious impact on the industry, it will also have a multiplier effect on associated industriesbricks, timber, steel and glass. Similar effects will also be felt in other industries throughout Australia as funds are exhausted for other contractual supplies and services.

On Christmas Day last year, Darwin was subjected to the ravages of cyclone. This Christmas, Darwin and indeed the whole of the Northern Territory, will be subjected to the ravages of the effects of the action of the Liberal and Country parties if they continue with their obstruction.

The Darwin Reconstruction Commission will run out of funds before the end of this month. Loans for private housing, reconstruction and the rehabilitation of small businesses will cease, as will funds for the whole range of public community services, including health, roads, power, water and sewerage. Darwin survived cyclone Tracy- it cannot afford Maelstrom Malcolm.

Further it may not be possible to relieve the current Antarctic expedition due for replacement in mid-November; individuals working under research grants may have to be retrenched. Morale and efficiency of the defence forces could be seriously and adversely affected by the travel restrictions which have already had to be placed upon them and their families. Abroad, our national reputation has been put at risk. Funds will not be available to pay locally recruited staff. We are in danger of defaulting in our payments to international organisations. Such payments normally go to provide, among other things, assistance to nations in a less favourable position than ourselves, not least nations who once admired- perhaps envied- the strength and stability of Australia ‘s parliamentary democracy.

We have now reached the position that 12 weeks after the introduction of annual Appropriation Bills, the non-government parties in the Senate, aided and abetted by the Leader of the Opposition, refuse to proceed with these Bills until this Government, this Government formed in the House of Representatives, submits to the will of the Senate- not its majority but its stacked and tainted half. Only 19 months ago, the people for the second time in less than 18 months elected the Australian Labor Party to govern for a further 3 years. Let me recall yet again the words of the Leader of the Opposition, the present, the new Leader.

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.

In a very real sense the Leader of the Opposition owes his present position to the assertion of that principle. He has betrayed the very people who supported him.

All the difficulties created and the damage done by the action of the Senate- not just the potential damage but the damage already done, already set in train to thousands of our fellow Australians- must be laid firmly at the door of one man- the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition knows this. He sees the black abyss below. The more he realised the havoc he has unleashed, the more extravagant his language. We have had over the last few weeks an escalation of epithets; We have seen him grasping at anything to excuse the inexcusable, to justify the unjustifiable- the poring over boxes and boxes of documents to discredit Ministers and public servants; the charge of fraud against the Australian Statistician over the consumer price index figures; the pathetic attempt to distort a parliamentary courtesy by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Crean) into a charge of treachery against him; the charge of conspiracy by departmental heads that they collaborated to destroy documents; the paranoia revealed in baseless claims about activities by unnamed members of my office; the imputation of collusion of the part of the royal commissioner into the petroleum industry; the charge of illegality in the Government’s even discussing with the banks ways to lessen the hardship his actions are causing to their customers and potential customers; and of course his speech today.

These are just examples of the Leader of the Opposition’s conduct, his extravagance of language and his extremism. But why should we be surprised- when we have all known all along for years the real style of the Leader of the Opposition? I have known it for years. The right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) has known it for years. I shall give just 2 examples: This is a man who, representing his Party and his country abroad, was so loose, so imprecise, so extravagant in his language that he could leave the United States Administration- at least the State Department and the Pentagonunder the impression that it was his considered view that the United States should unleash its Air Force to destroy the dykes and irrigation levees of North Vietnam in order to drown and starve the population and by that means, bring the war in Vietnam to an end.

The Leader of the Opposition has denied that he ever said anything of the sort. All I know is the impression he left, as it was conveyed to me by senior members of the American Administrationand all I can conclude is that he was as careless in his language, as inflammatory in his conversation on that greatest of issues of our time, when he was abroad, as he has been on this great issue here at home. Secondly in this very motion, the Leader of the Opposition charges illegality, breach of convention, concealment. Of all the members of this House, he should be most circumspect in making such charges, for by his own admission he concealed and condoned for 8 months an Executive order which he believed to be illegal. The Executive order was made on the famous or notorious 9 March 1971. When it suited his purposes, he used the existence of that order- relating to the possible use of the Pacific Islands Regiment to quell a threatened disturbance on the Gazelle Peninsula- as one of the 2 grounds to declare the right honourable member for Higgins as ‘unfit to be Prime Minister of Australia’. He declared himself willing to sit on something he believed to be an illegality, to cover up something that he- this man of principle, this man of honour- believed to be illegal for 8 months until such time as it suited his political advantage- namely, the destruction of his own Leader.

The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), writing in the National Times on 21 February 1972- at a time when that honourable member not only knew the path of honour and decency but was prepared to expound itdescribed the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition as:

One of the worst infrigements of the conventions of Cabinet Government which has ever occurred in Australia … Mr Fraser chose to ignore a fundamental convention of Government. The cosmetic of time may or may not hide the blemish.

I said 3 weeks ago that it would be my duty to make the Australian people aware that the Leader of the Opposition was, in his own description of the right honourable member for Higgins ‘unfit to be Prime Minister’.

The people seem to be getting the message very quickly. But when one considers the lengths he is apparently prepared to go to damage Australia, to cause harm to innocent people, to delay or even destroy the chance of economic recovery and in particular, the role he is playing in attempting to undermine the rights and powers of this House- this House of Representatives, this people’s House- he is unfit to be Leader of the Opposition. It is for this reason that this House should have the opportunity to place its opinion of the Leader of the Opposition on the record. And for that reason I move:

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party · Richmond

– We have listened to the usual rhetoric of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in trying to excuse the shameful and disgraceful behaviour of himself and his Government over the period of the last 3 years. In a desperate effort now to try to defend his position he has moved an amendment trying to discredit the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He has tried this tactic several times recently but I am afraid he will have to get some new people into his ‘dirty tricks’ department if he thinks this will have any continuing effect on the Australian people. Last week the Prime Minister took a strong liking to quoting from the editorials of the Financial Review. I notice that since then he and the Financial Review have gone into reverse gear and are moving away at a fast rate of knots from the claims they made last week. But in the context of today’s debate let us look at what the Financial Review said last Thursday. It said:

Once a government discovers that it can govern without parliamentary approval in the full sense either in the traditional Westminster terms or in the manner of a United States Congressional independence, then in the long term democracy is indeed in danger.

Democracy is in danger in this country because this Prime Minister has set out to destroy a vital and fundamental safeguard of democracy. He has set out to smash the power and authority of the Senate. That authority is to be able to force a bad and corrupt government to the people. This Prime Minister is endeavouring to exercise his will, and his will alone, over the whole of the Parliament. He seems to forget that the Parliament is made up of the Queen, the House of Representatives and the Senate, and decisions must have the approval of all those bodies. Yet today he comes in and debates that the Parliament must accept the will of the Government or the decisions of this House. That is not the way our Constitution is drawn. Decisions of the Government have to be approved by this House and the Senate and have royal assent by the Governor-General. The Prime Minister is saying that he is going to smash the Senate; that the Senate is no longer going to have this ultimate right and this ultimate power; and that he alone wants to be able to dominate the Senate, almost as though he has aspirations to be a dictator. He has even made intimidatory remarks about the Governor-General, saying that the GovernorGeneral will take advice from him and him alone.

This is a situation that requires close and critical examination because out of his rhetoric and his semantics what we see is a man who is quite prepared to contradict and repudiate statements that he made a short time earlier. Let us look at what the Prime Minister thought 18 months ago, in May 1974 when a similar situation arose and the Senate threatened to block a Supply Bill, so forcing the Government to a stalemate situation. It must have been a different Prime Minister then. I quote from what he said as reported at page 1054 of Hansard of 4 April 1974:

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not just time for the election of a government of Australia but for a parliament of Australiaan election of the whole Parliament of Australia. If the Senate rejects any money Bill- the first time that the Senate would have rejected a money Bill in the history of our nation- I shall certainly wait upon the Governor-General and I shall advise the Governor-General not merely to dissolve the House of Representatives but to dissolve the Senate as well.

One could not believe that it is the same man talking here today, who is not going to accept this challenge. I ask honourable members to listen to what the Prime Minister said next. He said:

Let there be no equivocation about it. If the Senate rejects any Supply Bill I shall certainly wait upon the GovernorGeneral. He will be back in Australia on Wednesday. I will advise the Governor-General to dissolve both Houses and to issue writs for elections of both Houses on 1 8 May.

I could quote this whole speech; but let me go on. The Prime Minister said: . the Appropriation Bills which we are debating will be passed by this chamber.

That is, the House of Representatives-

If the Senate rejects them, not only is there a powerful argument of those matters which the Senate has already twice rejected and been twice passed by the House of Representatives but also there will be the additional powerful argument for the Prime Minister to give to the Governor-General that the Senate is deliberately withholding Supply- an unprecendented action.

In those circumstances, if the Senate refuses Supply I shall certainly wait upon the Governor-General. I shall advise that he issue writs not only for an election of the House of Representatives on 1 8 May but also for the election of a new Senate on 18 May.

But today the Prime Minister does not seem to accept that he was once a person who espoused that the Senate had this right; it had this power. Indeed, a very important part of our whole Constitution is the right to be able to censure a corrupt and a bad government. If ever this safeguard, if ever this protection is taken away from our Constitution, then it leaves this country wide open to a dictatorship. This right of the Senate must be protected at all costs. To talk in terms of a half Senate election does not solve any problem. A half Senate election would lead only to further chaos in this country as moneys would not be available for the normal carrying on of Government services. If this Government is going to take an attitude where it does not care whether money is coming through, whether there is chaos, it is the one to blame. We are concerned about chaos being caused, but we believe that there is a constitutional process- a Westminster process- that has been accepted through British parliaments over the years; that is, once money is cut off, the Government goes to the people and lets the people decide.

How can there be any threat to democracy while people have the right of say? Today we have a constitutional crisis. Why? Because the Prime Minister of this nation is arrogantly defying a fundamental principle of democratic parliamentary government- the principle that a government denied funds by Parliament should resign and go to the people. The Prime Minister has always espoused, advocated, supported and defended that principle, and sought to use it himself in 1970. He would have succeeded in doing so had not the Australian Democratic Labor Party decided not to vote with the Australian Labor Party. Today the Prime Minister is running away from that principle as hard as he can. I ask the questions: Why has the Opposition in the Senate delayed the Budget to force the Whitlam Government to face the people at an election? Why should the people have a chance to pass judgment on this Government? It is because this is a bad, corrupt, incompetent government. It has a shameful record. It is a government that is taking Australia along the road to disaster. The people must have a chance to get this nation back on course before it is too late.

The Prime Minister has a disgraceful record. He has smashed conventions hand over fist. He has destroyed his own Ministers. What would the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) and the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) say, if they were free men to speak their minds, about their Prime Minister? I am of the belief- I am probably of a generous nature- that both of these men acted as dedicated Labor members believing that they were following through Australian Labor Party policy and that when the heat on the Prime Minister got too hot he dumped them; he cut them short. I think it is unfortunate that these men will now go down in the history books as discredited men merely because they were loyal to their own Prime Minister. He has also smashed the former Speaker of this House, which is something of which every fair man in this House must have been ashamed.

The Prime Minister has destroyed the independence of the Public Service by politicising it, which is something that we have always tried to avoid in this country. He has destroyed thousands of jobs by his inflationary policies, by his stupid policies on tariff cuts and revaluation and by his complete economic mismanagement. He has destroyed the hope of young people to be able to get jobs. There probably will be up to 500 000 or 600 000 people unemployed next year. Certainly the opportunity now for school leavers seems to be very dismsal. He has destroyed the value of people’s earnings and savings. He has destroyed the confidence of business and industry throughout this country in a way that we have not seen before. Hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the nation are wondering where their future lies. His policies have smashed the search for oil and minerals in this country. He has certainly smashed the prosperity of many rural industries in this country and given no hope to country people across the nation. He has definitely shown a spite and a bias against them. He has smashed the hopes of those young people wanting to buy their own homes. It is not possible to do that in this country. But I suppose worst of all and most disloyal of all he has smashed the faith and trust of loyal Labor supporters who worked and slaved to get him into office 3 years ago.

Not content with all that destruction, the Prime Minister now says that he is going to destroy the power of the Senate. He has said: ‘I will break the power of the Senate’. What does that mean? It means that he will smash the greatest safeguard that we have against bad government, the only safeguard that we have under our constitutional set-up. Let us hope that if he wants to change this position and there is a referendum the Australian people will see through it. I am sure that the people of the small States will see through it because that is the only chance they have of equating their small populations in this Parliament. It will destroy the people’s protection against corrupt government if this power of the Senate is taken away. It will destroy the defences which have stood against dishonest government and those who would deceive. In fact, it will destroy the bulwark that stands against betrayal of the electorate and will destroy the vital democratic principle that government can be held accountable to the people.

The Prime Minister says that he should govern for 3 years. I ask: Should an incompetent government, such as I have mentioned, have 3 years in office? Should a dishonest government remain in office for 3 years? Should a corrupt government remain in office for 3 years? Should a Prime Minister who has been accused of lying by his Deputy remain in office for 3 years? Should a man who says he will smash the Senate -

Mr Daly:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw attention to the fact that the right honourable member has constantly used the term ‘corrupt government’. I pose the question whether, under the Standing Orders, that should be done by a man who is paid in this Parliament by the oil companies.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Dr Klugman:

– What about the right honourable member putting pressure as a Minister on the Commonwealth Development Bank?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Prospect that if he interrupts me again while I am speaking I will name him. I suggest that some courtesy is entitled to be shown to the Chair. The use of the terms to which the Minister for Administrative Services has drawn attention is allowed in the chamber provided they are used generally and not directed at an honourable member. If they are directed at an honourable member that honourable member is entitled under the Standing Orders to have them withdrawn. During a debate on a censure motion it is not unusual for honourable members to use terms which would not normally be allowed in debate.

Mr ANTHONY:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. These people try so hard to blacken one that it is not really necessary to answer all their accusations. The Australian people will measure them for what they are. When the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) gets so sensitive about the word ‘corruption’, how does he explain that his own Prime Minister had to sack two of his senior Ministers because they deceived and lied to the Parliament? What is more corrupt than a government carrying on like that? This Prime Minister says he is going to smash the authority of the Senate.

I do not believe he is kidding that he is going to smash it. He will go to any lengths to smash that authority and he does not care what chaos he is going to cause in this country. He will smash the Senate all right and he will smash it right over the heads of the Australian people if he can get his way; and he will smash the economy while he is at it. He will smash the Senate because it is a threat to him and to his dominance because this is the one body that really can curb his arrogance and his defiance of the whole system. The Senate is a threat to the Prime Minister’s lust for power. It is a threat to his grip on office and in his fight to smash and to destroy a vital principle of government this Prime Minister will resort to any antic, use any weapon, cause any disruption and inflict any hardship. This desperate, frightened man will go to any lengths at all so that his grip on office is not loosened.

The Prime Minister says that the Senate is destroying his government. No Senate can do that. No Opposition can do that. Only the Australian people can make or unmake a government. Only the Australian people can make a judgment. Only the Australian people can decide whether a bad, corrupt and dishonest government should remain in office. Only the Australian people can decide whether they want to live in a socialist country or a free enterprise country. There is no threat to democracy in what we are doing. We want democracy to work. Democracy will never be damaged by giving the Australian people a chance to vote. Democracy will never be hurt if the vital principles on which it rests are preserved. Democracy will never be hurt if those vital principles are protected, but it will be hurt if they are destroyed. Democracy will be hurt if an arrogant, irrational Prime Minister destroys the Senate’s power to force a failed, incompetent, corrupt and disreputable government to face its masters- the Australian people.

The Prime Minister’s biggest falsehood, his worst deception and his most blatant fabrication, is the claim that the Opposition is holding the nation to financial ransom. How can that be true? How can a perfectly legal, proper constitutional action cause financial chaos? If the Government runs out of money it will be because of the Prime Minister’s obstinate defiance of the processes of our democratic system. If there is financial hardship it will come from the Prime Minister’s preposterous breach of the parliamentary system. If there is a breakdown of government services it will be because of the Prime Minister’s monstrous departure from a course of action that in the past has been strongly advocated by him, supported, defended and even sought to be used by him. This is the man who in Opposition sought to force the Government to an election by rejecting Budget money Bills and, as I pointed out, he actually brought about a full election in this country last year because the Senate had threatened him with blocking Supply. But today he is so desperate about the situation that he will not accept those circumstances and he is quite prepared to allow chaos to go on in this country. The course which we have proposed is the proper and correct course. It is democratic, but now the Prime Minister is making out that it is an evil violation of democracy. Any man who can so quickly change his principles, so quickly repudiate his own words, is not to be trusted with the leadership of this nation. This man of principle who sees our great democratic processes as a threat to his power, in an effort to save himself financially will drag this nation to the brink of chaos. He will sell his soul to expediency, he will grind our parliamentary system under his heel and he will deny every word that comes from his mouth.

Sitting suspended from J 2.55 to 2 p.m.

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

– I want to say to begin with that this issue today is a constitutional issue of great importance. It is about who has the right to govern in this country. It is about the rights of another place with respect to this House in what are called financial matters. It was said earlier this morning that the Queen, the House of Representatives and the Senate are what constitute the Parliament as a functioning body. What needs to be spelt out is that the Queen’s representative in Australia, the GovernorGeneral, does not act on his own initiative but acts on the advice of his Ministers. Who the Ministers are is conditioned by who has the majority in the House of Representatives. I would hope that everybody, in this House at least, would assert that as a fundamental ground rule of the Australian parliamentary system.

The position of the Senate is spelt out in section 53 of the Constitution which deals with money Bills. This section provides that money Bills can originate only in this House and may not be amended by the Senate. It further provides that the Senate may make requests which the House of Representatives may or may not take into account. Section 53 then provides that in all other law making provisions the Senate has equal power with the House of Representatives. But I think it must be affirmed that the Senate does not have equal power with the House of Representatives as far as money matters are concerned. Yet what the Senate is purporting to do now would give the Senate in respect of money Bills not a less than equal power with the House of Representatives but a greater power which was never intended to be the situation.

Many things have been said during the course of the debate. We have heard corruption, dishonesty and other emotive words. I repeat again that the issue is not about the unholy relic, Khemlani; it is not about whether Mr Hayden said something to Mr Hawke which Mr Hawke has not repeated to anyone else; it is not about ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd. The issue is the power of this House and its ability to govern in a democratic system. I am appalled that not a single member of either the Liberal Party or the National Country Party of Australia in this

House is prepared to defend the rights, the powers and the purposes of this House as against the other place. They have been recreant in regard to responsibility. I think they are recreant in terms of conventions and common sense as far as the conduct of government in Australia is concerned. There was some mention earlier this morning of the Westminster system. There is no other place that claims to adopt the Westminster traditions where the Upper House could do with a money Bill what the Senate is now asserting it can do. The paramountcy of this House in respect of finance has long been acknowledged. Bills must start here, they cannot be amended in the Senate, and sensibly they cannot be rejected by the Senate. Let us look at the logic -

Mr Hewson:

– That is rubbish.

Mr CREAN:

– Of course it is rubbish to the honourable member because all he can judge is rubbish. He is not prepared to sit down as anybody should and look at the consequences of the Opposition’s actions. The consequences of the action are that those who claim to be defenders of the Constitution in fact are becoming its sub.verters. Because the Budget is presented as a document in its entirety it is no longer credible that a Senate should endeavour to do with financial measures what it is attempting to do on this occasion. The Appropriation Bills provide for an expenditure, in aggregate, of $22 billion. Only $9 billion out of that $22 billion is in the Bills that are under dispute. The other $13 billion of expenditure can go on. Therefore provision is made for the payment of pensions but not for the administrative mechanism to pay those pensions. The other day the Senate passed taxation measures which means that taxes are being collected but cannot be appropriated.

What sort of nonsense- and I believe it is nonsenseis it to assert as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is trying to assert that somehow the Senate instead of being a States’ House or a House of review is being elevated into a position of some kind of conscience of the community. Surely the Opposition can hardly honestly use the term ‘conscience’ when we know how its numbers in the Senate have been obtained. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) who is about to take part in this debate said it was a ‘ tainted Senate ‘-there is a vote being exercised one way that ought properly to be exercised the other way. It is only because of that that the Senate has been able to attach this presumptuous condition that it will do only what it ought to do- that is, pass Supply- if the Government firstly has a House of Representatives election. To condone that sort of conduct, of course, is to turn the Senate into a monster. The Senate would be exceeding the powers that properly are provided for it. As the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has asserted, governments are made and unmade only in the House of Representatives. What should happen, for argument’s sake, if someone else were to come here in a few minutes and say he was now the Prime Minister of this country. He would be voted out immediately in this House. This is the test of constitutionality.

I must say that I am getting a little sick of the unctuous way in which everything that can be done to frustrate the proper working of this House is being done in the name of something called ‘defending the Constitution’. As I say, it is easy to bring up relics- unholy relics like Khemlani- and say that one’s reason for doing something is this or something else. The paramount issue is the fundamental supremacy of the House of Representatives. Nobody should interfere with that supremacy. This supremacy is traditional and there are very good reasons why that tradition should be continued. In respect of financial measures the Senate cannot say that it likes the Budget as a whole but it does not like a certain section and it will pass one section but not another. The Senate cannot do that; it cannot amend. Therefore when it chooses to reject the Budget it ought to have a look at what are the consequences of that rejection. The consequences of that rejection are that people who are legally employed, whose services cannot be terminated, because the public servants are permanent, nevertheless cannot be paid.

When the Opposition brings that situation to be, where does the unconstitutionality or the illegality begin and where does the process end? A budget is not just a scheme of measures dealing only with the current year. It is the continuance of measures from the past; it is new measures; it is measures that are supposed to have a future. The Opposition has passed the necessary taxes to service the purposes but it is prepared to deny the payment of salaries and supplies of goods and services in the name of something that is irrevelant and wrong. I believe that this House must assert what its fundamental role is. The Queen-in-Council has certain powers, but they are not autocratic. Those powers should be exercised upon the advice of the Governor-General of the day. There have been occasions, unfortunately, in British constitutional history when Governors-General have sought to act beyong their power. That happened in Canada 70 or 80 years ago. The GovernorGeneral chose to appoint somebody else to be

Prime Minister, even though he did not have the numbers in the Parliament. When the issue was put to the people, the people voted against the nominee of the Governor-General.

All parts of our Constitution have purposes and precedents, and they all ought to be interpreted with commonsense. A document is not only letters or words; a constitution has a spirit, and a constitution works only with conventions plus commonsense. Whether conventions put flexibility into a system which otherwise would be too rigid or whatever else they may do, a constitution works the better because of them. I think this House has to look very systematically at what is being done here today. As I say, it disappoints me that nobody in the Liberal Party or the National Country Party of Australia has been prepared to assert the powers and purposes of this House as against another place.

The Opposition does not have the numbers in the House of Representatives. It has illicitly got them in the Senate. It cravenly says: ‘We will only do in the Senate what we ought to do if you first have a House of Representatives election’. That sort of thing is a travesty upon the working of a constitution. It brings the Constitution into disrepute. At the moment we have a crisis over Supply that should legitimately be granted. I have said this before: Had the Australian Constitution been written in 1912 instead of in 1901, it would have had enshrined therein that the Senate could not reject a money Bill. That is the commonsense of the whole apparatus if the matter is thought through. The Constitution says that a money Bill cannot originate in the Senate and that the Senate cannot amend such a Bill. Yet, because it does not have the word ‘reject’ the Opposition is prepared to write that in by implication. To do so is to bring the fabric of government- democratic government, popular government, responsible government- into disrepute and disarray. The ills that are attendant should be sheeted home to those who are responsible that is, those who are acting in the Senate in defiance of proper powers and for sheer political expediency.

Mr Killen:

- Mr SpeakerMotion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question by now put. The House divided. ( Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 55

Majority……._ 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Whitlam’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 56

Majority 7

AYES

NOES

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 56

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the motion (Mr Malcolm Fraser’s), as amended, be agreed to.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2928

FORMATION OF GOVERNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Wannon.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon · LP

- Mr Speaker, this afternoon the Governor-General commissioned me to form a government until elections can be held - ( Government supporters interjecting)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that honourable members on my right remain silent if they want to stay in the House.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The purpose of the commission is to permit a deadlock between the Houses of Parliament to be resolved and to return Australia to stable government. It will be my sole purpose to ensure that Australia has the general election to which it is constitutionally entitled and which has so far been denied it. Until the judgment of the Australian people has been registered at this election my Government will make no appointments or dismissals or initiate any new policies. I have written to the GovernorGeneral in these terms:

Your Excellency,

You have intimated to me that it is Your Excellency’s pleasure that I should act as your chief adviser and head of the Government. In accepting your commission I confirm that I have given you an assurance that I shall immediately seek to secure the passage of the Appropriation Bills which are at present before the Senate.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– . . . thus ensuring Supply for the carrying on of the Public Service in all its branches. I further confirm that, upon the granting of Supply, I shall immediately recommend to Your Excellency the dissolution of both Houses of this Parliament. My Government will act as a caretaker government and will make no appointments or dismissals or initiate new policies before a general election is held.

Under the terms of the double dissolution the Bills that are in a double dissolution position will all be cited in that double dissolution and honourable members will have in mind the significance of that. There will be no new policy changes. There will be no royal commissions or inquiries into the activities of this Government throughout the period of the election campaign. We will be seeking dissolution of the Parliament at the earliest opportunity. The Appropriation Bills, as some honourable member interjected, have already passed through the Senate. I would only wish to add some parts of His Excellency’s statement. In the summary of that statement he said:

It has been necessary for me -

That is His Excellency- to find a democratic and constitutional solution to the current crisis which will permit the people of Australia to decide as soon as possible what should be the outcome of the deadlock which developed over supply between the two Houses of Parliament and between the Government and the Opposition parties.

Later he stated:

Because of the federal nature of our Constitution and because of its provisions the Senate undoubtedly has constitutional power to refuse or defer Supply to the Government. Because of the principles of responsible government a Prime Minister who cannot obtain Supply, including money for carrying on the ordinary services of government, must either advise a general election or resign. If he refuses to do this I have the authority and indeed the duty under the Constitution to withdraw his Commission as Prime Minister. The position in Australia is quite different from the position in the United Kingdom. Here the confidence of both Houses on Supply is necessary to ensure its provision. In the United Kingdom the confidence of the House of Commons alone is necessary. But both here and in the United Kingdom the duty of the Prime Minister is the same in a most important respect- if he cannot get Supply he must resign or advise an election.

Later he also stated that the decisions he had made were made after he was satisfied that Mr Whitlam could not obtain Supply. He said:

No other decision open to me would enable the Australian people to decide for themselves what should be done.

The Governor-General draws attention also to the fact that he had consulted the Chief Justice of Australia. The Governor-General also stated:

There is one other point. There has been discussion of the possibility that a half-Senate election might be held under circumstances in which the Government has not obtained supply. If such advice were given to me I should feel constrained to reject it because a half-Senate election held whilst supply continued to be denied does not guarantee a prompt or sufficiently clear prospect of the deadlock being resolved in accordance with proper principles. When I refer to rejection of such advice I mean that, as I would find it necessary in the circumstances I have envisaged to determine Mr Whitlam ‘s Commission and, as things have turned out have done so, he would not be Prime Minister and not able to give or persist with such advice.

I return to an earlier passage in His Excellency’s statement. I would only hope that honourable members will accept this position that has developed with the dignity that accords to this House and not with some of the views that have been expressed, because I recognise that it must have been the most painful duty of His Excellency to take the decision that he has taken. I read one other section of His Excellency’s statement:

If a Prime Minister refuses to resign or to advise an election, and this is the case with Mr Whitlam, my constitutional authority and duty require me to do what I have now done- to withdraw his Commission- and to invite the Leader of the Opposition to form a caretaker governmentthat is one that makes no appointments or dismissals and initiates no policies, until a general election is held.

His Excellency has been given that assurance, Mr Speaker, and that is the way this matter will be resolved. I would like only to add that I appeal to the good sense of the Australian people to understand that a most difficult situation has developed. It is one that I would hope that all members of this House would be able to encompass with a degree of dignity and a proper comprehension of the importance of the event. This will set no unhappy precedent for future governments because, as honourable members are well aware, we have never in 75 years had equivalent circumstances. What needs to happen is that this House be dissolved as soon as possible. It is inappropriate that further business be done by this House in accordance with the wishes expressed by the Governor-General, and this House will be dissolved as soon as the double dissolution papers can be prepared in accordance with the terms that I have indicated in relation to my agreement with the GovernorGeneral. It is inappropriate that further business be undertaken. I move:

Question putThat the House do now adjourn. The House divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

That the House do now adjourn. Question putThat the House do now adjourn. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 55

NOES: 64

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that honourable members might remain in their present places. (Honourable members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-If honourable members want to return to the other side of the chamber, very well.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr DALY:
Grayndler · ALP

-I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Enderby:

– I second the motion.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Speaker, I do not believe that in the climate that prevails-

Motion ( by Mr Daly) put :

That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 64

NOES: 54

Majority

10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to.

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

AYES: 64

NOES: 54

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

page 2930

FRASER CARETAKER GOVERNMENT

Want of Confidence Motion

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa · ALP

-I move:

The Governor-General’s views have been read at sufficient length to show that the circumstances upon which he relied no longer apply. There is no longer a deadlock on the Budget between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Budget Bills have been passed. Accordingly, the Government which twice has been elected by the people is able to govern. Furthermore, as has been demonstrated this afternoon, the parties which the Prime Minister leads do not have a majority in the House of Representatives. The party I lead has a majority in the House of Representatives. It has never been defeated in the year and a half since the last election and in those circumstances it is appropriate, I believe, that you, Mr Speaker, should forthwith advise the Governor-General- waiting upon him forthwith to advise him- that the party I lead has the confidence of the House of Representatives, and you should apprise His Excellency of the view of the House that I have the confidence of the House and should be called to form His Excellency’s Government.

Mr Daly:

– I second the motion.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Speaker, I wish -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 64

NOES: 54

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER-The question now is:

That this House expresses its want of confidence in the Prime Minister and requests the Speaker to immediately advise His Excellency, the Governor-General, to call the honourable member for Werriwa to form a government.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Honourable members- The noes have it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The House will divide. Ring the bells. (The bells being rung)

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, the terminology used in the expression between the GovernorGeneral and the chief adviser and head of the government is not ‘Prime Minister’. I suggest that the form of the present resolution is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion has been accepted as in order. It expresses the terms. There is no term in the Constitution.

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

AYES: 64

NOES: 54

Majority ……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2932

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests:

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76.

Sitting suspended from 3.15 to 5.30p.m.

page 2932

DISSOLUTION OF BOTH HOUSES OF THE PARLIAMENT

The Senate and the House of Representatives having been dissolved by Proclamation of His Excellency the Governor-General, the sitting did not resume.

page 2933

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Departmental Grants Land Acquisition Compensation (Question No. 2029) (Question No. 2897)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

When will the Minister answer my question No. 1557 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Riordan:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Urban and Regional Development · PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

Question No. 1557 was answered on 6 November 1975 (see Hansard of 6 November 1975, pages 2904 and 2905).

Liquidations and Bankruptcies: Tax Claims (Question No. 2234)

Mr Staley:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that in a number of liquidations and bankruptcies employees are unable to receive salaries and long service leave payments because of the prior right of the Commissioner of Taxation under section 22 lp of the Income Tax Assessment Act.
  2. If so, and in view of the present economic climate, will he consider taking steps to alleviate such hardship on employees.
Mr Hayden:
Treasurer · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. Yes. By virtue of section 22 lp of the Income Tax Assessment Act, tax instalment deductions payable to the Commissioner of Taxation by a receiver in bankruptcy or by the liquidator of a company have priority over all other debts whether preferential, secured or unsecured, with the exception of specified costs, charges and expenses. They would thus rank in priority ahead of amounts payable for salaries and long service leave.
  2. Section 22 IP comes into operation when an employer who has made deductions purporting to be for tax instalments fails to remit the amount deducted to the Commissioner or purchase tax stamps. If an employer carries out his statutory obligation and remits the instalments by the due date, the employees are allowed credit in their income tax assessments for the tax instalments deducted from their wages.

If the employer goes bankrupt or, being a company, goes into liquidation without paying the instalments to the Commissioner the Crown nevertheless keeps the employees indemnified against this loss and the Commissioner allows them credit for the amounts deducted although he may never receive any payment whatsoever. The Commissioner’s priority thus merely attempts to ensure that he will be reimbursed, at least in part, for the credit allowed to employees.

I have had occasion recently to make a detailed study of the purpose and operation of section 22 lp. My conclusion is similar to that of a succession of past Liberal-National Country Party Governments which pursued this policy, viz., that it would be best if the priority conferred by the section were kept in being.

Mr Hunt:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) Has the cost of compensation for acquisition of land affected by the National Capital Development Commission’s proposal to extend the boundaries of the A.C.T. been calculated; if so what is the estimated cost.
  2. If not, is this another example of a Government agency embarking on a potentially inflationary scheme without assessing the cost to the nation as a whole.
Mr Uren:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no detailed estimate of the acquisition cost at this stage, although the magnitude of the acquisition process is recognised.

It should be noted that any acquisition undertaken by the Australian Government be on the basis of fair and just terms.

  1. The extension of the border of the A.C.T. is the recommended option for catering for the future growth of Canberra. Any acquisition of land within an expanded A.C.T. would be consistent with Australian Government policy since federation that the National Capital be developed on land acquired by the Australian Government.

Arbitration Appointments (Question No. 2886)

Mr Street:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What appointments have been made in the (a) Arbitration Inspectorate (b) Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and (c) Industrial Court since 2 December 1972.
  2. What was the previous industrial relations experience of each of the persons appointed.
  3. ) What positions had any of the persons appointed held in organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) to ( 3 ) The names of the persons appointed to the Arbitration Inspectorate, Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and Australian Industrial Court since 2 December 1972, relevant experience and available information as to positions held in organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are shown in the first, second and third columns of the attached schedule.

page 2934

ARBITRATION INSPECTORATE

page 2934

SCHEDULE

Name

Relevant experience

Position held in registered organisation

New South Wales

S. Barnes

D. J. Blackwood

C. Down

H. Ewer

E. T. Galbraith

D.J.Gillard

J. K.Heaney

C. H. James

Victoria R. A. Beer R. J. Byrne

H. L. Clemson S. N. Hallifax

J. L. Ireland

State President, Australian Workers Union

Federal Organiser, Australian Insurance Staff’s Federation

Technical Adviser, Department of Labor and Immigration located in Great Britain to advise on entry of migrant tradesmen. Employment Officer, Department of Labor and Immigration- experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations

Organiser, Amalgamated Metal Workers Union Industrial Officer, Association of Employers of Waterside Labour

Employment Officer, Department of Labor and Immigration- experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations

Employment Officer, Department of Labor and Immigration- experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations. Member and President of Section Committee, Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Department of Labor and Immigration, New South Wales Regional Office

NSW and General Secretary, Federated Shipwrights and Ship Constructors Association of Australia

District Magistrate, Papua-New Guinea

Clerk in the Industrial Relations Branch, Department of

Labor and Immigration

Clerk, Attorney-General’s Department- experienced in investigations and industrial relations regulations Organiser and Branch President of Australian Workers Union

Clerk, New Guinea Department of Labour-experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations

State President, Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, NSW Branch

Industrial Officer, Shop Assistants and Warehouse Employees Federation of Australia, Newcastle Branch Branch Secretary, Public Utilities and Salaried Officers Association

Industrial Arbitration Inspector, Department of Labour and Industry, New South Wales

Investigation Officer (Trades), Department of Labor and Immigration. Formerly a Commonwealth Councillor, Amalgamated Engineering Union of Australia Technical Officer, Department of Defence-experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations

Industrial Officer, Victorian Chamber of Manufactures Senior Inspector, Australian Taxation Office- experienced in investigations and application of statutes Personnel Officer, Crockford and Robertson Pty Ltd Clerk, Principal Registry, Conciliation and Arbitration Commission

Assistant Programmer, Postmaster-General’s Departmentexperienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations

See previous column See previous column

See previous column

See previous column

See previous column

See previous column

See previous column See previous column

See previous column

Name

Relevant experience

Position held in registered organisation

Queensland D. R. Claim

M.J. Perks

A.W.R.Young

South Australia

Clerk, Principal Registry, Conciliation and Arbitration Commission

Investigation Officer (Trades), Industrial Relations Branch, Department of Labor and Immigration

Secretary, Federated Ironworkers Association, Victoria Branch

Clerk, Australian Taxation Office- experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations

Clerk, Australian Taxation Office- experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations Inspecting Officer, Department of Defence- experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations

Clerk, Australian Taxation Office- experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations Research Officer, Department of Labor and Immigrationexperienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations

Clerk, Attorney-General’s Department- experienced in investigations and construction of statutes

Secretary, Southern Queensland Sub-Branch, Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union

Former Senior NCO in Australian Army- experienced in investigations and construction of military law. Employment Officer, Department of Labor and Immigrationexperienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations

Organiser, Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union

Employment Officer, Department of Labor and Immigration- experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations

Employment Officer and Vocational Guidance Officer, Department of Labor and Immigration- experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations Branch Secretary, Amalgamated Metal Workers Union

Clerk, Industrial Relations Branch, Department of Labor and Immigration. Former Commonwealth Policeman, experienced in investigations and application of statutes

Member of the South Australian Aboriginal Affairs Board- experienced in investigations into aspects of Aboriginal employment

Member, Branch Committee of the NT Branch of Union Postal Clerks and Telegraphists

Industrial Inspector, Department of Labour and Industry, South Australia

Electoral Returning Officer, Department of Services and Property-experienced in investigations and application of statutes and with knowledge of industrial relations

Industrial Advocate, Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Personnel Clerk, experienced in construing Awards and general industrial relations work

Inspector, Department of Customs, experienced in investigatory work and with knowledge of industrial relations Industrial Officer, Chamber of Commerce and Industry Organiser, Amalgamated Metal Workers Union

See previous column

See previous column

See previous column

See previous column

See previous column

See previous column

Name

Relevant experience

Position held in registered organisation

Western Australia A. B. Ainsworth

Clerk, Department of Civil Aviation- experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations Employment Officer, Department of Labor and Immigration- experienced in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations Clerk (Inspector), Australian Taxation Office- experience in investigations and with knowledge of industrial relations

AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

The Honourable Justice E. A. Evatt

The Honourable Mr Justice J. B. Sweeney

The Honourable R. D. Williams

The Honourable J. E. Isaac

The Honourable Justice M. G. Gaudron

The Honourable Mr Justice M. D. Kirby

The Honourable Mr Justice I. G.Sharp

The Honourable Mr Justice J. F. Staples

Commissioner J. E. Heffernan

Commissioner J.J. Cohen Commissioner G. L. Walker

Commissioner P. M. Griffin

The Honourable Mr Justice J. B. Sweeney

The Honourable Mr Justice P. G. Evatt

The Honourable Mr Justice R. J. B. St John

Practised as a barrister

See answer under Australian Industrial Court

Federal Secretary Australian Bank Officials’ Association; Federal Secretary Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations

Assistant Secretary Planning & Research Department of Labour and National Service; Professor of Economics, University of Melbourne; Professor of Economics Monash University; Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal

Practised before Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission

Practised before Australian Industrial Court, Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and State industrial tribunals

Industrial Registrar; Secretary, Department of Labour and Immigration

Practised before Australian Industrial Court, Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and State industrial tribunals

General Secretary Sheet Metal Working, Agricultural Implement and Stovemaking Industrial Union of Australia, Joint Commonwealth Secretary Amalgamated Metal Workers Union of Australia

Practised as a solicitor

General Secretary Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia Personnel Manager; member of ILO and OECD Committees on Problems of Women Workers

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL COURT

Practised before Australian Industrial Court and Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission

Practised before Australian Industrial Court

Practised before Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission

See previous column

Trustee Industrial Arbitration Registrars ‘ Association

See previous column

See previous column

Housing (Question No. 3108)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Further to question No. 1384 concerning co-operative housing and medium density housing, to what use will the research project on medium density housing by the Housing Research Branch of the Division of Building Technology and Sociology be put.
  2. How many officers are involved in the research project, and what is their background in training and experience.
  3. Is it intended that State Government Departments should also take pan in the project as well as local government planning authorities.
  4. Are other departments of the Australian Government involved in the project; if so, which departments.
  5. 5 ) What will be the total cost of the project.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. The information derived from the study will be included in a handbook of Australian Dwelling Design and Construction. The publication is intended to aid all those concerned with the design and construction of homes in Australia.
  2. Two, an architect and a quantity surveyor.
  3. ) Some of the information required for the study is being provided by State Government Departments and local government authorities.
  4. No.
  5. 5 ) The cost of the project will represent the salaries of the professional officers included at part 2.

Regional Employment Development Scheme (Question No. 3201)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the projects in each electoral division for which assistance has been provided under the RED Scheme since its inception.
  2. What was the name of the sponsoring organisation the description of the project, and the amount of RED Scheme assistance for each project.
  3. What has been the cost of advising by telegram organisations sponsoring projects under the RED Scheme of the result of their applications.
  4. What has been the cost of advising by telegram Branch Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service of the results of applications for RED Scheme assistance.
  5. What are the projects in each division for which RED Scheme assistance was offered but is not now intended to be made available.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) My Department has not maintained statistics of the Scheme in relation to electoral divisions although it has, in relation to some specific requests, extracted and provided this information. To provide the information sought for each electoral division in Australia, however, would require a considerable amount of time and work to be undertaken within the Department and I am reluctant to ask that this be done. I would add that it was never the intention of the Scheme to approve projects by electoral division, although it was the practice to advise all Members of the House of Representatives of projects which had been put forward in local government areas which fell, wholly or partly, within their electorates and to seek their comments on them.

My Department has been able to compile figures which show that, since the inception of the Scheme on 10 September, 1974, the number of projects approved has been 8191 and the amount of funds approved for payment under the Scheme at 16 October 1975, was $189,78 1,549.

  1. and (4) The cost of advising by telegram organisations sponsoring projects under the RED Scheme that their applications were approved is estimated at $14,100 during the period when the practice was commenced on 2 January, 1975, and discontinued on 31 July, 1975. The cost of advising by telegram Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service that applications had been approved is estimated at $14,100 during the period when the practice was commenced on 2 January, 1975, and discontinued on 31 July 1975. Sponsors of applications which were not approved were notified in writing, as were Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service.
  2. As indicated in ( 1 ) and (2) above, my Department has not maintained statistics of the Scheme in relation to electoral divisions. Providing the information sought for each electoral division in Australia would require a considerable amount of time and work to be undertaken within the Department and I am reluctant to ask that this be done.

Cheese (Question No. 3216)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Police and Customs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What has been the level of imports of the various varieties of cheese, and from which countries have they come, in the last 4 years for which figures are available.
  2. 2 ) When were the anti-dumping duties removed from the importation of non-cheddar cheese.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Minister for Police and Customs has provided the following information in reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The relevant statistics have been forwarded direct to the honourable member.
  2. 4 September 1973.

Local Government Rates (Question No. 3292)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the recent decision announced by the Minister for Housing and Construction that Commonwealth Hostels Limited will pay ex-gratia payments to local government bodies with migrant and other Australian Government hostels in their area, in lieu of rates.
  2. Is it intended that this principle should be extended to apply to the operations of all Government departments.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. The Minister for Housing and Construction advised me that rates would be paid from 1 July 1 975.
  2. There is no proposal to make ex-gratia payments in lieu of general rates in connection with the operations of Government departments. The general policy is that the Australian Government, in accordance with its constitutional rights in relation to property used for Australian Government purposes, does not pay rates on such property. However, it is the practice to make ex-gratia payments in respect of particular services rendered by a rating authority such as water, sewerage, electricity, sanitary or garbage services.

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3305)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade the following question, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control?
  2. What is the general nature of the publications?
  3. ) In what languages are they published?
  4. When were they first published in this way?
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) ‘Australian Trading News’.
  2. ‘Australian Trading News’ is a periodical distributed by Australian Trade Commissioners for the promotion of Australian products in overseas markets. It consists of information on products available for export from individual Australian manufacturers and plays a significant role in introducing new Australian products to overseas markets. ‘Australian Trading News’ is totally distributed overseas.
  3. Spanish, Japanese, Dutch, French, Italian, Swedish, Thai, Arabic, Indonesian, Farsi, German, Portuguese.
  4. Spanish (1962), Japanese (1963), Dutch (1964), French (1965), Italian (1965), Swedish (1966), Thai (1966), Arabic (1968), Indonesian (1970), Farsi (1975), German ( 1 975), Portuguese ( 1975 ).

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3323)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. 3 ) In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 3304 (House of Representatives Hansard, 15 October 1975,page2188).

Access Radio Stations (Question No. 3352)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. Has he any definite proposals for the establishment of access radio stations for Shepparton following statements he recently made in that city.
  2. ) If so, what are they, and do they include ethnic radio.
  3. Have any requests been received from local groups; if so, which groups.
  4. If any stations are approved, who will provide the finance for their establishment and running costs.
Dr Cass:
Minister for the Media · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 have no definite proposals for the establishment of access radio stations in the Shepparton area. However, as I’
  2. 2 ) Number of positions for quarter ending indicated in the statement to which the honourable member refers, I regard it feasible for a station, or stations to be established should sufficient public support be generated from within the region.
  3. See (1) above.
  4. No requests for licences from local groups have been received by either myself, my Department or the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.
  5. The question of financing such access stations will be a matter for consideration when and if a definite proposal for their establishment is made.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 2987)

Mr Ruddock:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What is the staffing of the Department’s Aboriginal Employment Sub-section.
  2. What growth has occurred in the Sub-section quarterly over the last 2 years.
  3. What positions in the Sub-section have remained unfilled during the last 2 years, and for what periods.
  4. How many officers in the Sub-section have retired or transferred for reasons of ill health, and what has been the nature of the illness.
  5. Can he say what is the comparative staffing in the field of other Departments working in social and welfare fields with Aboriginal people.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The staffing of the Department’s Aboriginal Employment Sub-section at the end of September 1975 was as follows:
  1. Unfilled positions in last 2 years.

Central Office- 2 positions have remained unfilled for periods up to 6 months.

New South Wales- 5 positions have remained unfilled for periods up to 4 months. 8 positions have remained unfilled for 14 months.

Victoria- 2 positions have been unfilled since the beginning of 1974.

Queensland- 5 positions have been vacant for 18 months.

South Australia- 3 positions were vacant for 3 months and S positions were vacant for between 1 and 2 years.

Northern Territory- 3 positions were vacant for 3 months, 2 for 1 7 months and 4 for 2 years.

Western Australia- 3 positions were vacant for 6 months and 1 1 other positions were vacant for periods between 10 and 17 months.

The reasons for lengthy periods of unoccupancy of positions were partly due to the imposition of staff ceilings last financial year and the fact that no suitable applicants were located after some vacancies had been advertised.

  1. One officer was superannuated due to nervous exhaustion. Another retired from the Australian Public Service because of nervous and physical exhaustion. Two officers transferred to other sections, one because of severe nervous strain and irritation of a back complaint and the other because of constant fatigue.
  2. Questions as to the staffing of other Departments working in the social and welfare fields should be directed to the Minister concerned.

Commonwealth Indebtedness (Question No. 3182)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the level of debts owed to private firms and individuals by the Commonwealth at 31 August 1975.
  2. What were the figures at 3 1 July and 30 June 1975.
  3. What were the levels of debt at the end of the comparable months in 1974.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The figures sought by the honourable member are not readily available in all departmental records. Because Australian Government departments operate on a cash accounting system they do not maintain ledgers which record all debts outstanding at any one point in time.

The time and effort that would be required to obtain the information would be such that I do not think I would be justified in asking that it be assembled.

Bankruptcies: Small Businesses (Question No. 3184)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many small businesses have gone bankrupt or been liquidated in each of the last 2 years.
  2. How many farmers have gone bankrupt in each of the last 2 years.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) bankruptcies: In order to provide a proper basis of comparison figures are shown for the financial years 1 965-66 to 1974-75 inclusive. Separate figures for ‘small businesses’ are not kept, and separate figures for businesses (a person engaged in a business, trade or profession whether as an employer or on his own account) have only been kept since 1972-73. Bearing in mind that the table relates to individuals, the businesses involved can be assumed to be mostly small ones.

  1. liquidations: As company law is a State and Territory matter the only statistics I am able to provide relate to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Those statistics are available only for the last 5 years and do not differentiate between large and small businesses. They are as follows.

    1. In order to provide a proper basis of comparison the following table sets out the number of farmers who became bankrupt during each of the financial years 1965-66 to 1974-75 inclusive. The number of cases in each year relates only to bankruptcies and does not include arrangements with creditors as no information in respect of the latter cases is available prior to the financial year 1972-73. In respect of each year up to and including the financial year 1971-72 the numbers relate not only to business cases but may include a small number of cases involving persons employed on salary or wages as farmers or farm managers.

French Nuclear Tests (Question No. 2880)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to his answer to my question No. 1985, is there any evidence, other than his belief, that the case Australia put to the International Court of Justice in 1973 served as a focal point in the mobilisation of international opinion against French atmospheric testing, and that this factor was one which influenced the French Government in the decision which it took.
  2. ) If so, what precisely is the evidence.
  3. If not. are there sufficient grounds for making such a statement.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) I do not propose to elaborate the grounds for my view, since to do so would re-open matters of controversy between Australia and France.

Properties Purchased for Aborigines (Question No. 3002)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the details of developments in connection with properties which were purchased for Aborigines with public funds.
  2. In particular (a) what is the extent to which any economic purposes have been achieved and (b) what are the details of any defaults in repayment of interest on loans.
Mr Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Properties purchased for Aborigines with public funds by both the previous and the present Governments were established pastoral properties. Besides satisfying land rights for the Aboriginal groups involved, it was also intended that the properties would provide the communities with an economic base. The properties have been operated at a level commensurate with the aspirations of the Aboriginal owners.

  2. (a) The general recession in the beef cattle industry has in most cases prevented economic objectives being achieved.

    1. Loans made in relation to these properties were on the basis that the terms of repayment would be determined after an evaluation of the economic performance of each group. Due to the difficult situation in the beef industry this has not yet been possible and there are consequently no defaults in repayments.

Public Service Board: Management Improvement Division (Question No. 3091)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Matters Relating to the Public Service, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the function of the Management Consultancy Division of the Public Service Board.
  2. Was it intended to perform many of the management consultant assessments of Public Service departments and authorities that are currently being performed by management consultants outside the Public Service.
  3. What is the total annual cost of maintaining the Management Consultancy Division.
  4. How many officers are located in the Division.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Matters Relating to the Public Service has provided the following information for answer to the right honourable member’s question:

The Public Service Board has advised me as follows:

The title of the Board’s Management Consultancy Division was changed to Management Improvement Division on 21 August 1975. The functions of this Division are to:

Plan and implement a program of efficiency reviews in association with departments; participate with departments in implementation of recommendations.

Provide consultancy assistance to departments and agencies in improvement of organisations, systems and procedures.

Provide a focus point on machinery of government matters within the Board’s Office and maintain appropriate records; undertake reviews of administrative functions and study machinery of government generally.

Promote effective use of departmental internal consultancy services through liaison, dissemination of information on management improvement techniques and systems and training programs; administer the staff suggestions scheme.

Co-ordinate engagement of, and provide an advisory service to departments and agencies on, the engagement of external management consultancy services.

  1. Only part of the Division’s staff is employed on assignments of a consultancy type in departments. The Division’s capacity to undertake such assignments is not large and the Board does not envisage that it will be substantially increased. It is not the practice to undertake consultancy assignments which could more appropriately or effectively be undertaken by the internal resources of departments or by the engagement of commercial management consultants.
  2. Total annual salary costs for the current staff of the Division at current rates of salary would be $371,841. Estimated travel and subsistence costs for 1973-76 are $33,000. Provision has also been made for expenditure of up to $1,000 on printing.
  3. On 23 October 1975, 24 officers were located in the Division.

Attorney-General’s Department (Question No. 3129)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, 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 Enderby:
ALP

– In answer to this question I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 3110.

Purchase of Land for Aborigines (Question No. 3342)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs upon notice:

  1. What was the cost of the purchase of 10 960 square kilometres of pastoral properties in the Northern Territory for Aborigines.
  2. What properties were purchased, where are they, and what did they cost respectively.
  3. Were any properties other than pastoral leases purchased.
  4. What is the estimate cost of the 929 1 square kilometres now being negotiated and how much of the appropriation of $2.8 million to the Aboriginal Land Fund for 1975-76 will this absorb.
  5. What properties have been purchased for Aborigines in each State and what was the cost of purchase in each case.
  6. What properties in each State are now being negotiated for purchase for Aborigines and what is their size and estimated cost.
Mr L R Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

(1)51,754,500.

–

a ) Pastoral Lease 805 Dagaguru situated in the Western portion of Wave Hill, Northern Territory $605,500.

b ) Pastoral Lease 706 Amanbidjo on Kildurk Station in Northern Territory $829,000.

Pastoral Lease 594 Willowra situated west of Ti Tree in Central Australia $320,000.

If the question relates to ( I ) above, the answer is no. However, residential blocks and business premises in the Northern Territory have been purchased on behalf of Aborigines from funds made available by this Department.

Negotiations for the properties comprising 9291 square kilometres are continuing. Until these are finalised I am not at liberty to disclose which properties are involved.

The following properties have been purchased in the States:

  1. See (4) above.

Ministerial Staff Establishment (Question No. 3186)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the current establishment for Ministerial staff.
  2. What was it in November 1972.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) Ministerial staff establishment as at 8 October 1975 is given in Table 1.

In addition, each Minister may appoint a Departmental Liaison Officer who remains on Departmental establishment. Details of Departmental Liaison Officers as at 8 October 1975 are given in Table 2.

Information about Ministerial staff under the previous Government is available in Hansard of 27 April 1972 (pages 2182-2185). (See tables 1 and 2 on next page.)

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 November 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751111_reps_29_hor97/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant