Senate
12 February 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 69

PETITIONS

Taxation: Education Expenses

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 76 citizens of Australia:

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

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under section 82J of the Income Tax Assessment Act from$400 to $ 1 50 is $50 below the 1 956-57 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether nongovernment or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already over crowded and under staffed.

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate stepsto restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973-1974 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 257 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: whereas the Treasurer of the Australian Government has proposed that the concessional deduction for education expenses be reduced from $400 to $ 1 50, we, the undersigned, humbly petition the Senate to return any legislation which could give effect to such a proposal to the House of Representatives and request that the concessional deduction for education expenses be restored to $400 for each child attending an approved school or college.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation.

Taxation: Education Expenses

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

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under section 82J of the Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $ 1 50 is $50 below the 1 956-57 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether nongovernment or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already over crowded and under staffed.

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973-1974 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Carrick and Senator Willesee.

Petitions received.

Capital Gains Tax

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

That a capital gains tax applying as another death duty is unjust in its application and catastrophic in its effect.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a capital gains tax be not levied in addition to death duties.

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

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

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82J of the Income Tax assessment Act from $400 to $ 150 is $50 below the 1956-57 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether nongovernment or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already over crowded and under staffed.

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973-74 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

page 70

MOTOR TRAFFIC ORDINANCE

Notice of Motion

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

- Mr President, I give notice that 10 sitting days after today I shall move:

That the Motor Traffic Ordinance (No. 6) 1974, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 49 of 1974, and made under the Seat of Government ( Administration)Act 19 10-73, be disallowed.

The time for giving notice to disallow this Ordinance expires today. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee is currently considering certain aspects of this Ordinance which have not been finally resolved. Giving notice today to disallow provides an additional 15 sitting days of the Senate in which to resolve the outstanding questions relating to this matter.

page 70

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a very short statement relating to the direction of certain parliamentary questions.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-Mr President, Parliamentary questions on matters relating to the Australian Public Service are presently directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In future it is proposed that, except where a Prime Ministerial reply is clearly desirable, questions relating to the Australian Public Service will be answered by Senator Willesee as Minister representing the Special Minister of State and Minister assisting the Prime Minister in matters relating to the Australian Public Service.

page 70

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 70

QUESTION

OVERSEAS VISIT OF THE PRIME MINISTER

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the question asked of him yesterday about the reported experiences of surveillance, attempted theft, searches and eavesdropping to which the Prime Minister’s party was subjected while visiting Russia. I refer also to the Minister’s statement that he knows nothing about these reports. I ask: Will the Minister elaborate? Does he say that these incidents never occurred and that the Press stories are completely fiction, or does he say that he took no interest in the reports and made no inquiry into them?

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

-I have had no complaints and nothing has been referred to me about the alleged incidents. Evidently, from what Senator Greenwood says, there has been some Press speculation. There is Press speculation about all sorts of things.

Senator Greenwood:

– There were Press reports.

Senator WILLESEE:

-Press reports? 1 do not know the difference between reports or speculation. All I can tell the honourable senator is that I, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, know nothing of the matter. I accept his word that the Press reported these things. I seem to remember something about this at the time, but certainly nothing has been brought to me by my Department or by anybody who was on the trip about these allegations.

page 71

QUESTION

OIL PRICE AND INFLATION

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government who in this chamber represents the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Is the Minister aware that the Leader of the Country Party, or National Party, Mr Anthony, is again advocating a 40 per cent increase in the price per barrel of Australian crude oil at the well head, as he did during the course of the campaign for the election last May? Would not this 40 per cent increase be only a fraction of the final increased cost to the consumer of petroleum and its derivatives? Having regard to the major influence transport costs have on the actual total Australian cost structure, is it possible to assess accurately the magnitude of the inflationary impact such a huge price increase in crude oil would have on the Australian community as a whole, and particularly on the people in the country districts?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am unable to answer the broad question as to the overall impact on costs in the economy. I recall that when Mr Anthony made this statement last year I was supplied with an additional cost factor of $60m in respect of the rural sector. As for the rest of the community I could not say what the total impact would be, but undoubtedly it would be inflammatory, as I think it was described yesterday by the Prime Minister. I think that Mr Connor, my colleague in the House of Representatives, gave a detailed answer to much the same question this morning. I am not in a position to indicate to the Senate precisely all the details he enumerated. It is true that the suggestion by Mr Anthony reflects a strange attitude when he knows that if such a cost increase were granted obviously it would be a stimulation to prices in this country.

page 71

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of the Senate to the presence in the gallery of Mr Kenji Fukunaga, a member of the House of Representatives of the Japanese Diet. Mr Fukunaga is a most distinguished parliamentarian, being a member of the Interparliamentary Council and the Leader of the Japanese International Parliamentary Union delegations for the past 12 years. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to you a most cordial welcome, Mr Fukunaga.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 71

NATIONAL COMPENSATION BILL

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Does the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation recall the Prime Minister’s Press statement following the Darwin cyclone disaster? Did the Prime Minister imply that Darwin residents would have been eligible for compensation under the terms of the National Compensation Bill if the Bill had been passed by the Senate last year? Is it a fact that the Bill has not been rejected but referred to a Senate committee for detailed study which even the Government acknowledges is necessary? Is it correct that the proposed compensation legislation is not intended to become operative until July 1976? If so, how could the unfortunate people of Darwin have benefited? Did the Minister correct the Prime Minister’s erroneous statement? If not, will he do so now?

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

– I am glad that Senator Drake-Brockman appreciates the urgent need for this legislation and acknowledges that if there were a national compensation scheme the unfortunate people of Darwin- not only of Darwin but of anywhere else, for that matter- who were injured or the relatives of those who lost their lives would be eligible immediately to receive the substantial compensation which is offered at such a cheap rate under the proposed scheme. As Senator Drake-Brockman has acknowledged, the Bill is before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, on the motion of an Australian Labor Party senator, my distinguished colleague Senator Everett, Q.C., who moved that there be a further inquiry into the matter by the Senate Standing Committee. That inquiry is now being conducted. My Department and I are at present preparing recommendations as to how compensation may be paid to people in Darwin who suffered as a result of the cyclone. Certainly the recommendations which are contained in the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Compensation and Rehabilitation in Australia will be very largely the basis upon which such compensation will be paid.

I think it is true to say that if there had not been 23 years of conservative government, and even if there had been 23 years of conservative government, if such conservative governments had shown some of the small elements of enlightenment shown by the conservative governments which were in office in New Zealand during that time, there would have been a national compensation scheme in this country. I hope that Senator Drake-Brockman will take early steps to correct the attitudes which have been adopted by the leaders of his Party in delaying in this country for so many years progressive social legislation in a way which would not have been tolerated by their counterparts in New Zealand.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I raise a point of order which I have raised previously, and it is that under the Standing Orders it is a clear and unequivocal requirement that a Minister in answering a question must not debate the question. 1 would be grateful if the Minister were pulled into gear.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-Mr President, you said that there is no substance in the point of order. 1 am not disagreeing with that ruling. I wish to ask a supplementary question. When does the National Compensation Bill come into operation? How will it affect the people of Darwin?

Senator WHEELDON:

– It is proposed that with regard to personal injuries occurring after 1 July 1976 the Bill would come into operation on 1 July 1976, a day which I know Senator DrakeBrockman and I are eagerly awaiting.

page 72

QUESTION

WOOL: PRICES

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Agriculture seen a statement made in Perth last Thursday by the Leader of the Australian Country Party, Mr Anthony, in which he accused the Government of embarking on what he called the dangerous course of deficit budgeting’ and demanded that the Government say no to groups seeking government funds? Is it correct that the wool reserve price scheme will account for about $300m of the 1974-75 Budget deficit? Is Mr Anthony demanding that the Government reduce the Budget deficit by refusing to finance the reserve price scheme for wool, as the Country Party consistently refused to do when it was in power? Finally, would the withdrawal of such financial support have disastrous consequences for the very people Mr Anthony claims to represent?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I have not seen the report referred to by the honourable senator, but if it reports Mr Anthony correctly then I would agree that there is an inconsistency. It is very easy to say to the Government that it should reduce spending. It is not so easy to say where it should reduce spending. I am sure that the wool growers of Australia, who constitute half of the agricultural community of this country, would be very concerned to learn that the Leader of the Country Party, which allegedly represents them, recommends or suggests that those moneys which are being made available to the Australian Wool Corporation to support the wool market -

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Are they not paying interest on the money?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes, they are.

Senator Webster:

– Why not be truthful about it? It is loan money.

Senator WRIEDT:

– It has been stated in this House on many occasions that it is loan money on which interest is paid. Perhaps if Senator Drake-Brockman and Senator Webster were to accept that as a statement from me they would not interject on this question again. They are loan moneys being made available by the Government but they are moneys which must be found, and if they are used for that purpose then they are not available for any other purpose. I am sure that the wool growers of this country would hate to think that the Government would use the wool support price scheme as one means of reducing expenditure. Perhaps members of the Country Party might suggest some alternative.

page 72

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. The annual report of the Australian Airlines Commission, which operates TransAustralia Airlines, has not to my knowledge been presented to the Parliament. In the past there has been a tradition and a responsibility to present this report in September or October to cover the year ended on the previous 30 June, a delay of about three to four months. This year we have had a long time to wait for such a report. Can the Minister tell us why the report has not been presented, and can he tell us when it will be presented?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have presented many reports. Whether the report of the Australian Airlines Commission has been presented, I do not know. If it has not been presented, obviously the reason is that I have not yet received it for presentation. Why I have not received it I do not know. I will take the matter up with the responsible Minister.

page 73

QUESTION

DERWENT RIVER BRIDGE

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the joint statement made in Hobart on 23 January last by the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, and the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Reece, concerning a second bridge across the Derwent River. I remind the Minister that in that statement it was said that the Australian and Tasmanian Governments had agreed that a joint engineering force would be established to investigate and recommend the most suitable type and site for a second bridge. I ask the Minister: Firstly, has the joint engineering force yet been established? If not, when is it expected that its establishment will be complete? Secondly, if the force has been established, what is its constitution and when is it expected that it will commence its investigations? Thirdly, is it likely that private engineering expertise will be involved in the investigations of the force? Fourthly, how long is it expected that the investigations and report of the force will take?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that a joint undertaking will be made by the Tasmanian and Australian Governments to investigate the possibilities for the siting of a new second bridge in Hobart. I do not know what stage the matter has reached, and I am certainly not conversant with the terms of reference. I would assume though that they must be sufficiently wide to enable the committee to make a recommendation to both governments. I would not be able to say anything about private engineering involvement. Legislation will be coming before the Parliament shortly in respect of the costs of repairing the Hobart Bridge, which costs of course are being borne by the Australian Government. There will also be provisions to cover costs resulting from the surveys on a second bridge. If I can obtain any further information I will supply it to Senator Everett.

page 73

QUESTION

ECONOMIC POLICY

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to the Government’s about-face on economic policies immediately the Prime Minister returned from his overseas tour. Why is it that the Prime Minister announced on his return the introduction of economic measures which he spurned a few weeks earlier? Was he convinced overseas that Australia is better placed than most countries to insulate against rising inflation? Has he finally conceded that the major share of the blame for Australia’s sorry economic state rests with his Government?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I was under the impression that the Opposition believes that the Government had done an about-face on economic policy long before the Prime Minister came back from overseas. That is the story, of course, which would be peddled around this country. Yesterday during question time this matter was touched upon and I indicated then that any government is entitled to alter the rate of development of its policies where it sees fit in the context of the economic situation at any particular time. To suggest that there has been a reversal of Government policy is quite incorrect. There are certain areas where naturally the Government has to make adjustments in its policy. We are not the first government to do that and I am sure we will not be the last. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister while he was overseas was able to make a judgment as to the economic future of this country in the next year or so in relation to the economic future of other countries. The basic fact is that the economy of this country in relation to the economies of other countries remains strong and the prospects remain good.

page 73

QUESTION

EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTS

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. Has there been a move to use Australia’s first frequency modulation stereo radio station for educational broadcasting? Is the Government looking at ways to help this move by considering a network arrangement of educational broadcasts?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator will be aware that last Saturday week 2MBS-FM, commonly known as the frequency modulation broadcasting station in Sydney, licensed to be operated by the Music Broadcasting Society of New South Wales was officially opened. It actually went to air on 1 5 December but was officially opened last Saturday week.

Senator Withers:

– By whom?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was opened jointly by the Prime Minister and by the Premier of New South Wales. For the honourable senator’s information, not only was I there but also Senator Guilfoyle, representing the Opposition, and the New South Wales Minister for Education, Mr Willis, were there.

Senator Sim:

– A real unity ticket.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was a real unity ticket, and I had no part in drawing it up. But it was at that opening that Professor Runcie, the chairman of the station, had discussions with me and with Mr Willis on an unofficial basis about using the station for educational purposes for the dissemination of serious and fine music. The question of air time for New South Wales schools which was raised does involve some complications in that at the present time the coverage of the station is on a comparatively restricted basis, but certainly it is something that I hope can be encouraged as time goes by, because the development of music in Australia has a great future through the use of frequency modulation.

page 74

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CONTENT: TELEVISION PROGRAMS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. What is the Government’s program to implement the Australian Labor Party’s Federal Conference policy to require commercial television stations to increase the percentage of Australian first release material, with the aim of reaching 75 per cent Australian content? Does the Government consider it desirable that this objective should also apply to the programs of the Australian Broadcasting Commission?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The decision taken last week by the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party at Terrigal on this aspect was that the ultimate aim of an Australian Labor Government would be to see that 75 per cent of first release programming- I emphasise that to distinguish it from first release drama- should eventually be Australian. No timetable was set by the Federal Conference of the Labor Party for this to be implemented. Quite clearly, there was an indication by the carrying of such a resolution that the amount of Australian programming on television and, indeed, on radio should be gradually increased. It already has been very considerable under this Government. In the 2 years that this Government has been in office there has been a 60 per cent increase in Australian drama in peak viewing times on commercial stations. There has been an all-over 30 per cent increase in Australian dramatic production on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I think there has been a 14 per cent increase in professional variety programming on commercial stations. There has been a 100 per cent increase in current affairs programs as a result of the initiatives of this Government. However, knowing the economics of the industry as I do, I doubt whether the pace of increase will be able to be as dramatic in the next 2 years as it was in the last 2 years. I realise that it will be a difficulty. But certainly, initiatives will be taken by this Government to continue to increase the amount of Australian programming on Australian radio and television because we believe that it is in the interests of Australia and our creative and performing artists.

page 74

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Our guests are about to depart. We wish them a very happy stay in Australia and a safe journey to their homeland.

page 74

QUESTION

RECONSTRUCTION OF DARWIN

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Northern Development and the Northern Territory been drawn to newspaper reports that the women of Darwin are pressing for a bigger say in the reconstruction of the city because the old city had ample resources for male leisure and recreation but little for women and children? As women under 40 and children made up 60 per cent of the city’s population will the Minister assure the Senate that every step will be taken to consult both with the women of Darwin and with professional women such as architects and designers and, further, to use the expertise and assistance of all these people on the various bodies and committees set up to handle the reconstruction of Darwin?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-On behalf of the Minister I ask: How could anyone help but hear the voice of the women on reconstruction or anything else? I believe that the women of Darwin have been active in making their presence felt when seeking some say in the reconstruction of Darwin. The position is that we are establishing the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. We have established an advisory group for reconstruction which, I think, includes Dr Stack as the women’s representative for the purpose of presenting the viewpoint for the women of Darwin. I assure the honourable senator that any representations made by any section of Darwin people will be heard by the advisory committee and passed on to the Reconstruction Commission.

page 74

QUESTION

PORT CONGESTION

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. In view of the recent decline in imports, is it not high time that the Minister took steps to ensure that serious port congestion to which 1 have referred in previous questions be reduced and that emergency levies such as high storage charges for containers be eliminated or at least substantially reduced? Has not the tardiness of the Minister in these matters contributed substantially to costs and inflationary pressures?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-No. The Minister certainly has not contributed to any increase in the costs and problems. It is one of the concerns of the Minister and his Department and has been since I was on the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes that from time to time there is congestion in some ports. Every endeavour is made to overcome this. The question of suitable ports is mainly one for State instrumentalities. They maintain and prepare their wharves and port facilities. The Department is looking at it all the time and if there is anything further the Australian Government can do I assure the honourable senator that it will be done.

page 75

QUESTION

FREQUENCY MODULATION BROADCASTING

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. There has been considerable interest in the development of frequency modulation broadcasting and this interest has been reflected in 2 questions, perhaps three, asked in the Senate. Mine is a technical one. Did the first FM station find difficulty in broadcasting? Did it result in some areas not receiving broadcasts? Have those difficulties been overcome? Is it now possible for all people interested in fine music to receive good reception?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-There was naturally a desire on the part of the Australian Government, once the decision had been made to go into the frequency modulation band of broadcasting, to get a station of this nature on the air as quickly as possible. After all, people who were interested in the broadcasting of serious and fine music had been frustrated in their efforts during 23 years of Liberal-Country Party neglect in the area. Having got the station it was therefore our desire to get it on the air as early as possible and as a result of discussions I had with the Postmaster-General temporary arrangements were made for the station to operate from Crows Nest in Sydney. Since then its wattage has been increased and it is now operating on a basis of 400 watts. It has quite a considerable coverage, covering the best part of the metropolitan area of Sydney. There is another station to operate in Melbourne in the near future. It will have a 30-metre aerial and an overall coverage of 30 kilometres from Kew in Melbourne. Since the station went to air in December the power for transmission has been considerably stepped up. I emphasise that as a result of the efforts of officers of Senator Bishop’s Department most people in Sydney, provided they have FM receiving sets, can receive fine music broadcasting.

page 75

QUESTION

SENATE DIVISION BELLS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

- Mr President, I direct my question to you and I ask it as one of the Whips of the Senate who is involved in the calling of divisions. Why, when new division bells were being installed inside Parliament House, were not bells with entirely different sounds installed instead of those with similar sounds which make it extremely difficult for senators and members to distinguish between a call for a House of Representatives division and a call for a Senate division? Can further steps be taken to instal a buzzer or bell system so that whether it is a House of Representatives or a Senate call for a division is easily distinguishable?

The PRESIDENT:

– I recall being on the Joint House Committee investigating the matter of bells following a number of complaints about the bells not being heard, people missing divisions and the like. The Committee was subjected to a large range of different sounds, electronic and natural, that were frightening to hear. The one that it was suggested would convey the most urgency and ring with the most clarity was the one that came through all the tests as being the best. There is a difference between the two tones. Naturally, the Senate bell has the higher tone. I hope that that sound will be heard in another place loud and clear. I would like to have suggestions from honourable senators concerning the innovation of the new bells and as to whether they are suitable. If the consensus of senators is that they wish to revert to the original sound, which was a very difficult sound to describe- you could describe these as bells -

Senator Poyser:

– Cow bells.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will not go into a discussion on that at the moment but I would like further suggestions from honourable senators. We will reconsider the matter at our next meeting of the Joint House Committee.

page 75

QUESTION

SALE OF MEAT TO RUSSIA

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Agriculture. It concerns the crisis area in the beef industry. Has the Australian Meat Board signed a meat deal with Russia? At what, price was the deal negotiated? Is he satisfied with that price? Is he aware of suggestions within the industry that a higher negotiated price would have lifted the beef market out of the doldrums? Does he know that the Meat Board on Monday contacted meat works asking them to tender for parts of the Russian deal? Is he also aware that yesterday the Meat Board contacted meat works and withdrew the suggestion that they should tender? I would hope that all this does not mean that the Russian deal is off.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not aware of the day to day commercial operations of the Australian Meat Board. For that reason, I would not be at liberty to indicate the price which has been negotiated in the meat deal. That is a commercial arrangement between the Board as the negotiating body for Australia and the relevant Soviet authorities. As to whether the price paid is sufficient, I think that is not the important point. The important point is that a sale has been made involving 40 000 tonnes of meat. This in itself will mean that meat will keep moving through the slaughter houses and the industry generally. I am sure that this is what the industry and, in particular, the producer is looking for.

The Government has been kept advised of the developments. As far as I know the contract has been signed. I am not aware of any problems existing at this stage. The Government has indicated over the past few months that it is prepared to assist the industry in whatever way it can. It is true that there have been discussions concerning the possibility of government assistance in respect of these types of contracts. At this stage I am not able to say any more. The Government is considering these matters and I feel confident that the contract will be filled as was originally intended.

page 76

QUESTION

ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR WOOL

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, concerns reports that some wool growers have experienced delays in obtaining from the Australian Wool Corporation advance payments in respect of wool, the sale of which is delayed because of the Corporation’s supply management policies. What is the situation in regard to such advance payments? Are delays occurring?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Under the amendments to the relevant Act which were passed through the. Parliament last year, wider powers over supply management were given to the Australian Wool Corporation. This is necessary for a proper control of wool on to the auction floor. The Corporation has been exercising that control. It was also agreed that wool growers who were not paid within the normal time span would receive advance payments from the Corporation. The practice is that the grower whose wool is held up because of supply management receives payment at the same time as he normally would have received payment had the wool been put into auction. I believe that is as fair and reasonable a way as possible for the Corporation to act. I am not aware of any individual instances where the Corporation has found it necessary to depart from this rule. If the honourable senator is aware of any I suggest that he contact the Wool Corporation office in his State.

page 76

QUESTION

QUARANTINE STATION

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that buildings are being erected near the site of the Institute of Marine Science near Townsville for the purposes of a quarantine station? If so, will this be in addition to, or will it replace, the existing station at Cape Pallarenda? If it is an additional station, what will be its main purpose?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Senator Maunsell was good enough yesterday to mention to me that he was going to ask me this question. I have obtained some information from the office of the Minister for Health. Apparently the quarantine station which is at present at Cape Pallarenda is being modernised. It is not proposed that there will be a new station. The modernisation of the quarantine station will lead to the consolidation of the quarantine activities of the Department of Health to about 10 acres of the 140 acres now occupied by the station. The use to which the land which will now become available is to be put is a matter for the Minister for Services and Property to decide. Apparently no firm determination has yet been reached about what will be done with the redundant land. However the Institute of Marine Science, in which I know Senator Maunsell is interested, has permission at the moment to occupy some of the area of the present quarantine station and apparently the Institute has some portable buildings on the site. I am afraid that this is all the information I have. If there is anything further that Senator Maunsell wishes to know about the matter I would be only too happy to try to find out for him.

page 76

QUESTION

LEOPARD TANK

Senator DEVITT:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to the recent statement by the Minister for Defence that the Government had decided to purchase the German Leopard tank to replace the Centurions. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether consideration has been given to an arrangement for the Australian manufacture of some of the armament or other components of the Leopard tank?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– About a fortnight ago Mr Barnard announced that the German Leopard tank had been chosen, after very extensive trials, and orders had been placed in the Federal Republic of Germany for 53 tanks. Arrangements have been made with the 2 manufacturers in respect of offset orders. It is expected that as a result of the negotiations which are taking place about 30 per cent of the related spare parts will be made in Australia. In addition, it is proposed to produce the ammunition in the government factories.

page 77

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Postmaster-General, relates to the cost of installation of telephone services. What is the average capital cost in respect of a rural subscriber as against the average capital cost in respect of an urban subscriber?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-I think I have given these figures previously to the Senate. It is estimated currently that the amount of investment required to connect a telephone to the network would be: for the city, $ 1 , 600; for the closely settled country areas, $3,600; for the outer country areas, $9,000.

page 77

QUESTION

GUDGENBY NATIONAL PARK

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to Senator Willesee in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. I refer to the long standing acceptance of the Gudgenby national park. In that context I ask the Minister whether, in negotiations with New South Wales concerning certain boundaries, the original boundaries of the Gudgenby national park are in jeopardy due to the power hungry attitude of the New South Wales Premier.

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The Department of the Capital Territory informs me that because of the need to expand in Canberra, there are talks taking place with the New South Wales Government, but there is no danger that the Gudgenby park area will be used for anything but a park.

page 77

QUESTION

FORMER ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the challenge in the High Court to the validity of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act, which I understand is to be heard shortly, and the appointment to that Court of the former Attorney-General, the then Senator Murphy. Is it not a fact that in his capacity as AttorneyGeneral the former Senator Murphy gave to the Governor-General an opinion supporting the availability of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill as one of the double dissolution Bills and one of the Joint Sitting Bills? I do not think that opinion has actually been filed although it was requested that that be done. In these circumstances I ask: Will the Government instruct its counsel appearing before the High Court in this case to raise objections or to support any objections which may be raised regarding the propriety of Mr Murphy sitting as a judge on the hearing of that challenge?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As a preliminary matter I would suggest to honourable senators that it is about time that they became accustomed to calling the new justice by his correct title, he having now received his commission. His correct title is Mr Justice Murphy, and I propose to refer to him in that style.

Senator Durack:

– When was he sworn in?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-He has received his commission. I am not aware that Senator Murphy, as he then was, gave any opinion to the Government on the constitutionality of the Bill in question. Any advice that he gave, as I undertsand it, was limited as to whether the correct procedures had been adopted to enable the Bill to be the subject of a double dissolution. It was not relevant for him to pass on the constitutionality or otherwise of the Bill because the Government was proceeding always on the basis that it did have the constitutional basis to present this Bill to the Parliament. Therefore, I believe that the question does not arise as to the propriety of Mr Justice Murphy sitting on the Bench which will consider this legislation.

I also remind honourable senators opposite that there is ample precedent for ex-Ministers and ex-members of this Parliament, when elevated to the Bench, proceeding immediately to take their place on the Bench and to adjudicate on the constitutionality of legislation which was considered in this Parliament when they were members of the Parliament. One need only consider the position of Mr Justice Spicer who had been elevated to the Commonwealth Industrial Court, or the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration as it was then called, and who was called upon almost immediately to sit in judgment on the validity of an Act which had recently been amended according to his own efforts in this Parliament to get it amended. I refer particularly to the sections of that Act which altered the procedures for holding union elections. Shortly after he had piloted these amendments through this Parliament, Mr Justice Spicer sat on several matters involving the validity of trade union elections and obviously felt no embarrassment in adjudicating on legislation which he had helped to pilot through this Parliament. Sir Garfield Barwick, the Chief Justice of the High Court, also sat and adjudicated on matters which had been considered in this Parliament when he was Attorney-General. I think this question illustrates a general attitude of the Opposition that there should be one rule for Liberal ex-senators and ex-members and another for Labor ex-senators and ex-members.

page 78

QUESTION

CYCLONE TRACY: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and preface it by asking him whether he is aware that fairly large sums of money were collected in Queensland for the benefit of people who lost their homes and personal possessions as a result of cyclone Tracy. Is he also aware that the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, refused to allow any of the cash to be handed over to the Darwin cyclone victims unless certain conditions which he had set out were met? Can the Minister inform the Parliament if any of the large sum of money collected in Queensland ever reached the people in Darwin? If funds collected have not been disposed of properly will the Australian Government bring pressure to bear on the Queensland Premier in order to ensure that they are properly disposed of as soon as possible?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I am aware that a statement to that effect was made by the Queensland Premier. I am unable to say what has happened since to the moneys involved. I shall refer the question to the Minister for the Northern Territory, Dr Patterson who, I think, is in charge of the matter.

page 78

QUESTION

FREQUENCY MODULATION BROADCASTING

Senator CARRICK:

– My question, addressed to the Minister for the Media, concerns the decision of the Government to permit frequency modulation radio broadcasting in the Australian Broadcasting Commission and in community access radio but not in commercial radio. For what reasons has the Government decided to provide this valuable facility to national and access stations but not to commercial stations? Since FM radio greatly enhances the quality of broadcasting, particularly the broadcasting of music, why has the Government discriminated so grossly against the commercial sector? Where is the equity in denying a modern technical innovation to one section of radio broadcasting? In view of experience overseas, where FM broadcasting has attracted huge listener retention to the great detriment of amplitude modulation broadcasting stations, will not this discrimination ultimately gravely weaken the commercial stations and mean a move towards nationalisation? Does the Government intend such a result?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will answer the last part of the honourable senator’s question first. No, the Government does not intend such a result. The Government’s overall policy is that there should be and shall be plurality of involvement in the media of this country. At the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party at Terrigal last week it was determined that frequency modulation for the time being should be developed by the community broadcasting section and by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That decision was taken in open and public debate. All the issues canvassed at that Conference were the subject of open hearing in front of the Press and radio and television cameras. I think it fair to say that one of the reasons- there was a multiplicity of reasons as to why such a decision was taken by the Conference- was that to date there has tended to be, as a result of the policies of the previous Government, a locking up in the hands of a privileged few, the commercial radio, commercial television and commercial newspaper interests of this country. Probably the underlying reason behind the decision of the Conferenceagain I emphasise that there was a multiplicity of reasons- was that this being a new area of broadcasting frequency opened up as a result of the policies of this Government, the community broadcasters should be given an opportunity to develop and expand their activities, thus involving a greater plurality of involvement in the media.

Undeniably the Australian Broadcasting Commission has become one of the foremost authorities in broadcasting throughout the world. We believe that the expertise in the Australian Broadcasting Commission will play a tremendous part in the development of the frequency modulation band. Only last week, as a result of the decision of the Labor Conference, 1 had discussions with my colleague the Treasurer,

Dr Cairns, and he has now agreed to the forward ordering of four, I think it is, frequency modulation transmitters for use by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Hopefully they will be not only ordered but also delivered and available to be put to air towards the end of this year or early next year. In the main, the reason such a decision was taken was to enable a greater expansion of the frequency modulation area, which is the line of sight area of broadcasting, so that it could be made available to the smaller community areas rather than on a commercial network basis.

Senator CARRICK:

– I have a supplementary question. Will the commercial radio stations be granted FM licences? If so, when?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Under the policy decision of the Australian Labor Party taken at Terrigal last week I will not be recommending to the Government that applications for frequency modulation licences be called for from commercial operators in the strict sense of the term ‘commercial’. However, there is any amount of room for commercial development in the AM area. As I told the honourable senator yesterday, applications have already been called for new commercial development in that area.

page 79

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of Mr Buchart-Peterson a member of the Danish Parliament, who lives on the island of Zeeland. On behalf of the Australian Senate and senators assembled I extend to you a welcome, and we hope that your stay in Australia is a pleasant one.

Honourable senators:

– Hear, hear!

page 79

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMS: AUSTRALIAN CONTENT

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. Have there been Press reports that the new Government policy on Australian content in television programs will decrease the quality of Australian made shows? Do these reports claim quality will result because the Government will require stations to increase immediately their level of Australian programming to 75 per cent first release drama? Will the Minister indicate to the Senate whether the new policy is a possible threat to quality of programming, as mentioned in these reports?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think there has been confusion in the interpretation of some of the recent decision of the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party that there shall be a 75 per cent Australian content first release programming. It has been understood by some that this means a 75 per cent first release drama content in the Australian programming. The decision was 75 per cent first release Australian material. I understand ‘material’ to mean all forms of programming.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Does that include Australian rules?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-McCLELLAND- I assume that it would include Australian rules so far as Victorians are concerned. I deal now with the suggested diminution in the quality of programs. Those who criticise the Labor Party decision have not been able to comprehend what was involved in this Government’s decision to introduce a points system for the development of Australian programming. When this Government came into office there was an overall requirement on the part of the then Australian Broadcasting Control Board to have a minimum percentage of transmission hours devoted to Australian programs. Having that minimum percentage of transmission hours meant that any form of programming could be put on, no matter how many people were employed, the type of program, where it was produced and so on. That resulted in poor quality of production and programming. However, in adjusting from that situation to the points system, we have taken into account the costs of production, the number of people who are employed and the time at which the program will go to air, and we have allocated points for those things. Whilst the points system remains in existence there certainly cannot be a diminution in the quality of programs caused by the allocation of points by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

page 79

QUESTION

AVAILABILITY OF CLOTHING IN DARWIN

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory aware that 5300 articles of new civilian clothing were available in Darwin immediately after the cyclone and that these articles were clearly marked with sizes? Has he been informed that these articles of clothing, which were surplus to the requirements of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and subsequently handed to the Department of the Northern Territory, were transported to Adelaide? Is it a fact that these articles of clothing were auctioned by the Department of Manufacturing Industry at Pennington in South Australia this morning? As many

Darwin residents had their clothes torn off them during the cyclone and had to resort to wearing sheets for several days, I ask the Minister why this clothing was not offered to Darwin citizens immediately following the cyclone. Secondly, what will happen to the revenue collected from the sale of these articles? Will the Government put it into the Darwin disaster fund?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I represent the Minister for the Northern Territory, and as the question alleged that Aboriginal clothing was involved I think that as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I have a dual obligation. I have never known anyone to relate such peculiar stories as Senator Jessop does at question time. I suggest that he should read different comics. He raised the question of clothing in Darwin. A week after cyclone Tracy struck Darwin I had repeated representations from the Foundation for Aboriginal Affairs in Sydney. It asked whether I could take out of its office the 6 tons of clothing and non-perishable foodstuffs which it had collected for victims of cyclone Tracy. People could not move in the office. The clothing and foodstuffs were packed in crates and the Council desired to give them to needy Aboriginal people. We went through the Darwin committee which was established, through the Red Cross and through the Department of Defence. We were told that six or seven hangars at the Sydney airport were crammed with clothing and food. The response of the Australian people was overwhelming.

Senator Carrick:

– How many hangars?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Several hangars were crammed with food and clothing. The response of the Australian people was so overwhelming that the foodstuffs could not be shifted. As there was plenty of food and clothing in Darwin priority was being given to essential transport.

Senator Jessop:

– Why was the clothing taken to Adelaide at the time?

Senator CAVANAGH:

- Senator Jessop knows of some clothing that was taken to Adelaide. I am referring to clothing that could not be shifted. Senator Jessop now brings up the question of clothing that was taken to Darwin and then taken to Adelaide and sold. I know nothing of that. I will make inquiries. It seems an unlikely story. There was no shortage of clothing or foodstuffs for the victims of cyclone Tracy in Darwin after the first day or so following the cyclone.

page 80

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator SIM:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the reported statement by the Deputy Prime Minister,

Dr Cairns, at the Australian Labor Party Conference in support of his extraordinary proposition that Australia should recognise the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnamthe terrorist organisation responsible for the wholesale murder, torture and abduction of thousands of South Vietnamese- as the Government of South Vietnam because it would bring Australia into line with the great historical movement in Asia. I ask the Minister: Does the Government share the view of the Deputy Prime Minister that a communist organisation that employs terrorism as its major weapon represents the great historical movement of Asia?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The honourable senator is referring to a debate in which in fact Dr Cairns and I were on opposite sides during the total debate. He refers to something that he alleges Dr Cairns to have said.

Senator Sim:

– He is purported to have said.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Or purported to have said. He asks me to make a comment on that. I do not think it is my job to speak on behalf of the Government and to try to comment on something that happened in a debate at the Australian Labor Party’s Federal Conference.

page 80

QUESTION

QUESTION UPON NOTICE

Mr Michael Darby (Question No. 405)

The PRESIDENT:

– An arrangement has been made between the Minister and Senator Baume that question on notice No. 405 would be asked and answered today. I therefore give Senator Baume the call.

Senator BAUME:

-Question No. 405 asks of the Attorney-General:

  1. 1 ) Has the Commonwealth Police Force investigated an allegation contained in ‘The Bulletin’ of 1 1 September 1974 that a Mr Michael Darby was involved in training a private army, or contemplating illegal acts, including assassination.
  2. Has the report from the Commonwealth Police Force been received yet.
  3. Does the report show that the allegations are entirely without substance.
  4. Will the Attorney-General make the report public in order that Mr Darby may be publicly cleared of such accusations.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am informed that parts (1), (2) and (3) of the honourable senator’s question are correct. In relation to part (4), as the replies to parts ( 1 ) to (3) are in the affirmative they publicly clear Mr Darby of such accusations.

page 81

UNEMPLOYMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Formal Motion for Adjournment

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Greenwood in the following terms: 12 February 1975

Dear Mr President,

In accordance with Standing Order 64, 1 intend this day to move that the Senate at its rising adjourn until 10.29 a.m. on Thursday, 13 February 1975 for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgency, viz.:

The massive unemployment produced by the policies of a Labor Government demonstrably incapable of preventing hardship and deprivation to the hundreds of thousands of Australian workers who are the victims of the destruction of business confidence and initiative.’

Is the motion supported? (More than the number of Senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places.)

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I move:

Mr President, this shameful Government has repudiated what is possibly the cardinal plank of its policy and of its existence. It has betrayed its followers and it has rendered jobless hundreds of thousands of Australian workers. It is highly appropriate that this Senate should take the time to consider in the terms of the statement of urgency which I have suggested the massive unemployment produced by the policies of a Labor government demonstrably incapable of preventing hardship and deprivation to the hundreds of thousands of Australian workers who are the victims of the destruction of business confidence and initiative. It is entirely fitting that I make the comment that as soon as the Senate embarks upon a discussion of this Government’s record of unemployment the bulk of Government senators choose to leave the chamber. And well it should.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. This is the same despicable tactic used by the Leader of the Opposition in another place (Mr Snedden) yesterday. As the honourable senator knows honourable senators are committed to undertakings and responsibilities outside the chamber.

Senator Jessop:

– I raise a point of order - -Senator Brown- It is totally wrong for an honourable senator to imply that members of this Government have simply left the chamber because of the matter which is before the Senate. Rather, it is because of the person who is sponsoring the matter before the chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Jessop, did you wish to raise a point of order?

Senator Jessop:

- Mr President, I am asking your opinion on the point of order raised by Senator Brown. I did not hear him nominate any standing order in the context of his objection. I suggest that he was out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Brown did not state the number of the standing order which he thought was contravened. I call Senator Greenwood to continue.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Thank you, Mr President. There is a touchiness, as well there should be, among Government senators about this Government’s sorry record, its repudiation of promises and its dismal performance in maintaining full employment in this country. Last Saturday evening the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) released the monthly unemployment figures. They were released on a Saturday evening because that was a time when it was expected the least publicity would be available for what was revealed. It was a shameful acknowledgement of the Government’s record. What did the Minister reveal? He showed that in this country 3 1 1 000 people are out of work. That figure represents 5.2 per cent of the Australian work force. It is the highest unemployment for approximately 40 years. It compares with 48 1 000 people out of work at the height of the depression. It compares with the record during the last Labor government of 3.2 per cent unemployed which was at the time of the 1947 census.

Yet this figure of 3 1 1 000 people actually wanting work and not being able to get it is not an accurate figure because it is the figure of only those persons who have registered for employment. It is the figure which contains school leavers as recently redefined by the Minister. It excludes a proportion of the 10 000 executives many of whom the director of the Chamber of Commerce in Melbourne said were too proud to register for employment. These high class potential, great brain power executives in industry are unable to maintain their employment. This is the situation with which we are faced at the moment. What does 3 1 1 000 people out of work really mean? It means that these people are unable to engage in gainful employment. It means that people who are dependent upon them are deprived of that which a breadwinner can normally give them. It is demeaning to a man that he should not be able to get a job. But what government has been in power when this has happened in this country? It is the Government which protests that it is the workers’ government. It is so besotted with ideological conviction that it is unable to maintain what should be the primary obligation of a government of this country in the late twentieth century and that is to ensure that people who want work can have work.

This figure of 3 1 1 000 people means that one in every 20 workers is unable to get a job. For the job vacancies which are available it also means that only one in seven can get a job. As I have indicated, this policy is a repudiation of all that the Labor Party claims to stand for. I make the point, because it ought to be made and indelibly impressed upon every Australian’s mind, that for 23 years when Liberal-Country Party governments ruled in this country we secured full employment throughout that period. There was the occasional trough, as when there were approximately 2 per cent unemployed in 1961. Of course, the people almost removed the Government from power at that time. In 1 972 there was a peak of 2 per cent unemployed for one month but then Government measures restored the equilibrium. But in the latter part of the 2 years that we have had a Labor Government we have had a progressive decline in the ability of the Government to maintain employment. It ought not to be supposed that the figures which we see at present represent the true position for the immediate future because I have here in a report in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 4 February this year the forecast of the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd Employment Advertisement series which is more up to date than the Government’s figures. The report states:

Federal Government measures to stimulate the economy are failing to create new jobs- employment opportunities are still disappearing at a fast rate.

This was shown in the ANZ Bank Employment Advertisement series released yesterday. It reveals the number of jobs advertised in January fell 7.5 per cent.

As the article indicates, those figures indicate the pattern ahead for the next two or three months, and that there is no current up-turn to be expected. There is obviously massive unemployment and this massive unemployment is the result of Government policies which have destroyed confidence in the business sector, confidence which is absolutely essential if our economy is to secure and provide the employment which is so vitally necessary for Australians.

Why has the unemployment occurred? In what way are Government policies responsible? I think we have to look at what the current position is. We have, of course, the upsurge in unemployment figures. We have allied to that a growing inflation which in the first year of the Labor Government was 13 per cent, which in the second year of the Labor Government was running at approximately 16 per cent and which is currently running at the same level with anticipations that it will be even higher in the future. On top of that existing inflation we have had in recent months an outpouring of credit, of money, which is the base upon which further inflation can be expected to mount. One simply makes the point that inflation is not curing unemployment. Unemployment and inflation are growing together and this is a phenomenon with which the Government apparently is unable to cope. But we have the unemployment, the growing inflation, industrial disputation, an increase in the number of strikes, an increase in the number of days lost as a result of industrial disputation, an increase in the amount of wages lost as a result of industrial disputation, the greatest since records were first kept of these figures in 1913. This is the pattern we have at the present time.

I believe, and I think the record evidences it quite clearly, that these current expressions, indications of the state of the economy, are the direct consequence of Government policies. We have a gross mismanagement of the economy because it is fair to describe the situation in Australia as mismanagement if a state of virtually full employment and of moderating inflation at the end of 1972 leaps into annual rates of inflation of approximately 1 5 per cent and unemployment of a level the highest it has been for approximately 40 years. We have seen a doctrinaire, ideological commitment by the Australian Labor Party to the public sector. I recall Senator Wheeldon, the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, as saying today that the previous Government was not concerned with having socially progressive legislation. That, of course, is belied by the record. But if this Government takes pride in the mass of legislation it has introduced and chooses to call it socially progressive, it must recognise that that legislation has been introduced at a cost. The cost has been the unemployment of hundreds of thousands of Australians. This legislation has involved the transfer of resources to the public sector and the public sector has not been able to take up the slack which has thereby been created in the private section.

We saw in the first year of the Labor Government a 34 per cent increase in Government spending. Of course, it was contemplated in the second year of the Labor Government that there would be an increase in Government spending assessed at something like 43 per cent. But with the tax cuts which were announced late last year it is likely that the rate of expenditure will be the same as in the first year, that is, roughly 34 per cent. This is a massive expenditure increase by government. Of course, the tax rates have not been increased. How then has this expenditure been financed? It has been financed by the calculated policy of fostering inflation. When inflation is fostered in the manner in which it has been fostered it creates a lack of business confidence and a lack of business. Because there has been a consequent profit squeeze it has been impossible to plan ahead and to ensure a continuity of employment by those workers who are dependent upon business.

When the Government in August of 1973 introduced its first. Budget and planned for this vast increase in government spending it sought to limit the private sector. It sought to limit the private sector by deliberately establishing a credit squeeze. It was felt that if in that way you limited the money available to the private sector then you would cut down activities in the private sector. It was a futile attempt in some way to balance the great increase in expenditure which was being put into the public sector. But the result of the credit squeeze was to hurt that area which guarantees employment. In due course, the unemployment emerged. I make the comment, just to highlight the point, that at the present time a 5.2 per cent rate of unemployment throughout the country represents 5.2 per cent of the whole work force. That whole work force comprehends the work force in the private sector as well as the work force in the public sector. On the conservative estimate that some 20 per cent of the work force are in the public sector, then the true percentage of unemployed in the private sector is not 5.2 per cent; it is roughly 6!£ per cent. If as a result of credit squeeze activities there is a limitation on the ability of the private sector- that is, private business- to maintain employment, that is the area which affects the vast majority or the great preponderance of the Australian work force. This, I simply assert, is the direct result of a Government commitment to an expansion of the public sector. I stress that this was brought about by a deliberate fostering of inflation by a variety of measures.

When we come to the second Budget of this Government introduced in 1974 after the Federal election of May 1974 we find that the Government said quite falsely that it had inflation under control. It also said quite falsely that it was able to secure and to maintain full employment. The depressed circumstances of the economy were expressly stated by the then Treasurer, the present Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean) to be the opportunity for the transfer from the private sector to the public sector of resources which were then regarded as being available. So we had again a quite conscious and deliberate attempt to reduce the efficacy, effectiveness and operation of private business in this country. Therefore, I repeat, as part of a deliberate policy pursued by this Government the private sector of this country has been unable to fulfil that role which traditionally it has fulfilled in securing employment, investment, growth in the economy and all that is dependent upon growth.

One refers, of course, to the various other factors. I relate them seriatim without elaborating upon them. There is the Government’s encouragement to unions to seek excessive wage and salary increases outside the conciliation and arbitration system and often in defiance of the conciliation and arbitration system. This has provoked tremendous wage increases which have contributed to the profit squeeze which has affected so many businesses in this country. I notice Senator Milliner is interjecting. I am not quite sure what he is saying by way of interjection. For the last 6 or 7 months many Ministers have been urging wage restraint. That is not what they were saying in the first 12 months in which they were in office, because their pattern and policy were precisely, the opposite. Why then are Government Ministers now proclaiming wage restraint if in some way for us to allege wage restraint is to be hurting the workers. We are the party which is concerned about the workers of this country. We were the party able to secure the people in full employment, and that is something which the Labor Party cannot say it has done with its dismal track record.

The Government has used the Public Service as a pacesetter in so many areas. I refer to the granting of 4 weeks leave, maternity leave and a host of other rounds of salary and wage increases in which the Government has deliberately followed a policy which was part of its program in its early days which, of course, it now seeks to avoid. We have had the development of inflationary expectations in the early stages of this Government. We have had the destruction of the labour intensive industries by the foolhardy policy of a 25 per cent across the board tariff cut, a tariff cut not recommended by the Tariff Board or the Industries Assistance Commission, a tariff cut not recommended by the Government’s economic advisers, but a tariff cut which simply flowed from a night meeting of two or three Ministers and a pattern which was associated with it of looking after any workers who might be unemployed as a consequence of the tariff cuts. Those tariff cuts were announced in July of 1973. It took 14 months before the Minister’s unemployment program to deal specifically with those measures was able to be announced. If that is not some indication of either lack of concern or incompetence on the part of the Government in dealing with these matters it would be hard to find a better example.

We have seen the removal of manufacturing and rural incentive programs. We have seen the ill-timed and protracted credit squeeze. We have seen tax scales which have made it more and more difficult for people to see any incentive in working as well as they might be able to work. We have seen a destruction of confidence throughout the country and the result has been a man-made and entirely unnecessary recession. One of the factors which must be stressed is that this program has been foisted on Australia by a pattern of deception. It seems that it is immaterial to this Government or of no consequence that what is said one month can be repudiated the next. There has been a pattern of deception unparalleled for its dishonesty, its recklessness and its disregard of the consequences of policies and programs. I have checked through the record and it is replete with promises which have not been able to be performed. Mr Whitlam said- as reported in the ‘Australian’- in September 1972:

A Labor Government will accept the obligation to make full employment a top national priority.

He chooses to make his excursions overseas a priority apparently of greater weight than the employment of people in this country. We well remember what he said in 1972 in his policy speech. He said:

Will you again entrust the government of the nation’s economy to the men who deliberately but needlessly created Australia’s worst unemployment for 10 years.

What can be said now of the people who have presided over the worst unemployment in this country for 40 years. The Prime Minister at the same time said that he would restore full employment without qualification and without hedging. He is not able to say that now. What did he say in 1974 when he asked for a renewal of his mandate? He asked the people to remember what it was like when they elected the Labor Party in 1972. He said:

When you elected us in 1972 unemployment was at its worst for 10 years. Full employment has been restored.

Now, 8 months later, it is three times worse than it was when he said that full employment had been restored and that he had turned the corner in regard to inflation. It is so obvious in so many of the records what the Prime Minister was thinking at the time. I will quote what he said to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry at Woodville in September 1 973. He said: . . whatever measures we take to deal with the daytoday problems of economic management, even when those problems have a high international component, they will not be solved- by us at least- by creating significant unemployment or closing your factories.

They are bold words but they are not revealed in the performance. One could go through the pattern of what Mr Cameron said, how he indicated that he would resign and the Government would resign if unemployment reached 250 000 people. More than 250 000 people have been unemployed for the last 2 months, yet Mr Cameron seems as disinterested in real policies which will prevent unemployment as he is unconcerned with honour, because he is still the Minister for Labor and Immigration presiding over increasing unemployment. The curious, redoubtable, camera-shy Mr Hawke said in 1972 and 1973 that the unions in Australia would never stand a situation in which a Labor government had unemployment exceeding 1 50 000 people. Not once but many times he made that statement. If anyone wishes to see it, let him look at the Melbourne ‘Sun’ of 5 October 1974 which reports Mr Hawke as saying that it would be a judgment on the Labor Party if there was ever unemployment of more than 1 50 000 people because that was when the unions would withdraw their support.

Senator Wright:

– Was anything of this published at Terrigal?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am indebted to Senator Wright. The conference at Terrigal was concerned with complacency and survival; it was not in the least concerned with getting jobs for the people who have been put out of work by the Labor Government- and we should remember that at that time Mr Hawke was presiding over the Labor Party. What did he say the following week? As I recall yesterday’s Press, he said that if indexation should be introduced the Australian Council of Trade Unions would not be cooperating with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to limit wage claims which might be made outside indexation. The man has 2 hats. He says one thing one day but something else another day. There does not have to be consistency. With all respect to the people who report the affairs in this country, no one ever seems to ask Mr Hawke these questions when he appears on television. Why is this? Are they afraid to do so, or is it just that they do not read the record? The Australian people would like to know a little more about how Mr Hawke can square these inconsistent utterances made in his differing capacities. Maybe if he could do so, or if he got out of both positions that he holds, the country would be a lot better off.

We have the situation in which the Government promises the world but it has not been able to perform. I think one of the most shameful things in this country’s recent history- and there have been a lot of shameful things perpetrated by this Government- has been the dishonest statements which were made during the election campaign in 1974 and so carefully repudiated within a week of Labor returning to office. When a journalist could write that a meeting of Ministers a week after the Government was returned to office accepted the fact that inflation had not in fact been corrected, that it was still rising and that other policies would have to be pursued, it appears to me that deception was practised on a wide scale. We of the Opposition believe that the Government ‘s destruction of business confidence and business initiative has been the vital factor in the downturn of the economy. Business confidence and business initiative will not return until there is a change in Government. Business does not accept the hollow promises made at Terrigal, the last minute changes and reversals of policy, because it knows that it cannot trust the people who have made them. I refer to what Mr Henderson, the Director-General of the Associated Chamber of Manufactures of Australia, said in a Press release on 13 January 1975. He said:

Many warnings to Government from the free enterprise sector had been given well in advance of the employment slide. These warnings were not heeded and in many instances industry spokesmen were treated to the ironical retort ‘see us when the blood is on the floor’.

These words are a painful echo of a Government’s lack of understanding and concern. When the Government speaks to industry in those terms and believes that in those circumstances it can deal with the business of Australia which provides 80 per cent of the employment throughout the country, is it any wonder that business lacks confidence and is unable to plan ahead in the way that is required? Mr Henderson said:

But there is an urgent need for the Treasury to redistribute some of its gains to industry in the form of investment and export incentives . . . Government consultation with industry is a myth.

So it is. The Liberal and Country Parties published an economic policy- the third that they have published in a continuing series since they were in Opposition- on Monday of this week. It is a creative program. It has been carefully considered. It indicates the course to be followed in the future. We have said- and it is a plank of our policy to which we will adhere- that there is a necessity to restore business confidence in order to secure employment and then meet the inflationary problem. That will be done by a variety of measures. We will provide investment allowances. We will ensure that efforts are made to restrain excessive wage and salary increases. There will be a restoration to business of those policies which will enable business to plan ahead. There will be a commitment- and it is spelt out in the document- to a clear monetary policy and a step by step reduction in interest rates. There will be immediate grants to the States for temporary employment producing programs. There will be a reduction in Government spending. There will be a commitment to control the overall growth of the Government sector to permit private sector expansion. One of the encouraging features is that when the Liberal-Country Party economic policy was presented there was an acceptance by the economic writers of the validity of what was being stated, and that is a vast change from the attitude adopted 12 months ago, because at that time what the Opposition was saying was denigrated. But in less than 12 months there has been a general acceptance that the Opposition had been right and correct during the period. We are correct now.

It is proper that the Senate should take the time, particularly when the Government has not any legislation for us to deal with, to consider the massive unemployment which this Government has produced, to reflect upon the needs of the hundreds of thousands of people who want work and cannot get it, and to recognise that the basic cure is to restore confidence to business so that it can plan ahead and provide employment. That is the purpose behind the Opposition raising this matter of urgency today.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

- Senator Greenwood, representing the Liberal-Country Party coalition and speaking on behalf of his leader, Mr Snedden, is suggesting that the policies that the Opposition would pursue now would bc different from the policies that it pursued when it was in government. Does anybody forget the stop and go policies of past Liberal governments when regularly they cut down industries, interfered with manufacturing and waited for things to correct themselves in a world climate which was a vast improvement upon what we have today? Today the world climate is affecting the Australian economy. Honourable senators opposite now rather tardily say: ‘Well, it might affect you, but most of your troubles come from internal policies’. But the facts are that if anybody looks at the world situation he will find that the Australian economy, the Australian standard of living and the Australian standard of social services are much higher than those in most of the developed countries. I refer to those countries in the great economic community which everybody expected would be the guide to how government should act for many years. Those countries now are being affected by this world economic downturn. It has affected problems concerning unemployment and inflation in those countries in the same way as it has affected us.

The policies which Mr Snedden has announced on behalf of the Liberal Party- of course they have been received very quietly by the Press and by people generally- offer no new solutions. If one examines what is proposed one finds that most of the remedies and most of the incentives for investment in private industry are now being carried out by this Government. Let us look at what the Opposition is saying.

Senator Young:

– You are saying–

Senator BISHOP:

- Senator Young, the Opposition is saying the same old things that it said before. The Opposition says that we have to cut Government spending. Senator Greenwood just re-echoed that statement. Does anybody forget what Mr Snedden, Senator Withers and other speakers in this Parliament said as soon as the Budget was announced? They said that the Government should cut Budget spending by 25 per cent. But they were not game enough to nominate the areas in which those cuts were to be made. Talking about there being no business for the Senate, as everybody knows, members of the Opposition have been complaining about the multitude of legislation that has come through the Parliament.

The Labor Party takes the view that if it has promised to do things in accordance with its policy it is bound by its mandate to introduce those things into the Parliament. Everybody knows that, and it is well recognised. But the Senate is still frustrating all our legislation. When Appropriation Bills are introduced to provide funds for education, social services and other things members of the Opposition get up and say that the amounts ought to be increased. They want to tack addendums to the end of motions and say that the amounts ought to be increased. The Opposition is still trying to get it both ways, but it cannot have it both ways. If it cuts government spending it will do what it says it is not going to do. We know that the Opposition would cut government spending. It would not worry about the people who would be dismissed from government departments. On the other hand we have declared- we did so before Christmas- that as part of our recovery policies we would take more people into the government service. We have done that and we have also announced that we would increase the number of apprentices. If honourable senators opposite had listened to the speeches and read the documents they would know that.

There are no new policies coming from the people opposite who had these stop-go policies years ago. They are not going to tell the people how they are going to cope and how they are going to restore business confidence. If any body in Australia has helped to destroy business confidence more than any other body it is the body of Liberal Party members in the Senate. Without giving the Government a chance to legislate, from the start they immediately carried on a pattern of frustration and of interfering with the aims of the Australian Labor Party and the Government. Now they are continuing to do the same thing. They are not game enough to say that they will have an election now or later in the year. They are trusting that the propositions that the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) and his Department have put forward will improve the economic position so much that in the second half of the year unemployment will drastically drop. They know that as well as anybody else. In 1971 members of the Parties sitting opposite set in train a downturn in the economy by rejecting the advice of the Department of Labor and National Service, as it then was, which advised the Treasurer- this was stated by Mr Clyde Cameron- that there ought to be an expansionary policy. They set these forces in train and since that time there have been changes in world economic conditions affecting everybody. I challenge anybody who has travelled around the world in recent months to try to tell me in which countries conditions are better than those in Australia. I am quite sure that Senator Wright and Senator Drury noticed this.

Senator Wright:

– You can talk about West Germany for one.

Senator BISHOP:

– I have just come from West Germany. If the honourable senator wants to talk about the cost of living and prices he knows quite well that standards in our country are generally better. I give all credit to the German Labor Party which has done so much in that country. But the world situation affects everybody. Nobody can discount that Australia must be affected by it. It must affect our trading relations with the Western powers and the United States of America. There is a downturn in all those countries. Nobody mentions the economic position in the United States today, the great image of the free traders and the people who talk about free enterprise, because unemployment there is somewhere between 7 per cent and 10 per cent, even on all sorts of variable bases. Nobody says that things like this are bound to happen in a highly technical state like America. Instead they say that it is about time people looked at Labor’s record.

The motion we are discussing contains words to the effect that the Labor Government is incapable of preventing hardship and that it is depriving hundreds of thousands of Australian workers of jobs. Never has there been a government in the history of Australia which has done so much in such a short time to make sure that Australian citizens shall not be deprived and shall not suffer hardship.

Senator Greenwood:

– Ha, there are 300 000 out of work.

Senator BISHOP:

– The honourable senator knows that what I say is true. Consider the social service standards and the pension increases, all the things that the honourable senator said were extravagant. He referred to some of these things earlier. He started his contribution to the debate by talking about the great things that this Labor Government did in its early months. At that time we said that for many, many years under Liberal-Country Party governments employees of the Australian Government did not have the sort of standards that they should have. It may be that we were ambitious, but we did those things. I often thought that we were going too fast but the Labor Party and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) took the view that these things had to be done. I think the Prime Minister was right. If the Prime Minister and the Government have policies which they consider are just then they believe they should be enacted in legislation. It is true, Senator Greenwood, that in those few months, despite some of the Opposition’s frustrations, we made those great improvements.

We then tried to cope with the problem of inflation. The Government decided to introduce tariff cuts but at the time we did not have the mechanisms to make sure that the advantages which should have flowed from the tariff cuts went into the pockets of the ordinary consumers. Largely that was the result of the Opposition’s objections and agitations. That is the fact and we know it. If people really want to know the situation they should get a recent copy of ‘Newsweek’ in which were quoted a number of figures from the International Labour Organisation and the United Nations, together with some comments. The figures are some months old by now. On page 35 of ‘Newsweek’ of 20 January figures are given representing people on the dole. It is true that in some countries the basis of calculation is different but the figures would not be any less than what is quoted. This article shows how the figures for people on the dole have changed in the period from the end of 1973 to the end of 1974.

In Great Britain at the end of 1 973 the percentage of people on the dole was 2.7 and at the end of 1974 it was 2.8. I think that the most recent figure I saw was 4 per cent. At the end of 1 973 the figure for Singapore was 3.5 per cent and at the end of 1974 it was 3.5 per cent. In France at the end of 1973 it was 2.7 per cent and at the end of 1 974 it was 4 per cent. In West Germany, from whence some of us have just returned, the figure at the end of 1973 was 1.2 per cent and the official figure at the end of 1 974 was 4.2 per cent. I think it is now more, because I looked at the basis of the calculations. In Italy at the end of 1 973 the figure was 3.5 per cent and at the end of 1974 it was 5 per cent. In the United States it was 4.8 per cent at the end of 1973 and currently it is over 7 per cent. In Denmark, where there have been unstable political features affecting government, at the end of 1973 the figure was 4.7 per cent and at the end of 1974 it had reached 10 per cent. The writer of the article made certain remarks, quite properly, which I think should be noted. On page 34 of the article reference was made to unemployment, the world outlook, the growth of unemployment, the difficulty of young people getting jobs and the need for training. The writer said:

The story is much the same round the industrialised world. Layoffs are rippling through sick economies in everwidening circles and suddenly unemployment- not inflationhas become Public Enemy No.1. The figures speak for themselves. The number of people out of work in the United States last month- 6.5 million- was the highest since 1 940.

Senator Young:

– What percentage is that of the work force?

Senator BISHOP:

-It was 7 per cent of the work force. The writer of the article went on to refer to the European Economic Community. Many honourable senators on both sides of the chamber have looked with ambitious eyes at the EEC as being a new federation of countries with reduced customs and tariff barriers which would be an example to the world. They were for a time. They will survive, I am sure. The writer continued:

In Europe nearly every EEC country once boasted full employment; now it is only a pleasant memory. With Western Europe’s recession in full swing, nearly one million more workers are jobless today than a year ago. All told, 3.5 million people (or about 4 per cent of the EEC labour force) are out of work.

No doubt Senator Wright will speak of his experiences in those countries. They are sending back large numbers of casual and seasonal workers which they have always needed to improve their economy and to keep their industries going. That is the world situation. In my opinion, Australia is doing far more than most other countries to improve its position. I shall quote again what Mr Clyde Cameron has said. I have quoted his figures previously. The figures released by his Department have been the most accurate figures released by any Government department. It is because the Department of Labor and Immigration is closer to industry and commerce than other departments are. I have mentioned the Minister’s pronouncements last year. I did not disguise the fact that he said that there would be an increase in unemployment. He has recently pointed out that there is an improvement. In his most recent report he said:

There is, however, some comfort for Australia. Our seasonally adjusted unemployment figures showed some marginal improvement this month. The Australian Government, which has a binding commitment to full employment, has, over recent months, initiated a wide range of policies which will expand employment opportunities. Similar policies are now being implemented in other major western economies. Our measures are beginning to take effect, and we are confident that by the middle of the year there will be a very substantial reduction in unemployment.

I repeat my observation that the forecasts by that Minister and his Department, more particularly by his Department, have been the most accurate forecasts as far as I can see. In effect, he is saying- I think most reasonable people now accept- that by the middle of the year there will be a great improvement, and we will expect it in the latter part of the year. There is no doubt that the Opposition parties are looking at this matter. At their party meetings they are wondering whether they should take the Government on now. If they won an election, with the improvement in the latter part of the year, they would say: ‘We did it’. That is the real issue today. This is the agitation that we are getting in the Parliament. So, what I have said previously appears to me to be the sort of lesson which has been put up by the Opposition parties. They are saying, among a number of other things, that we must cut government spending. They are saying the same old things as they said previously. Every time we ask: ‘What would you do? Would you cut the Post Office budget? Would you cut works and housing? Would you put many thousands of people out of work?’ they will not answer.

I was involved in industrial matters when previous governments had these stop-go policies. They knew less about how to run the economy than this Government does. At least they did not have the economic downturn throughout the world to cope with. They had many advantages which they did not employ. Their supporters, as we know, turned them down, as Senator Greenwood said earlier. He admitted that at one time these stop-go policies nearly lost an election. It would seem to me that there is no reason for anybody in Australia to believe that those people could be trusted to do better than we have done. During the reign of the Liberal-Country Party governments, while generally they gave support to the principle of full employment, everybody in the industrial sphere knew that they did not believe in that principle. One did not have to hear Senator Greenwood espouse his Government’s policies or Mr Malcolm Fraser espouse his policies to know that. Their policies rely on the iron clad fist. If they are returned to power they will use every endeavour to strengthen the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. We know what that means. We do not have to read all the fine print. The strengthening of the Act means the end of any sort of free bargaining between workers and management. More recently Mr Fraser has put these precepts in a document which I understand is now being circulated. The Opposition parties will strengthen the industrial inspectorate in every industry, not only those industries in which unions can decide to have disputes procedures. I believe in disputes procedures. I have advocated them for many years. I gave support to the early cementing of those procedures. I do not believe that there can be disputes procedures as a form of collective bargaining if employers try to reinforce them with penal sanctions.

We have had a turbulent year in industry because we have had inflation. In this time of inflation, despite Labor Ministers’ statements and Labor policies on wage restraint and trying to get the unions to agree to it, up to now we have not been successful. I believe that as a result of the present application we will be successful. It is wrong for any advocate before the Commission today to say what the Australian Council of Trade Unions might do. 1 am convinced that once the Commission decides to introduce wage indexation, which is Labor’s policy, the majority of unions will accept it. That is the sort of thing that senators opposite should be supporting. One or two ex-Ministers are supporting it. As a nation and as a combined parliamentary group we should be saying: ‘Let us do it that way’. I wish to quote now what the present Leader of the Opposition said when he was Treasurer.

Debate interrupted.

page 89

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster) I draw the attention of the Senate to the presence in the Gallery of the Hon. Querube C. Makalintall, who is the Chief Justice of the Philippines. He is visiting Australia as the guest of the Government after attending the Asian Judicial Conference in New Zealand. I extend to him a very warm welcome.

page 89

UNEMPLOYMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Debate resumed.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I referred earlier to what I thought was the basis of Liberal philosophy. While the Opposition parties say that they believe in full employment, they do not mind if there is a large group of unemployed. They would not mind now if they were in government. One can find this sentiment expressed in the statements of the present Leader of the Opposition. On 15 April 1971, when he was Treasurer, he said:

Every country which has created or permitted unemployment as a weapon against inflation has failed miserably. We take full employment as a cardinal act of political faith and we will not resort to unemployment to achieve our objective.

He said that at the Canberra Press Club. On 22 January 1972, while he was still Treasurer, when reviewing the 197 1 Budget and the growth in unemployment, he said:

We have achieved what we set out to do in that we have created an environment in which over award payments are depressed.

So I think it is hypocritical for the Opposition parties to say that the Labor Party is doing it all wrong. I wish to enumerate the remedies which we have put into effect. Everybody knows that the Regional Employment Development scheme has been of great advantage not only in absorbing unemployment in regional areas but also in providing in areas of local communities, local councils and regions the sort of improvements which they would not have if it had not been for the Labor Party. A number of other schemes have given benefit to the local communities. I was talking last night to the Mayor of Port Pirie. The aid which has been given there since we have been in government, not only through the RED scheme and other schemes but from all Australian Government sources, has amounted to $400,000. Authorities there have been able to tackle work which they would not otherwise have been able to undertake. This work includes the provision of sewerage facilities, flood mitigation works, council work, and the provision of facilities for the Young Men’s Christian Association and recreation areas. Everybody knows that this work is going on.

Senator Greenwood:

– This is not work that produces long term jobs.

Senator BISHOP:

– You either have to sup- “ port things which are good or try to be hypocritical. The Government’s program has been a fine one. On the records we know about and on the things we can trace, the Commonwealth Government has given $44m to these projects. Another $8m or $9m has come from State government sources to make all these things possible. Employment has been given to nearly 20 000 people out of work. In all 2100 projects have been undertaken. Many of the projects are not like those undertaken by the previous Government to combat unemployment. The previous Government gave men jobs digging up weeds. We have undertaken projects which have been useful in the community instead of undertaking all sorts of unproductive work as the previous Government did. We are helping with the construction of homes for the aged. We are making sure that people can get sewerage systems. We are building swimming pools, recreation centres and so on in all States. So far only one Liberal State government is taking action against the Federal Government because in some way it is jealous of the Federal Government’s intervention in assisting the Australian community.

Senator Greenwood talked about the tariff system. As soon as we saw the failure in that system and realised that we could not apply any remedies because of the lack of tribunals and other machinery we applied income maintenance, which has meant that money has been paid out to people who have been disturbed. We provided structural assistance. As soon as the effects of the tariff cuts became evident we established redundancy payments, income maintenance and structural assistance. The Department of Labor and Immigration for the first time set about devising a manpower policy for the country and an immigration policy applied to the work force and manpower. It had never been done before. In all the years the previous Government was in office it never decided to copy European countries on which it had case histories. We have done that even in bad times.

We have provided subsidies for trade union training and for management training. For the first time we have a government which says that it believes in the trade unions being involved in management, running the enterprises and being taught how to run the enterprises. We have increased the apprenticeship subsidy. This is one of the great things previous Ministers for Labor used to talk about. We have increased it out of all hand. We have increased the intake of apprentices into our own government service, and we have persuaded the State government ministers to take on more apprentices. Can anyone give me an example of any government in the past giving the sort of assistance that the present Government has given to the motor car industry? Can anyone refer me to a case in which assistance was given as it was given to the Leyland company? The Federal Government paid $20m for a piece of land to get the great Leyland enterprise out of trouble.

We are asked what we have done. We have reduced personal income tax, reduced company tax and deferred the payment of company tax. We have changed the banking system and reduced the short term interest rate. We have done a host of important things. We have increased the unemployment benefit. Senator Greenwood was worried about hardship. Since we have been in power age and invalid pensions have been increased. The married rate has been increased by 49.3 per cent and the single rate by 55 per cent. The pensions for class A, B and C widows have increased by 40 per cent, 79 per cent and 79.7 per cent respectively. Unemployment and sickness benefits have been increased. It will be remembered that for many months the Opposition said that the Government was paying bludgers for being on the dole. The allowance for married couples has been increased by 106 per cent, the adult single rate by 82.4 per cent, the single rate for those under 21 by 82.4 per cent, for persons between 1 8 and 20 by 181 per cent and for persons aged from 16 to 17 years by 330 per cent. I said earlier that there has never been a government in the history of Australia which has done so much to provide new social service standards.

My time has nearly expired. I thank the Senate for its patient hearing. Of course unemployment and inflation are vexed questions. The Government is satisfied with the remedies it has set in train. The early policies we implemented certainly balked. They balked not because the Government did not want them to succeed but because we never had the mechanisms to make them succeed. Unfortunately within Australia today, with the vexed situation we have with State and Commonwealth governments, we still have great problems. It seems to me that if the Opposition has constructive policies it should put them up. If it is going to challenge the Government let it get on with it and say: ‘We will take you on now’ or ‘We will take you on later in the year’.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– Many Australians will be disappointed by the weak and evasive case presented by the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) in response to Senator Greenwood ‘s spirited, vigorous and detailed attack upon the unemployment which the Government has produced and which it is fuelling. Excuses are not enough. Thousands of Australians are losing their jobs every day. The number of registered unemployed is already over 300 000 and the situation is not yet at its worst. We expect the March figures to be worse. This Government dares to say that its record is not too bad. Its record is a disgrace. Its record is a record of failure. It is a legacy of a government with no credibility and a government whose promises are empty. Whenever it has made a promise it has broken it soon after. What can we believe about a government of this kind? We remember the 1972 policy speech in which Mr Whitlam promised full employment. There were no ‘ifs’ no ‘buts’ and no equivocation. That was his promise in 1972 and that was bad enough, but the Prime Minister, delivering a speech on 1 3 May 1974 stated:

In Australia alone, there is no unemployment; in Australia alone, unemployment and inflation do not march side by side.

It was untrue then and it is even more untrue now. He was willing to say anything in the election campaign. In Australia under a Labor Government inflation and unemployment do run side by side- the worst inflation and the worst unemployment that people of my age have known. Broken promises by this Government represent a cynical disregard for everything on which it went to the Australian people. The solemn promises that it made in its policy speeches have all been broken. In the field of employment we see the Government’s worst record. I remind the Senate of what was said in the Budget Speech presented on 17 September 1974 by the then Treasurer, the Honourable Frank Crean. He said:

The Government is not prepared deliberately to create a level of 4 or 5 per cent, or perhaps even higher unemployment.

It is a fact that the Government is prepared to tolerate a level of unemployment higher than 5 per cent. Fine words butter no parsnips, as the old proverb goes. When the Government presented its Budget it said that it would not tolerate unemployment of 5 per cent, but already we have an unemployment level of 5.2 per cent and rising and no relief in sight. The severity of unemployment is something that we have not known before. It is producing exceptional hardship for Australia and Australians. It is affecting not the wealthy Australian but the battler. The man affected is the man who works for wages, the man who in his innocence and trust helped to vote this Government into power and the kind of Australian who will vote it out of power sooner or later- I hope sooner. We have almost onethird of a million people who are registered as unemployed. We have more people who are out of work but who are not registered. That figure has not yet reached its peak.

I am glad to see that the Manager of Government Business is in the House. I would remind Senator Douglas McClelland that, he had this to say when speaking in the Budget debate in 1 972, and referring to the previous Government:

We have a great and serious unemployment problem in this land of opportunity- a land crying out for development; a great nation looking for leadership.

I am sure the honourable senator remembers this speech.

The unemployment rate is at its highest for the past decade. It has been deliberately created by this Government’s policies. Over 1 12 000 Australians, virtually the voting population of 2 electorates, are looking for work . . .

Senator Wright:

– That was 2 months before their election.

Senator BAUME:

– Two months before their election 1 12 000 Australians were out of work, and Senator Douglas McClelland found that intolerable. I wonder how he and other Labor men feel about the betrayal that has taken place, as we now have 31 1 000 people who are unemployed. The record of past years shows that Australia is a high employment country. We are a full employment nation, except when we have the Whitlam Labor Government in power, and we have seen a steady erosion in employment and employment opportunity in the last 2 years. The Prime Minister himself, when addressing the nation in a radio broadcast last August- and at that stage there were 1 1 1 000 people unemployed- said:

We have in reserve a wide and flexible program to cope with such unemployment as will occur. On this point you can plan ahead for yourselves and families with confidence.

Pity the poor Australians who took the Prime Minister at his word. He has almost trebled that unemployment figure. His wide and flexible programs have proved totally unable to stem the tide or to prevent the loss of jobs. We in the Liberal and Country parties believe in opportunity, we believe in the right to work. We have a concern and a care for innocent victims in society, as well as helping to try to improve the opportunities for private initiative. The unemployed today are victims. They are innocent victims of the programs of the Labor Party. They are being subjected to misery, to loss of dignity, to loss of the right to work and to the threat of loss of equity in their homes, in their own communities and in the things they would like to provide for their families.

However, this is only one manifestation of a disaster situation facing our country. Most people are employed in the private sector of industry. They are losing their jobs only because private employers can no longer continue to function effectively. There have been a loss of contracts, a loss of export markets, thanks to the Labor Party insulting most of our long term customers, a loss of our beef markets because of an export tax on beef, a loss of all our export markets because of clumsiness and inefficiency. Businesses are closing. Because of the Government’s tariff policies we have seen numerous industries forced to close, and I instance the textile industry, which is particularly hurt. We have seen a great loss in capacity in the private sector and, with this, the closure of businesses, a loss of jobs and unemployment.

The Liberal Party has an alternative program for Australia which we presented this week. This program has been well received in the Press. It is a coherent program, a positive program, an integrated program. It is a program that will work. The Australian public knows that we have predicted with exactitude throughout the last 2 years the likely results of all the economic policies of the Labor Government. We have been right; the Government has been wrong. Our program with its propositions for the future will work. We will be right again and the Labor Party will be wrong again. Our program will lead to increased opportunities for employment, to increased capacity for jobs, and we will cure this present unemployment, which is unparalleled in the history of Australia.

We are told by the Government that it has done well. That is not good enough, and the Government knows it. It went to the people promising full employment and it has not given them full employment. It is not as if the Government was not warned. On 20 September last year the employer organisations warned the Government that there would be 200 000 jobless by Christmas. The employers were right; the Government was wrong when it would not listen. At the same time in September 1 974 the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) warned of 300 000 unemployed by the end of the year. He was laughed at by the Government. He was right; the Government was wrong.

Throughout this situation we have been telling the Government what is likely to happen as a result of its hare-brained schemes and its halfbaked economic policies. It has been wrong at every step, and it is not as if the Labor movement itself has not been divided. I remind the Government that last October the Federal VicePresident of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Jack Egerton, conceded that at that time Australia’s unemployment figure was closer to 200 000 than the official figure of 130 000. He was then highly critical not only of the deliberate under reporting of the amount of unemployment but of the policies which had produced unemployment and of the lack of any real policy designed to alleviate unemployment. The Labor Party contains within its ranks some more realistic critics than can be found in the Ministry.

The new Liberal initiatives will be effective. They will create jobs and they will restore confidence in society. We recognise the need for jobs, the need for personal dignity. We have concern for the weak and for the right to work. Those people abandoned by Labor must be and will be a first concern to a future coalition government. We will not allow the unemployment created by Labor to be repeated or to become part of Australian life.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

-I rise today and begin by saying: What a tragedy we see in the ranks of the Liberal Party today. That once great party led by Sir Robert Menzies now gets down in the depths of the gutter to clap its hands because there is unemployment in Australia today. Make no mistake about it. The only reason that this motion has been introduced today is an endeavour to capitalise on the unemployment in Australia. The Opposition makes not one bit of effort to justify what is happening in Australia, compared with what is happening in countries overseas. We have heard Senator Greenwood talk about executive people in Victoria who are unemployed. How ironic it is that Senator Greenwood above all else should refer to executive people being unemployed. Have a look at the Liberal Party. Have a look at the number of honourable senators opposite who have 2 jobs, yet they complain about executives being out of work. On the list of speakers for today there are 6 senators who desire to enter this debate on behalf of the Opposition. Five of those six have private businesses.

Senator Poyser:

– Lucrative practices.

Senator MILLINER:

– Lucrative private businesses- doctors, lawyers, farmers, whathaveyou. Yet they talk about double standards and they cry about people being out of work when they are the ones who are holding some of those executives out of work. They also complain about school leavers. What have they done to try to help educate people to become doctors? In Queensland the situation is that lads are not allowed into the medical profession. What is being done? People are going overseas to recruit doctors and yet lads in Australia will not be given the opportunity to become doctors. Honourable senators opposite put up this pious, stupid motion which is aimed not at assisting the unemployed but at trying to make political capital. If there were 100 000 unemployed in Australia honourable senators opposite would welcome that because they would be able to get political capital out of it.

Senator Greenwood spoke of school leavers. Is it not the case that when honourable senators opposite were in government lads were unable to get jobs when they left school? Of course it was. I have seen Ministers in this place get up and say that lads should go back to school for another year because the position might be better then. Yet honourable senators have the temerity to come in here and say that school leavers are unable to get employment, suggesting that this is unusual. I repeat that I have seen Ministers get up in this place and say to the lads: ‘Go back to school for another year because there are no employment opportunities for you at this stage.’ Honourable senators opposite have referred to the fact that there are not sufficient tradesmen. I think Senator Greenwood referred to that fact. I can remember the times, when the Opposition parties were in power, when employers would not put on apprentices. They had to be cajoled. They had to be threatened. Governments had to threaten they would impose apprenticeships on employers if they did not voluntarily employ them, ls there not a lack of confidence when employers will not put on apprentices? What did the Labor Government do? We saw that that situation could arise. We supplemented the wages of apprentices to encourage employers to take on their full quota of apprentices, and not only their full quota’ but more than their quota. Yet honourable senators opposite criticise the Government for what it has done. They criticise the Government knowing full well that the unemployment situation exists overseas in comparable countries.

Honourable senators opposite do not tell the people of Australia that in comparable countries the unemployment figure is infinitely worse. I remind the people that the unemployment figure in Germany is 5 per cent, in Belgium 5.4 per cent, in Denmark 9.2 per cent, in France 5.3 per cent, in Italy 6.3 per cent, in Ireland 8 per cent and in the United States of America 8.2 per cent. Mr Meany has said that that figure will subsequently rise to 10 per cent. Why are honourable senators opposite not honest about these things? Why are they not fair? They are the ones who always parade the virtues of the United States of America. Yet here we have an unemployment figure rising to 10 per cent. But honourable senators opposite do not come out and tell the people of Australia that. They want to push that under the carpet.

Let me tell the Senate of another deceitful attitude which honourable senators opposite have adopted today. In the past they have always referred to the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure. They do not do that today. Why is that? It is because it is not in their interests to do so. They were deceitful not to do so because the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures are 3.06 per cent or 240 000. But they play that figure down, because it looks better to say 320 000-odd. Consequently I charge honourable senators opposite with deceit on that issue. I charge them with deceit because they did not attempt to justify any of their arguments in relation to what happened overseas with comparable unemployment figures. I charge them with deceit because they shed crocodile tears about executives who are out of work. Yet nearly every member of the Liberal Party is holding down 2 jobs.

Senator McLaren:

– Some of them are using government warrants.

Senator MILLINER:

-That is up to them. I do not know whether they are using government warrants. I say they are deceitful when they come into this chamber and gleefully say that there is unemployment. All they are trying to do is to play on the feelings of the unemployed. Let us look at some of the statements in the matter of urgency. It states that there is a destruction of business confidence and initiative. What have we done to provide initiative for business? The Senate knows quite well what had been done in the various fields of endeavour. The Government has a proud record in that direction. But then honourable senators opposite say that we have destroyed the confidence and the initiative of private industry and they criticise us for spending money in the Government field. Where would they suggest we curtail that expenditure? Do they suggest that we should restrict money which has been allocated to education? The Opposition parties have the poorest record in the field of education and honourable senators know it. They have been criticised in their own councils for the lack of interest in education. We have poured money into education because the people of Australia demanded a better system of education throughout Australia.

Honourable senators opposite complain about strikes. Let us look at the situation. The Opposition parties have banded together and said: We will not allow amalgamation of unions’. Let us look at the unions which have amalgamated. I ask honourable members to show me where their strikes have been more frequent than had previously been the case. I challenge them to do so. I speak with some authority when I speak of boilermakers and people like that. I speak with authority when I speak of printers where there have been amalgamations. There has not been a dispute of any magnitude in the printing industry since amalgamation. Honourable senators opposite have banded together and said that there should be no amalgamation of unions. They are frightened of them. Senator Greenwood complained about workers getting 4 weeks annual leave. Have honourable senators ever heard of anything more distasteful than a statement of that nature?

Senator Martin:

– Yes.

Senator MILLINER:

– Does the honourable senator suggest that there should not be 4 weeks annual leave? Is she saying that workers should not have 4 weeks annual leave? I say that they should have 4 weeks annual leave. The LiberalCountry Party governments in the States have done that very thing. They have gone along to the courts and not opposed the 4 weeks annual leave. So it is no good complaining. Over the years honourable senators have said that as industry advances and as skills advance workers are entitled to more leisure. But the minute the courts, governments or employers give the workers extra leisure honourable senators in their characteristic way immediately denounce the workers. They cannot have it both ways.

Let us look at what some State governments have done. We have tried to help local authorities. What has happened? Immediately we try to help local authorities by giving them money directly to spend in their areas the Victorian Liberal Government, the Country Party Liberal Government in Queensland and, I think I am correct, the Western Australian Liberal Government challenge in the courts the right of the Federal Government to give that money to help the unemployed. I saw a situation the other day in Queensland where the Government allocated $4m to local authorities. The local authorities met, the first time that I can recall their getting together, and agreed on how this money would be split up between them. There was no dissension whatsoever. They agreed on how it should be distributed. Yet we see the Queensland Government criticising the fact that this money did not go through their channels. Honourable senators opposite know that to be true.

Perhaps the worst statement of all was that the Government was dishonest, and that was levelled at us by none other than Senator Greenwood. Goodness me! Fancy him, above all others, questioning the integrity of this Government when he, with other Liberals, proudly announced that they were going into Vietnam, that they were going to send our kids into Viet- . nam, that they did not care whether or not our kids were killed, that they would spend money on this unwinnable, filthy war. They paraded the fact that they were going to do that. They saw glory in doing these things. It makes me sick to hear honourable senators on the other side accuse our Government of dishonesty and lacking in integrity when only a few short years ago his Government was sending good Australian youths over to Vietnam, not hoping that they would be killed but not giving a damn if they were killed.

Senator Chaney:

– Nonsense.

Senator Martin:

– That is nonsense.

Senator MILLINER:

– Who said that?

Senator Chaney:

– I said it.

Senator Martin:

– I said it, too.

Senator MILLINER:

– You should be ashamed of yourself. I am not addressing Senator Martin. I am addressing her colleague because he was probably young enough to go there but did not have the guts.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The Senate this afternoon is debating a matter of urgency in these terms:

The massive unemployment produced by the policies of a Labor Government demonstrably incapable of preventing hardship and deprivation to the hundreds of thousands of Australian workers who are the victims of the destruction of business confidence and initiative.

It is interesting to note the interest that has been taken by the Australian Labor Party represented in this chamber by the Government. We noted that the last speaker, Senator Milliner, devoted most of his attention to those matters which had nothing to do with unemployment. The Labor Government I would have presumed would be a party interested in unemployment. I would have imagined that we would find a unity of view in the Senate this afternoon, that whatever is the cause of unemployment in this community we must reverse it and see that we have the least unemployment possible. That is my wish. I would imagine -

Senator Poyser:

– It was not your wish when you were in Government.

Senator WEBSTER:

– We now hear the attitude of the Labor Party again. Its supporters are not particularly interested in listening to see whether there can be some alleviation of unemployment. I do not believe that Senator Keeffe is proud of the Government’s unemployment record in this country. Is he?

Senator Keeffe:

– Nobody is proud of unemployment.

Senator WEBSTER:

-This is the famous senator who makes so much noise. Surely within his Party room he has castigated his Minister and castigated his Government. I would expect that as a back bencher he would. When the Opposition was in Government with 100 000 unemployed, honourable senators opposite were on their feet every week castigating our Government over unemployment. I did not want to start on that line. I appeal to this Senate to recognise the fact that today we have an unemployment record of 310 000, a 5.2 per cent unemployment rate in the Australian community. The Government through its last speakers has wished to argue Vietnam. It has wished to throw rubbish on the Liberal Party. It has wished to castigate the policies of the Opposition but its speakers have not come down to saying: ‘Yes, there is a higher rate of unemployment in the community than the Labor Government ever wished to occur’. We even had a Minister whom many people in the community would elevate, Mr Clyde Cameron, declaring openly his total opposition to unemployment in the community. He said that he would resign. He said he felt certain that his Government would resign. On ‘Federal File’ on 18 July last he was asked about the 250 000 possible unemployed. The inquiry was: Just how serious are you?’ Mr Cameron replied: Quite serious about it and I think most of the Government feels the same way. They would resign.’ We have an unemployment level which is unacceptable to me and it is unacceptable to every honourable senator in this place.

I do not attribute the whole of the 300 000 unemployed to the Government. I believe that there is a core in that number comprising individuals who will not work. The policies of the Labor Government are encouraging that disastrous situation in this community. The policy of the Labor Government is to give unemployment benefits to 1 8-year olds. When I was not in hospital in January I attempted to be at the beach and 1 found that there were young people getting $30 a week who were very happy to stay down at the beach. This occurs throughout Australia and they probably represent a great number of the 300 000. It is the policy of the Government which has caused that situation. Surely you are interested in seeing whether your judgments, your socialist judgments, since you have been in office have been so blatantly proved to be wrong.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise to order -

Senator WEBSTER:

– If I might say so, a socialist senator rises.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– The point of order is simply that the honourable senator in the course of his remarks is misrepresenting the Government when he refers to it as a socialist Government. I think he should withdraw that remark.

The PRESIDENT:

– I cannot tie the remark to any specific point of order.

Senator WEBSTER:

-My understanding was that Senator Brown was one of the leading socialists in Victoria. He shakes his head to indicate that he is not. Mr Whitlam declares that this Government is a democratic socialist government. Senator Brown refutes that. Senator Poyser is nodding.

Senator Martin:

– Ask Senator McLaren.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I will not ask Senator McLaren; he has his own words to say. But I see Senator Poyser nodding and when Senator Brown said: ‘We are not a socialist government’, Senator Poyser said: ‘I believe you are right’. They are changing their policies so rapidly from those they brought in 2 years ago that they are becoming not a socialist Government. As Senator Wheeldon once said, the trouble with this

Government in office is that it is not too sure whether it is socialist or whether it is free enterprise. But after 2 years of socialist government, this Government is waking up to the fact that its policies are totally disruptive in every sector of the community. I mention just one sector, the youth in the community. The Government is ruining the youth in the community and it knows it. I think it is an attraction for this Government. I have said here on many occasions before that this Government is successful in what it has attempted to bring about in this community and I say that even in relation to unemployment. I believe that the socialist party is anxious to see a high rate of unemployment in the community. I notice that there is no point of order taken by any of the socialists on the Government side. I hoped that that would have occurred. Perhaps I should give them the opportunity.

The fact is, as stated in the matter of urgency, that today there is a lack of business confidence and there is a destruction of initiative. I mention one point which I think is important. There is a destruction of the initiative of the young person who is entering the workforce today. My son, who is 17 years of age, is still at school, but 1 imagine that if he had $30 of free money in his pocket it would be against his interests to go to work tomorrow. I can cite the cases of a number of industries throughout Victoria the management of which has claimed that the employees are leaving the industries; it is far better for them to be on unemployment benefits than it is for them to work a 40-hour week and receive an extra $20 or $30 in their pay. This is completely destructive of the initiative of the community. It represents a thrust by a socialist government which I believe is very successful.

This is the policy of this Government in every area of business, whether it be in relation to restrictive trade practices, the Prices Justification Tribunal or any of these other matters. We have seen the destruction across the board of labour intensive industries by the introduction of a 25 per cent tariff cut on imported goods. We have not seen the effect of that decision reversed, but because of the difficulties it has caused at the present time, some palliatives have been attempted. Industries throughout the country are damaged because of Labor’s activities. Companies are the employers. They are the largest taxpayers in the community. We see the destructive attitude of criticism of profit in the community. It is stupid for anybody to say that we do not want to encourage profit. We, the members of the Australian community, can take a 50 per cent or 60 per cent interest in the profits of every company by way of taxation. We should be encouraging profits. Labor’s policy is to damn and to denigrate profits.

What the Labor Government has started cannot be repaired in the ensuing years. At this moment we see at hand throughout the whole of industry in Australia the destruction of initiative, the criticism of profit, higher taxation for private companies and a retraction of incentives which can create production in the community. This has brought about a situation in which at this moment work is not being undertaken for the ensuing years that will attract the higher number of employees for whom we will be required to find employment. That is the Government’s greatest problem. I do not blame the Government for every disaster that has occurred. The trade unions are very greatly to blame.

We hear the criticism of private companies and the high profits they were making, whether or not those profits happen to come from various sources. 1 note that Mr Clyde Cameron, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, stated in one of his speeches that the rates of profit were too high. I hope that the members of the Prices Justification Tribunal go immediately to one of these stores that are owned by the unions. I hope that the Tribunal investigates the level of profits that are being made there. That would be of great interest. The Australian Council of Trade Unions’ store, of which Senator Brown was a director or some such thing, could have made a great rate of profit by not charging the prices that are charged in other stores. But that did not occur. Instead of that, we see, if we go into that store, the disaster that is occurring to nearly every free enterprise in the community.

I recommend the half-yearly report of Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd to honourable senators. The company states in its report that loss of production and sales resulting from strikes and obstruction by some unions, large increases in costs and a slackening in demand towards the end of the period have reduced the profit content of the company. The report goes on to make the point that I have just made- this is a matter which the Government should look into immediately:

Although the Company’s liquidity is strong, the reduction in profit has curtailed the generation of internal funds. As a result we are having to suspend or defer in whole or in pan some projects which when executed will improve efficiency and increase productive capacity.

This would create employment for members of the community. Will the Labor Party see that what it must do immediately is alter its policies? It will not do this by bringing into the Senate a proposition to set up some commission to do something relating to lending money and take 1000 people into a government instrumentality. Not one person in government employment will be producing new money. This is done only through private industry, profits and taxation and the encouragement of overseas companies. It will not be brought about by the type of attitude that we have seen with loud mouthed people going overseas and saying what an ugly company that great employer General Motors.Holdens’ is

What type of a Government do we have? I would encourage attempts to bring overseas employers to Australia to create jobs for our men and to pay us income and taxation. But not this Government. It offers criticism of every country, criticism the multi-national companies, criticism of private industry and criticism of everything that is good and relates directly to this matter of urgency that we have before us. A level of unemployment of over 300 000 persons or 5.2 per cent of the work force is entirely unacceptable. Major things need to be done immediately. Again, 1 take the opportunity to cite the case of one or two very great Australian companies which have been beset by the encouragement of labour in so many fields to seek higher wage structures. Higher wages have been granted in the government sector which has forced employers in the private sector to meet similar increases for their employees. The Labor Government will have a higher unemployment rate on its hands in the ensuing months. Senator Keeffe tries to interject. I do not know whether he knows it. I do not think that he realises this. Industry cannot get on its feet. The very core of the matter shortly will be thrown up to private industry. It will be incapable of paying for the benefits and meeting the wage demands of employees at this time. But there is a necessity -

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-(Victoria)-Mr President, I seek to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented in the remarks of the previous speaker, Senator Webster, who has just resumed his seat. He referred to me as a director or a former director of the ACTU-Bourke’s store. 1 would not mind if 1 was. But I regret that I am not and never have been. I want to make that clear for the record.

Senator Webster:

- Mr President, if you would give me the opportunity, I apologise to Senator Brown. I did not realise that he had not reached that status in that store.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– We have listened to a very amazing debate today. At the outset, I want to refute the assertion that Senator Webster has made that there are a large number of 18 and 20-year olds who are virtually bludgers. I think that in any system there can be excesses. But when the honourable senator developed that line I felt that he was attacking the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr Snedden). I have in front of me the Victorian ‘Truth’ of 19 January which carries the heading ‘Snedden son on dole’. The article refers to Mark Snedden, 21, dropping out and going on the dole. Some people could say that he had freedom of choice. Others could apply the epithet that Senator Webster applied. I think it is completely wrong to knock the teenagers.

Senator Webster:

– I think that he would be better working.

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I would sooner that he or anyone else be left on the beach than see his entrails hanging out in the jungles of Vietnam. That is the situation. I have not run away from the Labor Party’s policy when any young boy has come to me with his problems. I say to such boys that at least we are boosting the apprenticeship system and we are not sending them to fight in a war in Vietnam. I throw out this challenge to honourable senators opposite which they will have to accept if they are honest with themselves: If the Saigon Government were overthrown tomorrow, honourable senators opposite would want to reintroduce conscription and again send troops to Vietnam. They know that they backed a losing horse. They backed a corrupt country and they have the deaths of many young Australians on their consciences.

Let me return to this economic trend. We, as a Government, early in the piece sought additional consitutional powers. We all know that in a democracy, with our checks and balances in the Federal system, that we all at times- trade unions and employers- try to get the best of both worlds. I remember Senator Carrick in particular roaring out about what centralisation in Canberra meant. The Opposition Parties agitated successfully and the Australian Government did not gain control of incomes and prices. Both Mr Clyde Cameron and the Prime Minister indicated what would happen without those powers and, of course, since then we have had continuing inflation.

I throw out a challenge to members of the Opposition. The social innovations that we have introduced- the maternity allowances, aid for unsupported mothers, equal pay for the sexes, 4 weeks annual leave- are all things which people wanted. and the Opposition could not have ignored the agitation from the people who wanted them. Dealing with the economics of employment, Opposition senators know in their hearts that the granting of additional leave boosts the tourist industry. I am sorry that Senator Webster had an accident. He mentioned that he had spent some time on the beach. If he had kept his eyes open and had moved around the tourist areas he would have known that the additional leave which was properly gained by the so-called militant trade unionists is providing a boost to small businessmen and tourists agencies in these tourist areas. If the Opposition Parties tried to curb the additional leave various people, like Pioneer Tourist Coaches Pty Ltd, would be very concerned. Everyone of these reforms has its successful by-products. But I want to go beyond that.

Every democracy faces a dilemma about the extent of controls. I referred to this matter time and again in speaking on the Mainline Corporation episode in Sydney. The fact of the matter is that it is an indictment of the much vaunted private enterprise while we have vast canyons of unused palatial offices in Sydney when the bricks and mortar should have been used in hospitals and schools. Whenever I go into Country Party electorates and open a Post Office on behalf of Senator Bishop I always get a cheer from the rural audience when I say that Senator Bishop would have had this Post Office completed 6 months ago if the Liberals in the cities of Sydney and Melbourne had not used these bricks and mortar for these crook mining companies and all these scavengers who live in this society of ours. I say that because of Senator Webster’s reference to sacrosanct companies.

I refer now to the current issue of a very antiLabor publication- ‘The Bulletin’. An article refers to Mr Hancock and asbestos mining. I think Senator Withers was at a big shindig the other day for Mr Hancock’s daughter. The article states that certain men in that industry will have lung cancer by the time they have reached 50 years of age. They will have it because a big private enterprise was able to forget all safety measures. I am not indicting all private employers. When Senator Webster was lying on the beach and he had his misfortune I was not having much of a holiday. I was talking with the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers’ Union of Australia and the multinationals trying to assist the stabilisation of the tyre industry. It does not matter what our Government does. It is decided in the boardrooms of Firestone Australia Pty Ltd, Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co. (Australia) Ltd and other companies in Canada and the United States that they will stockpile tyres here. Dunlop Australia Ltd, because it suited the company and irrespective of what government was in power, rationalised its operations and closed one plant in Sydney and moved across the border to Victoria. I am not trying to get sectarian on a States angle, but these things are happening all the time. What is the answer?

If the Government issued an edict from Canberra virtually saying that no company was to make a move until it got an order, Opposition senators would call it socialism, communism, autocracy or something like that. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If Opposition members want freedom of choice, such as the individual going from job to job, they should say so. I noticed in reading the ‘Financial Review’ today an illuminating interview with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden). The interviewer pinned the Leader of the Opposition down by asking whether he visualised in 1 975 advocating another Premiers plan with massive cutbacks in expenditure. I say to Senator Webster and anybody else that every government has its ups and downs, but we have left an imprint. We have increased expenditure to the needy school category. We have seen a revolution in bricks and mortar. Our policies have become a reality. We would love to see an election campaign in the near future when we could say to parents and citizens associations that the advent of the Liberal government will mean a cutback in education expenditure. Does the Liberal Party intend cutting back expenditure on pre-school training? Mr John Gorton wanted to do some of the things we are doing but members of the Opposition crucified him. There is not a word from the Opposition on this aspect because it knows that we picked up the tocsin in regard to preschool training.

Of course problems are besetting this Government. We know the sorts of problems. People from different groups come to see us. Some talk about the top echelon being subject to a means test and others talk about pre-school training. It is a question of priority of improvements. There has been reference to unemployment statistics, but I question their authenticity. When people obtain a job are they struck off the list? I know that my colleague the honourable member for

Phillip (Mr Riordan) has an opinion about the way we compute unemployment statistics. I know from tests I have made that people who move into jobs like bus conducting and brickmaking they are areas where there is work- are still shown on the unemployment lists at local employment offices. The discrepancy is picked up after a few months. Nor can we ignore some of the overseas causes of unemployment. I do not think this is a subject for people to gloat over. After all, no Labor leader ever went overseas and bucketed his own country. Yet that is what Mr Snedden did when he grovelled in New York and apologised for the Australian economy. Whether a person is a Liberal or a Labor supporter he is supposed to be an Australian. I would say that Mr Snedden made an unholy show of himself in New York. I suppose it is something we have come to expect. I remind honourable senators of one particular Liberal Prime Minister who was saying: ‘All the way with LBJ I have talked to members of the United States diplomatic corps and they admit they would sooner us be honest about ourselves.

I know that Senator Webster would want to know what we are doing to correct the unemployment position. As I said, I attended a conference with 6 tyre companies, the Rubber Workers Union and Ministers. I think the tyre industry is an area where we have gained considerably. Senator Bishop knows that in regard to unions in the field of electronics, such as in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, and other manufacturing unions, some of us have worked from the heart. We have not indulged in stupid orations of the kind I have heard today. We know that a lot of the problems are general. When honourable senators opposite talk about solving the problem they refer to some of the ideas that Mr Snedden is expounding. Mr Health has tried them, as have Conservative leaders in France and West Germany. I shall mention an example of the Opposition’s double standards. I have spoken to ethnic groups and said that it would be stupid to bring additional people here until our employment and work force had stabilised. I have heard State Liberal Ministers saying that attitude is wrong, that we should bring people here and let them stand on their own feet. But we do not wish to see exploitation of labour. At the same time we know that in employment there is a nomadic trend that will always be a factor.

Opposition senators spoke about our Prime Minister castigating the Common Market countries on their attitude to our beef exports and when the Prime Minister negotiated on leader of government basis concerning uranium those honourable senators sneered at and ridiculed him. The fact is that all these areas have long range possibilities. When it comes to the area of foreign affairs and trade Opposition senators sneer and talk about communist plots. But Senator Webster and his colleagues in the Country Party will be delighted and will rub their hands with glee over our wheat sales to China. They do not say this is unpatriotic or that we should not sell the wheat. On this very delicate question, and I appreciate -

Senator Webster:

– What subject are we on today, Senator?

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I am talking about job expectancy. 1 do not possess the same accountancy knowhow as Senator Webster, but I have enough common sense to know that if our exports rise we must benefit

Why are the Liberal and Country Parties not honest and say: Do not sell any wheat to China or North Korea, or allow any other exports to East Germany. They know as well as I do that the foundation has been laid. When they talk they adopt double standards. There is not a Labor Minister who has not stood up and said what he believes. In foreign affairs the Opposition has a quarantine attitude to countries of a different ideology. I remember the cowardly days when the Liberal and Country Parties were selling some wheat to China and Senator McManus castigated them. The Government at that time said that it was not the Minister or the Government that was selling the wheat; it was the Wheat Board. We have never done that. If Senator Wriedt is trying to justify something he gets up and does it. We know three or four years ago that, as regards the future size of our work force, automation was a problem here and throughout the world. One can think back to the middle ages when I think the Luddites were destroying wheels, weirs and so on in Britain during the Industrial Revolution. Honourable senators opposite might say that because trade unions oppose technological changes, they are equivalent to the Luddites. If we oppose technological changes in order to achieve job security, honourable senators opposite accuse us of having all sorts of Trotskyite tendencies. Let us make no bones about it: When technological changes such as the assemby line system came about no government could have stopped the trade union movement from seeking a shorter working week.

What is worrying all honourable senators opposite is that when they look at page 2 of today’s Canberra Times’ they see the dilemma that will face Mr Snedden in April because unemployment will take a dramatic decline and at that stage honourable senators opposite will be in a difficult situation. There will be a dramatic decline in unemployment because of some of the efforts which Ministers have made in relation to trade agreements. Australian employers have a very high appreciation of the present Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns). He has been able to listen to people. As a matter of fact, whatever I think of General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd or any of the other car firms, we were prepared to protect jobs. If we had said to all the multi-national corporations GMH, Chrysler Australia Ltd and the others- ‘You stew in your own juice’, honourable senators opposite would probably have had more drama in their speeches today about all these people who are on the grass. We were prepared to help those firms.

Senator Webster:

– You would have had more drama from some of the unions.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Unlike Senator Webster, in my teens I had the experience of looking for a job. I did not come from a wealthy background as he did. Probably that is what put me into politics. I am determined to see that the trade union movement gets its way.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I support the Opposition’s move in raising this matter of urgency and I support the general contention which the Opposition makes, namely, that we are in a very difficult situation in Australia and that the present Government bears a heavy responsibility for the factors which have brought this situation about and which have been greatly highlighted by the unemployment figures. The situation is dramatised by the very rapid increase in unemployment in Australia, as shown by official figures which one finds when one scans the records or reads the daily newspapers. In flipping through my files on this subject this morning I read that on 6 September last year the actual number of people out of work was 108 000. Now in round figures there are 300 000 people out of work. This has all happened in a few months. The unemployment figure is reaching a rate unprecendented for many decades in Australia. So the Opposition is certainly correct in pinpointing some of the factors which have caused this acceleration in the rate of unemployment in Australia. As I have said, I support the Opposition’s move today.

I have personally found, as I am sure all honourable senators have found, a very great concern in the community about how wc are to extricate Australia from the problems that it now faces. One of the most concerning things about this matter is that most business leaders believe that a real recovery will take much longer than the recovery from any other recession since the last World War has taken, because of the fact that investment in future productivity is not being made in Australia. This means that in future there will not be jobs in industry and commerce when employment will be required and when we would otherwise expect a return to generally prosperous times.

I also wish to congratulate the Opposition for producing its national economic program which was announced this week. Whilst I see some obvious factors in it which have not yet been faced, I believe that it is an excellent collation of facts which have led to the present situation in Australia. The program contains pointers to the future which will need to be defined and refined when the time comes. I congratulate the Liberal and Country parties on presenting this program because it is the most coherent plan for the economic future of Australia that exists. As the document itself points out very clearly, the program compares more than favourably with the distracted and highly divisive moves which the Government has taken in the last financial year in its economic planning. It is a coherent document and it looks quite a long way into the future. However, I believe that whilst the matter of urgency which we are discussing concerns itself mainly with unemployment in Australia, inflation is the greatest problem of all. Unemployment is a product of the rapid and excessive rate of inflation which we now suffer.

When we hear so much news and so many reports of Government activity in relation to the motor car industry we find that the Government is obsessed with the symptoms of the situation rather than with the causes. I think that we all would applaud any genuine moves taken to restore employment to those who do not have it, but it is rather disquieting to find that the most senior Government Ministers disregard the causes of the present situation and treat the symptoms. Therefore we can expect a repetition of the matters which concern us so deeply now. I should like to quote from this document, for which I have given the Opposition parties due credit, in order to emphasise some of the things in which I, too, believe. I believe that the emphasis in this document on the danger of inflation to this community and how it destroys job opportunities is very well taken. I shall quote an excerpt which is headed ‘The Domestic Economy’. It reads:

Some argue that inflation (and thus its consequences) is a social and political rather than an economic problem. This argument is valid to the extent that inflation is caused by governments which lack the necessary leadership and resolve to carry through responsible economic policies. Increases in both government and private expenditure- the sources of material welfare- depend upon the capacity of the community to save, to work, and to produce. We believe that governments must show leadership in restraint.

The document also emphasises the value of the private sector in the economy and how it is the private sector- individuals and companies, as the document states- that can best develop our natural resources and employ our work force.

Without quoting further from this document for the benefit of the parties which have compiled it, I repeat that I believe it is a valuable document for those parties and a valuable document for discussion within this Parliament. However, I find some paradoxes within it. I notice emphasis is placed on the trade practices legislation which will be used to ensure that competitive devices are not frustrated. That is something of a paradox because if the Opposition parties had had their way in this chamber the trade practices legislation would have been an empty shell and it would not now have presented the opportunity, as the Opposition parties concede in their document that it does, to ensure that competition in the business community is real and effective.

Senator Wright:

– I think that is a misinterpretation of the situation.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It is not a misinterpretation of the situation. Having taken a particular stand on the issues which were discussed at the committee stage of the consideration of the trade practices legislation, I think that a study of Hansard will prove to Senator Wright the exactness of what I have said. I say, in giving due credit to him, that the honourable senator who rejoined the Liberal Party yesterday took a very leading part in ensuring that the trade practices legislation would be as effective as it is now. If Senator Wright’s party, when Senator Townley was not a member of it, had had its way the trade practices legislation, as I have said, would have been an empty shell and it would have done the Opposition little good to have included it now as a tool in its policy making machinery.

There are other contradictions in the Opposition’s program. It is difficult to adhere to a policy of generally reducing Federal Government expenditure when at the same time the State governments are to receive large additional funds under the Opposition’s recommended policy. I understand the pressures on State governments and their need to sustain the services which they provide to the community at a very basic level. But it must be realised also that State governments need to look at their own organisations. I believe that all State governments, Liberal, Labor or Country Party, would do well to look at their work forces and the way they fulfil their services to the community in order to ensure that they are operating at the most efficient level.

I do not believe that there is one government in Australia that could not reduce its government services by having a great deal more of its work done by private contract. When I look at my own State and others, I know from experience that there are great areas of government work carried out less efficiently than it could be carried out. All State governments need to look carefully at efficiency. Whilst some of them may be Liberal governments that does not mean that they should always adopt a liberal ideology in regard to the workings of their departments. There is a great need to return to private contract work in the performance of what is after all an aggregate of a very large spending area in Government in Australia, the State governments.

Senator Cotton:

– That is interesting. I think you would apply the same test to the expenditure of the Federal Government.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-My word I would. I would assume that under a Federal Labor Government there would be a movement in the wrong direction. The Budget figures show this quite clearly. The aggregation of expenditure to the Federal Government is one of the base causes of inflation. I again refer to the Liberal Party’s document and give it full praise and credit for very clearly and simply drawing this factor to the attention of those who read it.

I want to emphasise this point about State governments, Mr President, because in the general economic situation in Australia they often slip unnoticed into the practice of doing so much by means of their departments instead of having it done in the contract field. I remember some few years ago that an attempt was made in South Australia to do this, particularly in relation to road works. When the new Labor government came in, the Dunstan regime, that policy was deliberately reversed and more work was put back to the Government and done directly by the Government’s work force. I want to make that point because I do not believe that States have exhausted all the efficiencies that they could apply to their own administrations. This is an important matter when we discuss the subject of giving the States further assistance with their programs and to maintain employment. Inflation certainly is the main problem.

One useful advance has been made in the debate on inflation in Australia. Both sides of politics admit there is inflation and both sides of politics admit the cause. I want to quote from a statement made on 4 December last by Mr Hawke. He said:

We can’t excuse the Government for the record level of unemployment.

That in itself is an amazing admission. It is complete substantiation, because it comes from the Labor side of politics; it comes from the President of the Australian Labor Party, speaking in one of his 2 major capacities. He was speaking as president of the Party which pre-selected the honourable senators who sit opposite here in this House. Mr Hawke said that the Government could not be excused from the reasons which have caused unemployment in Australia. That is complete vindication of the Opposition’s point of view in the debate this afternoon. All one need do is frame that quotation, hang it on some notice board and cease the debate. The point of this debate has been proven because of what Mr Hawke said. If the President of the Australian Labor Party says that the Government cannot be excused, I would suggest that it is little excuse for Ministers and back benchers to say that it can be excused. Mr Hawke continued and said:

They made too many wrong decisions taken on bud advice. However, we’ll still try to co-operate with the Government to try to save and restore jobs.

I tender that statement as evidence that the President of the Party of honourable senators opposite has said that the Opposition today is right. Taking further the subject of the general admission of the cause of the problem, on 28 January this year the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was quoted under the heading Whitlam Blames Crisis on Wages’ as follows:

Wage demands were now the cause of inflation and unemployment in Australia.

Mr Snedden followed that on 27 January by saying that the Prime Minister had now conceded what the Opposition Parties had been saying for some time- that wage claims were to blame for unemployment and inflation. So we have Mr Hawke saying that the Government is blameworthy in this situation of the creation of unemployment, and we have Mr Whitlam and Mr Snedden saying that wage and salary claims are the most significant factor in the causes of inflation in this country. That, Mr President, is a very powerful conjunction of thought on the part of the political leaders in Australia.

The subject was taken further by a Mr Richard Ackland in an article he wrote which appeared in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ on 13 January this year. In that article he quoted the Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, as follows:

The substantial increase in female award rates had its effect on female intensive industries, ‘ Mr Cameron said.

For the year ended September 1974 the award rate for adult females in the textile, clothing and footwear industries increased by 5 1 .2 per cent.

Mr Cameron said that these industries simply were not able to cope with such a short sharp increase in wage costs.

I must revert to Mr Cameron’s general view, Mr President. He could not resist saying this, according to the same article:

While we have a system that can be manipulated by giant multi-national corporations we have to expect employment to fall whenever wage costs reduce profits to levels that are unacceptable to foreign board-rooms.

So, even after there has been a general admission of the cause of inflation, even in the same general article in which he is quoted Mr Cameron went on to blame the multi-national companies for the failure of the present Federal Government. All I can say is: How false is that claim. If only Mr Cameron would listen to those who lead industry in Australia, multi-nationals or otherwise.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Firstly I want to draw attention to that section of this statement of a matter of urgency which says that the Labor Government is ‘demonstrably incapable of preventing hardship and deprivation to the hundreds of thousands of Australian workers’, etc. I think it may be salutary to remember that the level of unemployment benefits currently being paid is 82 per cent higher than the level of unemployment benefits paid by the Liberal-Country Party coalition government 25 months ago. A common blind’ spot displayed by all Opposition speakers, with the marginal exception of Senator Hall, was their prediction that the Australian economy could be considered in isolation from the rest of the world. They failed to acknowledge that any of the current economic difficulties have been imported or externally caused.

Coming from Western Australia as I do I am very conscious of the error into which that sort of economic isolationism or tunnel vision can lead a conservative politician. I distinctly remember the present Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, having said, when he was politicking in the election campaign of March last year, that inflation could be beaten to a substantial degree State by State. Of course, Sir Charles Court had long asserted that economic conditions in Western Australia bore no relationship to economic conditions in the rest of Australia, just as the present Federal Opposition asserts that economic conditions in Australia bear no relationship to economic conditions in the rest of the world. Notwithstanding Sir Charles Court’s assertion that inflation could be beaten State by State, what has happened since he has been elected is that the consumer price index for Western Australia, which at the time of his election in March 1974 stood at the national average, has rocketed to 58 per cent above the Australian average. For the December quarter of 1974 the consumer price index in Western Australia increased by 6.1 per cent, by far the highest increase of any State and, I emphasise, 58 per cent above the national average. There on record is the achievement of the Liberal politician who, in Opposition, asserted that inflation could be beaten State by State. His performance does not measure up to his promises. I warn the Opposition parties that if ever they get the opportunity to attempt to implement the baits which they have dangled or the assertions which they have made they are likely to be about as successful as Sir Charles Court has been, if external conditions remain comparable.

There is a world recession. It has been aggravated and is still being seriously aggravated by the political instability which has hovered in the background of this Parliament ever since Opposition senators took the unprecedented step, broke all conventions and threatened to reject a Supply Bill last April. They were not at all chastened by their defeat in the ensuing election, and ever since they have continually threatened to do precisely the same thing. This week we have seen this push of political pirates, as I think Senator Hall described them yesterday, sink into a new depth of infamy and break yet another convention and assert that they are under no obligation to follow the 25-year-old convention to appoint to the Senate someone from the same party as the senator who is leaving the chamber for one reason or another.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr Gorton said that they were mad.

Senator WALSH:

– He did. I am not sure whether they are mad or contemptible. They must be one or the other. Although Mr Snedden nominally opted out of expressing a view or disaligned himself from the views expressed by his colleague in New South Wales, as the Prime Minister pointed out this morning Mr Snedden displayed once again his characteristically strong leadership and has refused to make any effort to dissuade or to prevent the New South Wales Premier taking the immoral and unprecedented action which he has publicly stated he intends to take. The Country Party leader, being the leading political pirate in the country, has enthusiastically supported the Premier of New South Wales. I suggest that Mr Anthony’s eagerness to get back into government has a great deal to do with the fact that the petroleum price agreement for indigenous oil is to be renewed next September. He is desperate to be in power at the time because he has so many debts to repay to that sector of industry.

The PRESIDENT:

– I remind the honourable senator that the next debate is on Senate representation for New South Wales. He should confine himself to the subject matter of the urgency motion.

Senator WALSH:

– Thank you, Mr President. A couple of weeks ago I attended a private party in Canberra at which a strong supporter of the Liberal Party, with the pompous and condescending manner which seems to be characteristic of many Liberal Party supporters, was lecturing me about the current state of the beef market. He informed me that we were having difficulties marketing beef because we had insulted our great and powerful allies. I was disappointed to hear Senator Baume repeat that myth in the Senate about an hour ago. The logic falls to the ground. It is true that Australian beef faces a virtual embargo by the European Economic Community, Japan and the United States. It has not been suggested that we have offended in any way members of the EEC or Japan. It has been suggested- there may be some truth in the charge- that we have offended some sections of the political spectrum in the United States, particularly the criminals of Watergate who have since been removed from office. No doubt they were greatly offended by some of the remarks which senior Ministers of this Government made 2 years ago. The logic of the myth falls to the ground when we realise that the United States market is closed not only to Australian beef but to beef from every other country. There are strict quotas.

But Australian beef was subject to a very strict quota in 1970 when a Liberal-Country Party Government was in power. There was one important difference at that time. We certainly did not insult them. Mr Anthony, the Leader of the Country Party, bent over backwards to oblige them. In 1970 he quite nonchalantly informed an executive meeting of the Farmers Union of Western Australia that the Australian Meat Board had employed a lobbyist in Washington to arouse consumer interest and to secure freer entry of Australian beef to the American market.

Mr Anthony said that the activities of this lobbyist were so successful that ‘we had to call him off’. Precisely who ‘we’ were was not stated. This lobbyist was employed by the Meat Board, so I assume that the ‘we’ was the Meat Board acting either on instructions from or in collusion with the Country Party. Apparently Mr Anthony, the Country Party and the then Liberal-Country Party coalition Government had no desire to offend administration which was subsequently removed from office as a result of the Watergate scandal. In fact, they bent over backwards ingratiating themselves and grovelling before the administration. In the process they misused the ostensibly independent Australian Meat Board.

The Opposition’s economic policy document, to which Senator Hall has referred at some length, contains at least one intriguing reference. On page 2 item 1 5 is ‘Immediate policy actions to prevent an excessive and dangerously inflationary growth of the money supply in 1975’. I do not know about 1975, but I know what happened in 1972. In December 1971, against all the advice which was coming from the Treasury, the Reserve Bank of Australia and academic or business economists in Australia, the McMahon Government, the Treasurer of which is the present Leader of the Opposition, caved in under pressure from the Country Party and maintained a grossly under valued dollar for the ensuing 12 months. The result of that irresponsible decision was a net capital inflow of $ 1 ,900m in the next calendar year. In the last quarter of 1972 the money supply exploded at an annual rate of 30 per cent when the economy was already approaching a level of full employment.

The Opposition’s economic policy document contains a number of internal contradictions but more importantly I believe that there would be a great difference between what the document asserts and what a Liberal-Country Party coalition under pressure or under blackmail from its Country Party rump would actually do if it were in power. A similar situation applies to the comments in the document on government spending. It speaks of reductions in government spending at the same time as Opposition members, including front benchers, travel around Australia advocating more money for the States, more money for defence, subsidies galore and tax concessions galore. All those things can do nothing but increase the size of the deficit which Mr Anthony states must be reduced. While on the subject of Mr Anthony, it is interesting to note that in Perth only last week he presented in the same statement his old demand that the Budget deficit must be reduced and 6 specific proposals which would have increased the size of the deficit. It is not surprising that there is a good deal of contradiction and inconsistency. In this chamber and in the other place we have Senator Carrick who must be one of the finest exponents of Tudor economics which this Parliament has seen, the free trading laissez-faire member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) and the Country Party’s agricultural fundamentals who assert that agriculture is the backbone of the country notwithstanding the fact that it employs less than 10 per cent of the work force and produces less than 1 0 per cent of the gross national product.

But the most intriguing of all the Opposition’s economic analyses is that presented recently by Mr Lynch who subscribes apparently to a conspiracy theory of economic management. In a Press release dated 15 January this year Mr Lynch referred to ‘Marx’s comment that the most effective way to destroy established society is to grind it between the twin millstones of taxation and inflation’. I consulted a number of Marxian scholars from the far Right to the far Left in an attempt to discover the source of Marx ‘s alleged dictum. The answer in every case was what I expected. None of Marx’s writings contain that statement or anything remotely resembling it. The only known source of Mr Lynch ‘s conspiratorial view on economic phenomena is the assorted publications of the League of Rights and in particular the paranoic scribblings of its director, Eric D. Butler, Australia ‘s most verbose anti-Semite and author of ‘The International Jew’, Australia’s antiSemite’s bible.

In the time that remains I would like to mention a few of the matters contained. in the document written by the man who appears to be Mr Lynch ‘s historical guru or historical astrologer. Mr Butler informs us that the Jews controlled the Nazi movement, that Adolf Hitler was the illegitimate son of Baron Rothschild, that the Jews controlled world capitalism, the United States Reserve Bank, the Nazi Luftwaffe and founded the Jesuit order. Another one of his expositions is that Hitler’s policy was a Jewish policy; that it helped to further the declared aims of international Jewry in spite of what Hitler said about international Jewry. This comes from the same pen as the alleged Marxian quotation which Mr Lynch, either in ignorance or for other reasons, repeats and circulates throughout Australia.

Of course it is well known that the Country Party in Queensland is barely distinguishable from the League of Rights, but now apparently the virus has infected the upper echelons of the Liberal Party. I ask: Can we now anticipate the publication of a new edition of the protocols of the learned elders of Zion?

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-The subject to which the Senate is addressing its attention is the massive unemployment in Australia. It is the view of the Opposition in this Senate that the causes of that are in the main to be attributed to the incapacity of the Labor Government which came to power about 2 years ago with predominant themes of irresponsibility and inexperience. Of course, it put before the country great fantasies and expectations, and we had an immediate encouragement of all sorts of increases in wages and conditions of employment. We had an ill-advised, across the board and dangerous- as it has been described by some Government supporters- reduction of tariffs by 20 per cent irrespective of the circumstances of the industries, and we had 2 currency devaluations. The reduction of the tariffs has almost destroyed the textile industry. It has inflicted upon ii such damage that many of the work force in the industry are now unemployed. The resuscitation of that industry will be far more difficult than its dismantling.

Then we had the extraordinary performance on the part of this Government of lifting interest rates from what the Treasurer within a month of assuming office said was a capacity rate of 3 per cent to 12 or 13 per cent in the commercial market. We know that the Commonwealth Bank at one stage was paying 23 per cent for short call money, but we can take the average rate today from the most financial company in the country, which is offering 13 per cent for a 10 or 12-year term. That 1 3 per cent interest has to be borne by every enterprise that has to give employment to wage earners. That cost comes out first. In addition taxation of an amount and to an extent unexampled in the history of this country was exacted from both enterprises and individuals.

Is it any wonder that at the end of a farrago of that nonsense after 2 years we have these facts to record sorrowfully? The average weekly earnings in 1974 throughout this community increased at the rate of 25.3 per cent. The inflation rate from December to December was 16.3 per cent. Working days lost through strikes for the year increased from 1 .6 million days lost to 6.3 million days lost. The consequence of all that nonsense is, on record, that unemployment increased during the year from 1.76 per cent to 4.5 per cent or, in adjusted terms, which we are accustomed to using, from 102 000 to 267 000.

So the Government having started out with all its so-called policies, not one in the whole Ministry had the slightest comprehension of how they would be financed or what effect the actual policies would have on employment and the valuelessness of money. What did we get? We got the mini-Budget presented by Mr Crean in August last when he imposed further taxation as a remedy against the then obvious inflation. Then you will remember, Mr President, that the Minister who has now displaced him as Treasurer took over the de facto duties of the Treasurer immediately upon that mini-Budget being presented and, in the extraordinary way of collecting 40 or 43 of his colleagues at a secret conference of the Party about 3 weeks before the Budget, prevailed upon the Budget consultations of the Cabinet to increase the Budget by about $2,000m; that is to say, to avalanche paper money into the furnace and expect it to overtake and provide a substitute for the real money which alone will bring employment opportunities.

But the Government did not fully estimate the degree of its own possibilities because, although it budgeted for an increase in its outlay of something like 34 per cent this year, actually in the first 6 months it increased its outlays by 43 per cent as compared with the comparative period of the previous year. By that performance it has got to the stage where the total Budget deficit now estimated for the current financial year is $ 1,850m. That is after garnering into the exchequer from the people who work and from the people who are supposed to provide employment to the community an extra 53 per cent in taxes over the corresponding figure for the same 6 months of the previous financial year. So these genii- they are genii, not geniuses- garner in expanded taxation and expect the country to pay it. The Government provides for a deficit and it ensures 2 things. It ensures that private enterprise will have less capital to provide employment and, by deficit financing, it ensures that whatever money is circulating in the country will go on inflating and inflating. While one or two solitary supporters- there are actually four of them- on the Government side smile and smirk at these propositions, it was Mr Crean, and I give him credit for reminding the country, who said in August last year that in the last 12 months, inflation had ripped off well over $ 1,000m from the real value not of people ‘s assets as a whole but of their savings bank deposits, deposits owned for the most part by little people, the ordinary people of this country. What a despicable performance on the part of a Party that is supposed to represent the little people who have savings bank deposits and who need employment. That is the Labor Government’s performance on public expenditure and it indicates an attitude equal to trying to put out the fire by dousing it with petrol.

The Government’s other failure is that it cannot have any influence on its parents. As honourable senators know from its history, the Labor Party was procreated from the trade union movement, and we had a situation during last year where four times more man-days were lost through strikes than the average of the previous 10 years. There were more strikes of a nature damaging to the economy than we had had at any previous period of our history, so much so that the Government completely reversed the attitude of encouragement and demand that it had adopted when it first took office, and we had even Labor Ministers turning to the unions and almost pleading for moderation and restraint. To give some illustrations, in the Canberra ‘Times’ of 17 January 1975 there was a report that hospital fees were expected to rise by 33 W per cent this year. Salaries and wages, which accounted for 82 per cent of the hospitals’ total expenditure, had increased by 30 per cent. In August last year Mr Whitlam said:

I have to tell you frankly that repeated wage rises of the order of 15 or 20 per cent or more are unsupportable in present economic circumstances.

In July 1 974 Dr Cairns said:

In a year like 1975 the economy cannot possibly pay general wage increases of 20 per cent and more without most of them going quickly into prices and this means more inflation.

In August Mr Cameron said:

It is this bloody-mindedness on the part of a small section of the trade union movement that is slowly, but surely, pricing thousands of Australian workers out of employment. If unemployment reaches unacceptable levels, it will not he due to any conscious decision taken by the Australian Government, but by the indirect efforts of the action of some union officials.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I was saying when the sitting was suspended for dinner that the inexperience of the Australian Labor Party on the assumption of office led it to adopt a wholesale reduction of tariffs, devaluations which were quite inappropriate and a budgetary policy which is expected to produce a deficit of $ 1 ,800m at the end of this year. After all that calamity, us recently as the 17th of last month Mr Whitlam came to the confessional and said in Adelaide that it was now completely admitted that excessive wage demands had caused Australia’s unemployment and inflationary crisis. He said that that was indubitably, primarily and almost solely due to wage claims and increases and that frankly, the cause of inflation was excessive wage demands. That means that the monster which the Prime Minister has encouraged and created is now the lion in his path. It completely leads to the falsification in the policies which has produced this inflation and out of which has grown this calamitous unemployment. I think that that catalogue of errors on the part of this Government is enough to condemn it in the eyes of all fair thinking people.

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

– The debate this afternoon has concerned the urgency motion which was moved by Senator Greenwood. It has evolved into a general discussion on the economy although the motion really centred on unemployment. It is indeed an irony that a LiberalCountry Party Opposition should move a motion condemning another government for unemployment. It is true that no government in the history of this country has escaped the effects of unemployment during the time that it has been in office. None of us has a clean sheet in this respect. But it is important that we recognise the truth of the present position in relation to not only the actual unemployment figures but also the reasons which have brought them about.

It was back in 196 1 that we saw the last severe credit squeeze imposed on the Australian economy by the then Menzies Government. It is true to say that circumstances at the time were not entirely different from those which have obtained in this country over the past 12 months. The conditions were different to the extent that at no time in the history of this country had there been such a flood of money into the economy as occurred in 1972. If we wish to be rational and reasonable in this debate in trying to determine what we should do and the cause for the position in which we now find ourselves, that basic fact must be recognised. From that enormous inflow of money which this Government inherited from its predecessors stemmed the main problem facing the country’s economy over the past 12 or 18 months. When we took office we realised that this 26 per cent increase in money had created an enormous demand. The Government was compelled to take steps to arrest it. We revalued the Australian dollar. This was the first essential step. We did that almost within a matter of hours of taking office. It is a matter of regret that that action had not been taken earlier during 1972. We also introduced the variable deposits ratio scheme whereby we restricted the inflow of overseas capital and obliged overseas companies and individuals to lodge a percentage of that capital with the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Of course, later on during the year in order to increase the supply of goods we reduced the tariff by 25 per cent. All these factors were deliberate actions on the part of the Government. They were necessary at the time in the circumstances which were prevailing. I suggest that had those actions not been taken the Australian economy would have experienced infinitely greater stresses, especially during 1974. But before covering those actions in some more detail later on I want to compare the position now in unemployment with the only period in the last 1 5 years which provides a fair comparison, and that is 1961-1962. It was said during the course of the debate- I think these were Senator Greenwood ‘s precise words- that there were 3 1 1 000 out of work. Senator Greenwood during the course of his remarks referred to the fact that people have registered for unemployment. It did not appear to me that he understood or cared to elaborate on the critical difference between those two situations.

In fact, the figures which are published by the Commonwealth Employment Service relate to people seeking employment. Any employee or any worker is at liberty if he has a job and feels that he can improve his position elsewhere or if he feels a sense of insecurity in his present employment, to register with the CES for an alternative position. The precise figures in the total proportion are not known because the statistics do not really cover that. But the management consultant firm of W. D. Scott and Co. Ply Ltd, a company which puts out regular bulletins on the economy, makes the interesting point in the form of a graph showing the changing structure of unemployment in Australia.

We find that in December of last year, the month to which the most recent figures apply, only 47 per cent of the persons who were registered for employment were actually receiving unemployment benefits. Of course, the reason for this is that a high proportion of people registerednot all of them- are actually gainfully employed and on a payroll. But if we go back to 1962 we find that the proportion of people who were registered for employment but were receiving benefits numbered 65 per cent. In other words, the situation peaked in the 1961-62 credit squeeze. I do not intend to use that argument as an indictment of the government of the day but it does illustrate the changing pattern of employment in this country. It also illustrates that the actual number of breadwinners out of work- this is the critical point- is much lower than the figures which have been quoted in this debate. We also have to remember the great increase in the number of working wives in the Australian work force over the past few years when we talk of full employment.

It has been traditional, and I believe it should still obtain, that we talk about the breadwinner of the family. We are not talking about what may be defined as full two-income employment. Honourable senators can be assured that at a time when women are receiving equal pay- as they have done gradually over the last year or two- the cost factor, especially in the textile industry, obviously had to be much greater. Firms in the textile industry naturally felt that increase. This has been a significant factor in ensuring that a lot of those women unfortunately have been laid off as, indeed, have many males.

We make no apology for the fact that on assuming office we said that there would be a redirection of government spending in Australia. We said that there would be more money spent on education and health, in the cities, on pensioners and so on. I do not need to elaborate on those statements. They are, I think, well known, and I am sure that they are well recognised by the Australian population at large.

The point that interests me about the debate so far, and it is almost at an end, is that despite the document which was published yesterday or the day before by the Opposition- its economic document- we find that there is no definitive statement about what the Opposition would do specifically in respect of government spending. It says that government spending should decrease but we are not told in what areas it should decrease. We are not told, for example, whether tariffs are to be restored to the level obtaining before this Government reduced them. I invite Senator Martin, who I think will follow me, to indicate to the Senate the Opposition’s policy on tariffs. Are we to see tariffs restored in the unlikely event of there being a change of government? Would the Liberal and Country Parties put the tariffs back up? I would like to hear the Country Party’s view on that. I would like it to come out and tell the farmers of Australia that if it is re-elected to office it will put the tariffs back up and that prices as a consequence, not only to the farming community but to the whole of the Australian community, will increase and increase dramatically because the Government has not the power to control those prices. In the same way as this Government was unable to ensure the passing on to the consumer of the benefit of the reduction of 25 per cent, no government would be in a position to control an increase in prices which would flow from an increase of 25 per cent in tariffs. I invite whatever speakers are left on the Opposition side to let the Senate know just where the Liberal and Country Parties stand on this because I would be exeremely surprised if in fact they have a common policy.

What has the Government done to overcome this problem? We have taken all reasonable steps within our power to get the Australian economy moving at a faster rate. To some degree every government is at the mercy of the machinery available to it and if there is one point I would concede- I do not hesitate to concede it for I have defended the revaluation decisions and the subsequent devaluation decisions that Senator Wright referred to, the 25 per cent tariff cut and a range of other matters- it is that the severity of the credit squeeze of last year and the time at which it was imposed could be debated. But the Government has very rapidly moved to rectify the position by a series of measures. The key to our problem in the private sector is not simply the lack of profitability. It is true that profitability has declined but confidence also is important. That is a psychological thing and a very hard thing to restore and to define. But it was 15 months ago when this Government foresaw the explosion in incomes which would occur in 1 974 in Australia and it sought the power by referendum to control those incomes.

Senator Withers:

– The DLP pushed you into it.

Senator WRIEDT:

– We were set on a course to recognise that the Australian Government- it would not matter what political colour it waswould be the only government which could effectively implement an incomes policy. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) would treat this matter as perhaps of not much significance but it is critical to what has happened in the last 12 months on the inflation front. We have not had those powers and I am sure that one of the reasons we did not obtain them was that our opponents-

Senator Wright:

– And Bob Hawke.

Senator WRIEDT:

– And some misguided people in the trade union movement, Senator, I would agree with you.

Senator Withers:

– You mean the President of the ALP.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I am not mentioning any names, but I believe that the members of the Liberal and Country Parties and some persons outside those parties were sufficiently misguided as not to understand the significance of the need for those powers at Federal level. I do not think it could be expected that any government could do more than we have done. The economy is moving back into top gear more quickly than most people realise. The essential factor has been the lack of liquidity in the private sector.

Senator Young:

– Who caused that?

Senator WRIEDT:

– As I just indicated, Senator Young, I would agree that it is a matter for debate as to the severity of the squeeze in 1974 but it is not a matter for debate as to the manner in which the Government has instructed the Reserve Bank to make funds available to those sections of industry which need them and can apply them usefully. It would be wrong if we were stampeded into a major reversal of our basic approach. We have not done that and will not do it. We believe that the Australian consumer is entitled to the benefits of efficient industry in Australia and also to imports which he may prefer. This is where I believe the Opposition’s policies on tariffs will become critically important over the next few months. The Opposition will have to make up its mind what it is going to do because the Australian people will want to know.

Senator McLaren:

– They will tell us in 10 minutes.

Senator WRIEDT:

-They could probably tell us in 10 minutes but it would have the disastrous results that it has had in the past. I urge the Senate to reject the urgency motion. It is not based on fact but on an emotional political point, recognising the difficulties which do exist in the economy and which this Government is taking all possible steps to rectify, lt would not be in the interests of the Senate or of the Parliament if this motion were to be carried.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

-In opening my remarks I thank Senator Wriedt for the reasonable way in which he invited me to outline in the next 5 minutes, which is the time available to me, all the new policies of the Liberal Party which have not yet been announced. I thank him for his reasonable manner because it was in sharp contrast to the rather unreasonable manner in which we have been invited to do the same by honourable senators earlier in the debate today. It is certainly not my intention, obviously, to give policies which have not yet been announced. In the eventuality that our policies will be announced in the next few weeks, as has already been stated, the proper representatives of the Liberal and Country Parties will make the announcement. In the intervening time we have had efforts by Labor Party senators, as was evidence in this debate today, to write the policy for us. It has been a strong feature of the Labor Party, as it was during the May election and has been over the last couple of days, that it would dearly like the responsibility of writing a policy for us which would undoubtedly keep us in Opposition forever.

We do not intend to give them that responsibility; we intend to face our own responsibilities.

In the course of this debate, a debate condemning the massive unemployment existing in Australia, we have had the usual excuses from the Government, excuses which once upon a time took the form of beating on a drum but which now have degenerated into a mere bleat on the part of certain Labour senators. We have had some explaining away. We have had some novel light thrown on issues which have been issues for the last 2 years. We have heard during the course of Senator Wriedt’s speech new explanations. Reasonably though they may have been pronounced, I suggest that we look at what the Government was saying at the time, what it was claiming it was doing, and what it was claiming its achievements were at that time in comparison with what Senator Wriedt has just told us. Time will not permit me to give the sort of detail that is necessary but all of us and all Australians will remember very clearly that in about January or February 1973 when the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was proudly proclaiming to the people of Australia in respect of the unemployment figures which were then being produced only 2 months after the Liberal-Country Party Government had gone out of office, that he had done all this in one month and Parliament had not even sat at that stage. This would have been a remarkable record for anybody if anybody had believed it. One got the firm impression that Mr Whitlam may have believed it. Now we are told that what was going on in Australia in early 1 973 was the result of what the Liberal-Country Party Government had done towards the end of 1972. All credit was grabbed by the Government at the time for the fact that unemployment figures were then responding to Liberal-Country Party initiatives of some months earlier. It takes months for these figures to show the effect of Government action. All credit was grabbed by them for that but no responsibility is taken for the position that was aggravated by their actions from the very time they came into government in early 1 973.

Senator Wriedt said that at the time of their taking government, conditions were exceptional in terms of the amount of inflow of funds into the Australian economy. A budget had been introduced towards the end of 1972 which was meant to boost the Australian economy. The new Government, in the very first days of its taking office and of the Parliament meeting, instituted a number of policies which inevitably had an inflationary effect. At the time there was comment that its policies would be inflationary. At the time there were comments that if it were to continue in this vein it would be running a very real risk with the fabric of the Australian economy. I hate to think how many times since I have been a member of the Senate- it has not affected me very much- Labor senators opposite have said: ‘The previous government did nothing in 23 years’. In 23 years we did not manage to produce unemployment which rivalled the rate of unemployment during the Depression. In 23 years we managed to keep the economy relatively stable and growing. In the 1 972 Federal election campaign the Labor Party sold the line that this meant doing nothing. Many of the Australian people bought it. They have learnt to their cost that it takes a great deal of hard work and effort and very wise policies to keep the Australian economy stable and steadily growing. We have learnt this to our cost by the unstable sort of policies, the rush-in type policies and the illconsidered policies that we have had from this Government quite recently.

I totally deplore the statements that have been made by a number of Government senators that we are clapping our hands with glee because of unemployment in Australia. We are all members of Parliament. We are all subject to the pressures that come to any member of Parliament when there is high unemployment in the country. I speak for myself when I say this and I know that it is the case for all other members of Parliament with whom I have discussed the matter. I would have assumed that this was the case with Labor Party senators opposite. My office is being inundated with people in terrible positions not only because of unemployment but also because of this Government’s ineptitude in handling the situation it has created. One thing we have not heard in the course of this debate is the usual eulogies of the policies and the schemes the Government has introduced to meet the problems of unemployment. Honourable senators opposite would not have needed to do this because in that area also their ineptitude has been marked. The matter of urgency concerns:

The massive unemployment produced by the policies of a Labor Government demonstrably incapable of preventing hardship and deprivation to the hundreds of thousands of Australian workers who arc the victims of the destruction of business confidence and initiative.

The Senate will now vote upon this matter. I strongly support the substance of the matter of urgency. I have supported it as well as I could in the small amount of time available to me. I move:

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 29

NOES: 27

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 109

PAIRS

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

-I seek leave to make a brief statement in relation to the arrangement of pairs.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator POYSER:

– I wish to indicate that in the vote just taken and any future votes taken this evening Senator Bessell will be paired with the vacancy created by the resignation of Senator Murphy.

page 110

PREMIERS CONFERENCE

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the transcript of the conference of Australian Government and State Government Ministers- the Premiers Conferenceat Canberra on 7 June 1974, part 1, being the portion of the Conference held in public session.

page 110

URBAN LAND

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report prepared by the Department of Urban and Regional Development entitled ‘Urban Land: Problems and Policies’ and an urban paper entitled ‘ Urban Land Prices 1 968- 1 974 ‘.

page 110

ALBURY-WODONGA

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present an Australian Government Department of Transport site selection study entitled ‘Albury-Wodonga Growth Centre Aerodrome, Road Safety and Standards Authority and Other Transport Units’ dated December 1974.

page 110

QUESTION

RESIGNATION FROM COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator James McClelland resigning as a member of the Council of the Australian National University consequent upon his election to the Ministry.

page 110

LIBRARY COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Wriedt)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator James McClelland be discharged from further attendance upon the Library Committee.

page 110

QUESTION

DISCHARGE OF SENATOR FROM TWO LEGISLATIVE AND GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, informing me that Senator James McClelland has indicated that he wishes to be discharged from further attendance on the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and Education, Science and the Arts.

Motion (by Senator Wriedt)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator James McClelland be discharged from further attendance upon the Standing Committees on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and Education, Science and the Arts.

page 110

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition stating that Senator Missen has indicated that he wishes to be discharged from attendance upon the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, and nominating Senator Wright to be appointed to the Committee in his place.

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) agreed to:

That Senator Missen be discharged from attendance upon the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and that Senator Wright, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36a. be appointed to the Committee.

page 110

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

Days and Times of Meeting

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 110

QUESTION

DISCHARGE OF ITEMS ON NOTICE PAPER

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask for leave to move a motion for the discharge from the notice paper of certain orders of the day.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 111

MINERAL INDUSTRY

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I withdraw Government Business notice of motion No. 3 standing in my name.

page 111

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS COMMISSION

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I withdraw General Business notice of motion No. 7 standing in my name.

page 111

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 2) 1974

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it has agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 111

QUESTION

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN THE SENATE

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

– I move:

  1. 1 ) The Senate is of the opinion that proportional representation for the Senate calls for maintaining the status quo in Party representation when casual vacancies are filled by the choice or appointment of a person pursuant to section 1 5 of the Constitution, and that, if a senator is succeeded by a senator of another Party, proportional representation is destroyed.
  2. The Senate notes that, since the introduction of proportional representation in 1949, the States have without exception filled vacancies by the appointment of senators belonging to the same political parties as the vacating senators.
  3. The Senate views with the greatest concern reports that the long-established convention may not be followed in relation to the filling of the vacancy now existing in the representation of the State of New South Wales.

The Australian system of government is today under attack. One of the constitutional conventionsthe manner of filling casual vacancies in the Senate- is threatened. If the convention is breached then the expressed wish of more than one million voters will be denied, the institution of the Senate will bediminished, and the complex and delicate fabric of the Australian parliamentary system will be left badly torn. Section 1 5 of the Constitution states in part:

If the place of a Senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the House of Parliament of the State for which he was chosen shall, sitting and voting together, choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term, or until the election of a successor as hereinafter provided, whichever first happens.

Since the introduction of proportional representation in 1949, the States have without exception filled vacancies by the appointment of senators belonging to the same political parties as the vacating senators. Each and every State has honoured this convention at least once. No State has dishonoured it, ever. Of the 24 casual vacancies filled between 1949 and 1971, 9 appointments were of senators of differing political parties to the parties forming the State governments of the time. Of the 9 appointments, 6 were Labor senators appointed by States with non-Labor governments and 3 were non-Labor senators appointed by States with Labor governments. Six of these 9 senators are in the Senate todayLabor Senators Poyser, Brown and James McClelland and non-Labor Senators Marriott, Drake-Brockman and Laucke. This convention, so scrupulously observed for 25 years, is now threatened by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Lewis, and the parliamentary members of the Liberal and Country Parties in that State.

In order to understand the magnitude and consequence of this threat to our system of government it may be useful for me to outline the principles underlying the convention. Proportional representation was introduced for the election of senators in 1 949. The basic principle of proportional representation is that votes cast for each party should be reflected in seats won by that party. The grouping of candidates according to party on the ballot paper is a very specific acknowledgement of this principle. In order to give expression to this principle, it is necessary that in the filling of a casual vacancy, the representation of the parties should remain a reflection of the votes cast for those parties at the previous election. If a senator is succeeded by a senator of another party, then the representation of parties proportionate to their vote is destroyed.

The problem of assuring that this principle be secured was tackled first by the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution Alteration Bill of 1950. The Committee agreed that the law covering casual vacancies should be amended to make it as nearly certain as possible that casual vacancies will always be filled by a new senator of the same political complexion as his predecessor. The death of Labor Senator Nash of Western Australia in 195 1 created the first casual vacancy following the introduction of proportional representation and the consideration of the Select Committee report. The non-Labor Premier of Western Australia, the Honourable Ross McLarty was clearly conscious of the precedent he would be creating when he wrote to all other State Premiers. To the honourable Tom Playford M.L.A., who was then Premier of South Australia, he wrote:

Dear Mr Playford,

You arc no doubt aware that a vacancy has arisen in the Senate owing to the death of Senator Nash of Western Australia.

The Constitution provides that if the State Parliament is sitting, the successor shall be appointed by both houses of Parliament at a joint sitting. If parliament is not in session, the appointment is made by the executive council and referred to parliament when it meets. The Western Australian Parliament will not meet for several months, so the vacancy will be filled by Executive Council.

This is the first vacancy that has arisen since proportional representation was adopted for the Senate, so whatever action is taken on this action could be taken as a precedence in filling future vacancies. I am therefore anxious to obtain the views of all Sate Premiers as to how they consider the future vacancies should be filled.

My opinion is that, in view of the fact that proportional representation is now the method of election to the Senate, a member of the same party, nominated by the executive of the party, should be appointed when future vacancies arise through death or other causes.

In this particular case, the nomination would come from the executive of the Western Australian branch of the A.L.P.

As it is desirable that an appointment should be made as soon as possible, I would appreciate an early expression of your views.

Yours sincerely, (Sgd) Ross McLarty Premier

Mr Playford replied saying that he agreed with Mr McLarty. I understand that all other Premiers did likewise. The Western Australian nonLabour Government duly appointed a Labor Senator- Senator Cooke- and a precedent was established. The precedent was followed 6 times in the next 6 years, and in 1958 the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review reported on the question. The recommendation of the Committee was- and I quote from paragraph 287 of its report:

As the Committee had already reported to the Parliament it sought a constitutional formula to require the Parliament or Governor of a State in making an appointment to fill a casual vacancy arising in the Senate, to choose some one who was a member of the same political party as the senator whose place had become vacant. The Committee could not. however, find suitable language which would have covered all possible contingencies and. at the same time, avoided reference to political parties in the Constitution.

The Committee continued in paragraph 288:

A State Parliament or Governor is not bound to choose as a successor to a vacating senator some one belonging to that senator’s party or who subscribes to the platform which the senator supported when he was last elected as senator. To this extent, section 15 may be thought to give expression to the concept at Federation of the Senate as a States House. But as the Committee has shown, elsewhere in this report, the Senate has become primarily a party house and it would be possible for an appointment under section 15 to disturb the balance of party strength in the Senate. As for instance, if a State parliament should replace a former government senator by some one belonging to an opposition party. In the present period of proportional representation for the election of senators, such a choice could be sufficient to deprive a government of its majority in the Senate.’

In paragraph 289, the Committee discussed the method of filling casual vacancies prior to the introduction of proportional representation in 1949. It said:

There have been instances in past years where State parliaments have filled a casual vacancy by appointing as a successor senator, some one of quite different political viewpoint to the senator whose place became vacant before the expiration of his term. It is significant that, in the cases which have occurred, the vacancies have been filled by persons sympathetic to the side of politics of the government in office in the State in which the appointment was made. This suggests thai the criterion of the Senate as a States House was, in the particular instances, of little significance in the discharge of State functions under section 15. In 1931 for example, a Stale parliament in which a Labor government held office appointed a Labor successor to a Nationalist senator and, in 1946, a State parliament, in which voting pursued party lines, appointed a Country Party man to replace a Labour senator. ‘

The Committee concluded its recommendations in paragraph 290 and 291, and I quote from them:

The Committee acknowledges that the instances just referred to have been the exceptions and not the rule and it wishes to make it plain that, since proportional representation has been the system for electing senators, various State parliaments have been called upon to make appointments to fill a casual vacancy and, in each instance, the State concerned has scrupulously observed the principle which the Committee would have liked to incorporate in the Constitution. At this juncture, the Committee merely reiterates its view, expressed in the first report, that all members who sat on the Committee thought the principle should continue to be observed without exception so that the matter may become the subject of a constitutional convention or understanding which political parties will always observe.

Mr President, up to this day, the Committee’s wish has been observed. The convention has been established. I might say at this point, Mr President, that one of the distinguished members of that Committee was Senator Wright of Tasmania whom we have with us in the Senate today. It will be recalled that paragraph 291 of the report is quite specific in saying that all members thought the principle should continue to be observed without exception. I invite Senator Wright to declare his position on the principle in this chamber later in the debate.

There are many statements since 1959 which support the convention. On 1 1 October 1962, in answer to a question by Senator Brown, Senator Spooner said:

I hold the view very firmly that when there is a casual vacancy in the Senate by tradition and usage it should be filled by the appointment of a person holding the same political views as were held by the senator whose place is being filled. J take a great deal of comfort from the fact that since the commencement of proportional representation in 1949, every casual vacancy has been filled by the State Parliament concerned by the selection of a member of the same political party as the previous holder of the seat.

Speaking on. the appointment of Senator Poyser to fill a casual vacancy in 1966, Sir Henry Bolte said:

Mr Poyser is being nominated and elected because of a procedure established by this Government. I have established the rules and the practice in such circumstances over the eleven years that my party has been in office. 1 have given the word of my Government that if a vacancy should arise in the Senate affecting this State, the party to which the late Senator belonged- whether it be the Liberal Party, the Country Party, the Labor Party or even the Democratic Labor Party- would nominate the successor. That is the qualification-there is no other.

Mr President, the case for the convention is whelming. The convention has not been laid down by the Australian Government, but by agreement among the State Governments themselves. And yet the Premier of New South Wales clearly wants to breach it. What reason does Mr Lewis give for this proposed violent course of action? Last night on the television program ‘A Current Affair’, he said:

I want to do what is best for Australia . . . We think what is best for Australia is to give control to the State House, the Senate, to the Liberal-Country Party, or at least to the non-Labor group.

I would suggest that it is not up to Mr Lewis or any other politician to give control of the Australian Government to any house, any party or any group. In a democracy, that right rests with the Australian people. And the people have made their wishes known. They have done so clearly and legally in the election for the Senate in May last year. On that occasion, the Australian Labor Party candidates polled 200 000 first preference votes more than their LiberalCountry Party opponents. The Australian Labor

Party polled 50 per cent of the formal vote compared with 41.67 per cent for the LiberalCountry Party. Mr Lewis proposes to take it upon himself to give 60 per cent of the seats to the Liberal-Country Party that polled about 40 per cent of the vote, and give 40 per cent of the seats to the Labor Party that polled 50 per cent of the seats. It is surely not unreasonable to describe such an action as an outrage of democracy and a denial of the New South Wales voters’ democratic rights. This proposed constitutional vandalism demands that all democrats stand up and be counted.

Mr Killen, MP, has predictably been the first to stand up. He has said:

If in their anxiety for power, men lose sight of great principles they put at risk the safety of their institutions.

Mr Snedden, as one might expect, has responded less on principle. He has said:

The convention has served us very well. You never know when it might operate in reverse.

How true, Mr President. Mr Anthony has said that the convention is the proper and normal way of doing things, yet not surprisingly added that if the New South Wales Government appoints a non-Labor senator, he will accept it and support it. The count seems to be one standing, one stooping and one hiding. So far, opposition senators have remained seated. They have remained silent. Tonight the nation awaits their decision. Will they stand up to defend the convention, to defend the agreement between the States, to defend the democratic rights of the New South Wales voters? Or will they run for cover by seeking to adjourn this motion? Will they seek to remain silent on this great and historic question of principle by the device of moving an amendment which deliberately dodges the central issue?

Could Senator Wright be a party to such a trick? Could he permit a lifetime of dedicated and passionate support for constitutional conventions to be compromised by running for cover when faced with a question of prinicple? Could Senators Marriott, Drake-Brockman and Laucke fail but to support the convention which brought them to this place on the vote of Labor politicians in their State? Could any Australian doubt the obligation of these and all other senators to stand and be counted for the convention, for democracy itself?

Mr President, there can only be one explanation for this conspiracy of principle. It is the unremitting lust for power, so crudely displayed on repeated occasions during the last 2 years that has driven the losers on. A quick reading of the opinion poll shows that they are prepared to throw principle out the window and make a hasty grab for power. It was tried before and it failed. If tried again, it will fail again, and for the same reasons. So let there be no betrayal, let there be no compromise, let there be no abdication of the principle.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

- Mr President, I do not seek to move an adjournment of this debate. I hate to disappoint the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) but we are not afraid of this question. It was quite obvious from the speech of the Leader of the Government that this is not a matter of high moral principle about which he prated for some moments. It is nothing but a naked political vehicle by which the Commonwealth Government can again attack State governments. That is what this motion is all about.

Government supporters- Oh!

Senator WITHERS:

-Honourable senators opposite should not jump too early. They might be disappointed. Senator Wriedt was quite right; I do intend to move an amendment to his motion. He started quite rightly by saying that our system of government is under attack. Mr President, that is correct. It has been under attack since 2 December 1972 when the Whitlam Government came to power, a Government pledged to abolish the Senate, pledged to do everything possible to denigrate the States, to insult the Premiers and to bring about total centralism in Australia. That is the attack that the Australian system of government has been under and is it any wonder that there should be some reactions within the States? Why, even at Terrigal Mr Dunstan, the Labor Premier from South Australia, had to put the views of a State Labor Premier being eroded away and being attacked by this centralist Labor Government. The Leader of the Government in the Senate came in here under the guise of promoting a high Senate principle but this is nothing but a vehicle to attack Mr Lewis and the Liberal-Country Party of New South Wales. As for this rather phoney argument that the vacancy at present occurring was democratically filled by a million electors and their will must continue, who did those electors elect? They elected an individual, one Lionel Keith Murphy. That is who they elected.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They voted for a Labor ticket.

Senator WITHERS:

-Did Lionel Keith Murphy consult his one million electors and ask their permission to go to the High Court? Did he?

The Government is saying that the electors voted for a Labor ticket. Well, that is a denigration of democracy. I thought we were all elected as individual members of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. Merely because we may combine one with another to present ourselves to the people does not give substance to the Government’s argument that the Labor Party necessarily has a monopoly on that situation forever. As to this argument that the proportional system on a total election -

Senator Milliner:

– What does Mr Snedden say? Do you support him?

Senator WITHERS:

-Do not get excited; you might be disappointed. As to the argument that the proportional system must prevail throughout the term of those senators- basically that is the argument which the Government is putting- it is saying that if 5 senators are elected for a 6-year term, two from one group and three from another group, that proportion must remain for the totality of the 6 years.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Are not they elected for 6 years?

Senator WITHERS:

– That is your argument. Could I give my own case? As I recall it, in 1 96 1 Senator Paltridge and Senator Vincent were elected to this place. Unfortunately both died before the expiration of their term. Senator Sim and I were duly appointed and affirmed by our State Parliament to take their place. If the Labor Party is so wedded to the principle that we must not disturb the proportion at a normal election one would have thought that Senator Sim and 1 would not have been opposed at the next House of Representatives election. We were. Do not give too much credence to the proportional representation argument.

Senator Poyser:

– Do you agree with what your Leader said?

Senator WITHERS:

– 1 never knew whether Senator Poyser was a casual senator or a vacant senator or whether he was filling a casual vacancy. If we are to put an argument on the basis of proportional representation as the reason the practice- I prefer to call it a practice rather than a convention- ought to be observed, the Senate is failing in its duty because I believe that the practice ought to be followed irrespective of the method of voting used to elect a senator. Let us get that point straight to start with. The Labor Party is saying that the practice which has been followed since 1951, as I understand Mr Odgers’ book, should be followed for the sole reason that a person was elected by a proportional representation system of voting. As

I understand Mr Odgers’ book, there were many casual vacancies between 1901 and 1949 when the proportional representation system of voting was introduced. In the main, the practice which was followed by all State parliaments, as I understand it, was to appoint a senator from the same political Party. That practice ought to be promoted here tonight- not the practice hung around this phoney argument of proportional representation. I put that quite bluntly and quite clearly.

One of the major reasons why we must move an amendment to the motion which the Government has moved is that the first argument which the Government uses is a phoney argument, a false argument and an argument which is hung on proportional representation. I put to the Senate that that argument is not good enough. The argument ought to apply irrespective of the method of election which is used to elect senators. The second argument put by the Government is nothing more than an extension of the normal attacks of this centralist Government on the States.

Senator Keeffe:

– Why is this?

Senator WITHERS:

-I will tell you the reason it has happened since 1949. It has happened not because of proportional representation; it has happened from 1949 onwards because the Liberal-Country Party Government was in power in Canberra. I do not think any State government during that period ever felt that its rights, duties and obligations were at stake or were under attack. The States felt, in spite of the occasional arguments which arose and which will always arise between our colleagues in the States and the Federal Parliament, that they had no fear.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Are you being serious?

Senator WITHERS:

-I am, but there is no doubt that for the past 2 2 1/2 years all our colleagues in the State parliaments have felt that there has been a deliberate attack upon the States. Labor Party policy is to abolish this chamber; Labor Party policy is to abolish all State parliaments and State governments. We have had the continual denigration of our Premiers by the Prime Minister. He cannot even make a speech at a parliamentary function in this Parliament for distinguished overseas guests unless he has some snide side-swipe at what he is pleased to call the colonials or the provincial parliaments of this nation. I think it is a terrible thing to do. It might be all right to say those things in the heat of political debate, but I do not think it becomes a Prime Minister of Australia. He has gone out of his way to denigrate Premiers Conferences. He has done everything possible to give to the Premiers and the members of State parliaments the impression that this Government is out to destroy them. He has strangled them financially. He insults them each day. The whole legislative program which we have had since the Parliament assembled under a Labor Government in 1973 has been a continual attack on the powers of the States. If it had not been for the fact that for the most part we on this side have had a majority the States would be in real dire peril at the moment.

Senator Willesee:

– What has that to do with the motion?

Senator WITHERS:

-Without any doubt whatever, that has caused reservations in the minds of our colleagues in the State parliaments. They believe that perhaps there ought to be a change in the system which has operated since 1949. The Labor Party has brought the practice into doubt. It is the Labor Party’s fault and it must accept responsibility for it. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has brought this situation about. He has brought about the most wicked deterioration in Commonwealth-State relations in the history of the Commonwealth. All members of the Labor Party ought to be ashamed of themselves.

What is paragraph 3? It is nothing more than a device to attack the Premier and the Government of New South Wales. The motion states that the Senate views with the greatest concern reports. I heard the Deputy Leader of the Government in this place, Senator Willesee, in answer to a question by a colleague of mine today say that he, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, heard of a newspaper report but he did not intend to do anything about it. If he takes that attitude in relation to matters pertaining to his own portfolio, why does the Government get so excited now? Why did not it wait until New South Wales had acted before it did something? This paragraph is nothing but an attack on the Premier and his colleagues in New South Wales.

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Go ahead and support him. He needs your support.

Senator WITHERS:

- Mr Lewis does not need my support. He is well able to look after himself. If you like, he will take you to the polls any time, and he will take you to the cleaners. We on this side of the chamber remember very well the Prime Minister wandering around Queensland on one of his occasional visits to Australia saying that the Premier of Queensland was the stupidest

Premier in Australia. What did the Prime Minister’s Party get at the election? It got 36 per cent of the vote. That is what he got in return for his insults. This Government talks about conventions. Has it really forgotten the Gair affair? What was that? The Government believes in the rules and the decencies. The Government was angry then because the Premier of Queensland trumped the Government’s dirty trick. It is terrified now that the Premier of New South Wales may prevent its intentions from succeeding. If Mr Whitlam had spent a little more time thinking about the proper place of the Senate instead of attacking it continually and denigrating it he would not have got himself into the mess in which he is at the moment. We in the Opposition believe that there is a proper way of solving this problem. It can be done with dignity. It can be done for the sake of the Senate and of the Constitution. It can be done without introducing political partisan debate. I move:

That is the sort of motion which the Senate, if it had any concern for itself, would be talking about instead of using the present political crisis and the present dispute between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales as a political vehicle by which to attack the Premier and the Government of New South Wales. I have much pleasure in moving the amendment. I commend it to the Senate. It is the proper way of doing things.

Are we all the time to have the Senate manipulated by the Prime Minister to advance his ends, to attack State Premiers and to attempt to bring about the denigration of this place? That is what I am talking about. We on this side of the House are fighting for the Senate. We are not fighting to advance the mean political ends of the present Government. That is what the Government wants to do. I challenge honourable senators opposite to take up my amendment and support it because, if the Government is dinkum in what Senator Wriedt was proposing and is concerned that there be some proper dignity about the manner in which this matter is handled, it ought to be done my way. It should not be done by the device of trying to attack our State colleagues or taking mean political advantage of a situation. Let us look at what the situation ought to be. That is how we on this side of the chamber see the matter. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Despite the attempt by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) to camouflage his words, what he has said is that Premier Lewis, the Premier of New South Wales, is right in doing what he has threatened to do. In saying this he has joined those 2 great Australian democrats- Mr Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland, and Mr Anthony, the Leader of the Australian Country Party- as apparently the only ones outside the New South Wales Cabinet to support the proposed actions of Mr Lewis. A former Liberal Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, has said that Mr Lewis is mad in his threatened attempt to usurp democracy. Mr Killen, a member of the shadow ministry in the Snedden Opposition, has said that Mr Lewis is wrong. Mr Snedden himself says that he washes his hands of the matter, but apparently Senator Withers says that Mr Lewis is right because there has been an attack by the Australian Government on the States. ‘In his amendment he therefore suggests that the matter is the complete prerogative of the State Parliament.

I am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition, who came to the Senate under a system of proportional representation, stands here and acquiesces in Mr Lewis’s stand, because those of us who have been elected to this Parliament by the people of the States that we were chosen to represent have been elected because we are members of a political party, except perhaps Senator Townley, who was elected as an independent member of the Parliament but who became a member of the Liberal Party yesterday. All of the 14 who were first appointed to this Senate to fill casual vacancies- appointed by the various State parliaments, irrespective of the political shade of the Government of the Stateswere appointed because they were members of a political party. It is humbug for a senator to stand in this chamber and say that Mr Murphy was elected to the Parliament as an individual and not as a member of the Labor movement. He was elected in 1961 as the second candidate on the Labor ticket in New South Wales. He was elected .in 1967 as the second candidate on the Labor ticket in New South Wales, and he was elected again in 1974 by the people of New South Wales as the number one person on the Labor ticket. The Labor Party, led by Mr

Murphy, received some 200 000 votes over and above the Liberal and Country Party candidates.

Senator Greenwood:

– Why did he resign after 8 months when he was elected for 6 years? Is that fair to the people?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-He was elected to the Senate, but he was chosen by the Government to accept a judicial post and he accepted that judicial post, as other members of the present High Court of Australia did. If Senator Greenwood likes to name them he can do so because he knows a greater number of them than I do. Senator Murphy was elected as a member of the Labor movement. He was elected as the Leader of the Labor team in New South Wales at the last elections 8 months ago. I suggest that it is complete hypocrisy for anyone to say that the threatened act on the part of the New South Wales Government will not disturb the vote cast by the people of that State. Let me remind honourable senators that the Premier of New South Wales himself has not been elected by the people of New South Wales as Premier of New South Wales. He has been in office a mere 5 weeks. His tactics are not those of a Premier but, I say with great respect to him, rather the tactics of a bounty hunter.

Whilst the amendment proposed by Senator Withers is of a compromise nature- I am the first to admit that- at this stage I do not think it goes far enough. Of course the matter should be left with the States. It has of necessity under section 15 of the Constitution to be left with the States, but at the same time the forms and conventions that have existed over the years in the political life of this country, especially since 1949 when proportional representation for the Senate came into being, should be put into practice and maintained. We hear a lot from honourable senators opposite about strikes and stop work meetings on the part of members of the work force. What is threatened by the Premier of New South Wales is one of the greatest strikes against the parliamentary system that has ever been felt by this country. The whole principle of democracy and parliamentary representation is now under a threat.

Senator Greenwood:

– You did not think that before.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDSenator Greenwood has something to say. I will be quoting something he said in 1967 or 1968 at the time of the death of Senator McKellar, when the then New South Wales Government, the Askin Government, did not fill the late Senator

McKellar ‘s place in this Parliament for 4 or 5 months.

Senator Greenwood:

– Two months.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The vacancy was not filled from April until August, a period of about 4 months; it was more than 2 months. Practically every day Senator Greenwood was in this chamber wanting to know when the New South Wales Government, which was a government of his own political colour, was going to take action to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Senator McKellar, because the political stability of the parties in this House had been upset. We will come to that matter later.

The fact is that we in this country have a basic democratic system for electing members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives is elected by way of a preferential system and the members of the Senate, all 60 of us, are elected on the basis of proportional representation. The idea that a State government of itself should be able to nominate whomsoever it chooses cuts across the pattern established for the method of election of members to the Australian Senate. This Premier of 5 weeks, who himself has not faced the people as Premier of New South Wales in his own right, has decided to tear up the normal conventions and practices that have existed in this country for many years. The States voted and in New South Wales they voted to have half their representation from Labor senators. As I have said, at the last election in New South Wales the Labor movement secured a majority of votes over and above the Liberal-Country Party candidates in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and it is only 7 months ago that the people of New South Wales expressed that point of view.

The principle that is now being enunicated by Mr Lewis is worse than Rafferty’s rules, frankly. It seems to be more a case of ‘Lewis’s Laws’. Senator Withers talked about the threatened attack by the Australian Government on the rights of the States and said that this was a defensive action by the New South Wales Government against the things that the Australian Government is allegedly doing to the States, but what was it that Mr Lewis had to say yesterday? He said:

It looks firm we will not be appointing a Labor candidate. I have not been in contact with Mr Snedden or anybody else other than my colleagues - that is, his colleagues in the New South Wales Cabinet- but Mr Snedden merely said it was a matter for New South Wales - and that is virtually the tenor of the amendment moved by Senator Withers- and he was of the opinion that previous precedent should be observed.

Mr Snedden was of the opinion that previous precedent should be observed, and all that the Opposition is doing here in its amendment is mouthing a few cliches. Mr Lewis went on to say:

I am very conscious of the wishes of the people.

Despite the fact that a mere 7 months before the people of New South Wales by their votes had elected Mr Murphy and other Labor candidates to this Senate, Mr Lewis is now cutting across the expressed wish of the people of New South Wales and determining to rip up that convention and that vote. He continued:

We feel at the moment that the State should be repesented by a Liberal or Country Party candidate rather than Labor.

The New South Wales Premier and his Cabinet colleagues- not the people of New South Wales but the New South Wales Premier and his Cabinet colleagues- feel that the State should be represented by a Liberal or Country Party senator rather than by a Labor Party senator. I can understand Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Mr Anthony wanting Mr Lewis to take this action because I dare say that if he did take such action then the next person to be elected would probably be a member of the Country Party, in view of the fact that the last candidate on the ticket who was not elected at the 1974 elections was a member of the Country Party.

This type of action is caught up with in time. A very dangerous precedent is being established by the move now contemplated in New South Wales. As I say, this kind of attitude is caught up with in time. There is always a backlash and there is always a backwash. In the meantime, the whole of this great nation is thrown into political turmoil, at a time when what the country needs more than anything is some sort of stability in its political life. I suggest that this move now contemplated by the Premier of New South Wales can only undermine all future moves for stability at a national level. It issomewnat akin to turning the country into a banana republic.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– That is what it is too.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDSenator Sir Magnus Cormack says that that is what it is. We had an election in 1972; the Government was elected with a 3-year mandate. About twelve months ago in 1974 the Opposition refused the Government supply and took the Parliament and the Government to the people again. The people again gave us a mandate in the House of Representatives. But now you are threatening the people with another election. There are more elections in this nation in a year as a result of the political activities of, and frustration by, the Opposition than there are feeds for a worker in a day.

Senator Webster:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. I would like to correct the Minister.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is your point of order

Senator Webster:

– The Minister made an untruthful statement and I should like the Minister to correct that statement. The Minister said that this Senate refused supply and the Minister knows quite well that that is untruthful. I ask him to correct the statement.

Senator McAuliffe:

- Mr President, earlier this evening you ruled that a point of order was out of order because the mover did not quote to you the number of the Standing Order under which he was taking the point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I expected Senator Webster, with his knowledge of -

Senator McAuliffe:

- Senator Webster is the Chairman of Committees and should know better.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Because there was no specific selection of the Standing Order I disregard Senator Webster’s point of order. Senator McClelland, will you continue?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As I was saying, we had an election in 1972 and a new government came in. The Labor Government was elected. I will correct what I said. What happened was that the Opposition said that it would give the Government Supply if it held an election. You literally held a gun at the head of the Government and threatened us with blackmail, as it were, and said: ‘If you don’t hold an election we will refuse the people Supply’. That is what the Opposition did in 1974 and that is what it is going to threaten to do and probably will do in 1975, merely because of these tactics that are being adopted now by a Premier who has not been elected as Premier in his own right and who is trying to lay down the ground rules for election to this Parliament.

Senator Greenwood interjected earlier in reply to something that I had said. On 17 June 1970, Senator Greenwood, Queen’s Counsel, expressed concern at the delay that had taken place in the filling of the vacancy caused by the death of

Senator McKellar and quoted Quick and Garran as follows: lt is a principle of the Constitution that the representation of States in the Senate should be maintained, as far as possible, with unbroken continuity, and that no State should be, for any time longer than absolutely necessary, short of its representation and consequently - and I underline these few words to follow- deficient in its political strength in the Council of States.

That was a statement quoted by Senator Greenwood, who had been raising here for some 4 months the question of the appointment of a person to replace the late Senator McKellar. Then there was the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, of which Senator Wright was a member, which brought down a report in 1959. At paragraph 60 of Appendix C, the 1958 report states:

The Committee wishes to record, however, that although its members belong to different political parties, all were strongly of the view that the principle referred to in the last preceding paragraph should be observed without exception.

The previous paragraph states:

The Committee desired to recommend a constitutional amendment whereby, if the senator for a State whose place has become vacant was a member of a political party, the Parliament of the State or the Governor of the State should be required, in filling the vacancy, to choose a person who was a member of the same political party as the vacating senator. The Committee was, however, unable to find a form of amendment which would satisfactorily express the objective it had in mind.

Then a former leader of a Liberal Government in the Senate in the days when Sir Robert Menzies was the Prime Minister of this country, a man who had a very distinguished political career in Australia, a man who was held in great respect by honourable senators from all political parties and one who, when I first entered this Parliament in 1962, was held in a certain amount of awe- Senator Sir William Spooner- on 1 1 October 1 962 at page 760 of Hansard stated: 1 hold the view very firmly that when there is a casual vacancy in the Senate, by tradition and usage it should be tilled by the appointment of a person holding the same political views as were held by the senator whose place is being filled. I take a great deal of comfort from the fact that, since the commencement of proportional representation in 1949, every casual vacancy has been filled by the State Parliament concerned by the selection of a member of the same political party as the previous holder of the seat.

In this instance there is an attempt by a Premier of a State government which was elected when he was not the Premier to usurp the power of the ballot box and of the people of his State. He has taken upon himself the power of numbers in this Senate and thus could force a national election on the people and on the Australian Government. He will override the wishes of the majority of Australians and even those within his own party. I believe that the proposed actions to be taken by the Premier of New South Wales, apparently supported by a majority of the New South Wales Cabinet are to be abhorred by this Parliament. I believe that the principle of proportional representation should be adhered to and adopted by this Senate. Therefore I urge adoption of the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– It appears that in this important discussion which is before us tonight there is creeping in a little more than what one might describe as calmness. I stand here tonight to support the amendment which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) has moved. Before continuing I shall refer briefly to the amendment. It states:

Leave out all words after ‘( I ) The Senate is of the opinion that’, insert- the choice of a Senator to fill a casual vacancy is by section IS of the Constitution the sole responsibility of the Houses of Parliament of the State, or if the Houses of Parliament of the State are not in session, of the Governor of the State acting upon the advice of his Executive Council: and

The Senate commends to the Parliaments of all the States the practice which has prevailed since 1949 whereby the States, when casual vacancies have occurred, have chosen a Senator from the same political party as the Senator who died or resigned. ‘

I recall the Senate’s attention to the words of this amendment because it rather surprises me that the Government does not approve it. Surely the amendment contains what must be the attitude of the total Senate in this circumstance. Surely anything beyond the contents of the amendment lies in the province of the State parliaments concerned. I make that point right at the beginning of the few words which 1 propose to say. I further indicate that the whole exercise in which we arc involved tonight must surely be looked at in reality as being somewhat premature. It is premature because we are in fact talking about attitudes indicated by the Premier of a State and by the Cabinet of that State. But we are ignoring the most important fact of all. Whatever is the judgment of that State can be revealed ultimately only by the total opinion of the Parliament of that State. Consequently, at this stage we are getting worked up over a situation which, to this point, is hypothetical. The Houses of the State Parliament have not met. No decision has been made. Whether the State involved is New South Wales or any other State, at this stage our action must be viewed as at least premature.

Senator Keeffe:

– The honourable senator is saying that the New South Wales Government does not know what it is doing.

Senator SCOTT:

-I do not say that at all. I am saying that the body properly constituted to solve this problem is the New South Wales Parliament. That is all I am saying.

Senator Keeffe:

– That means the honourable senator repudiates the New South Wales Premier.

Senator SCOTT:

-A11 I am saying is that the New South Wales Parliament is the proper and only body which can solve this situation. I make the point that I am one who believes in the method of the election of the Senate. I believe that it has served this Parliament and the people of this country well over a very long period. I am equally convinced of the great urgency of the mission which the Senate has to perform in the Australian parliamentary scene. The Senate, particularly since 1949, has been a very finely balanced House. It has an immensely important job to perform. The performance of its work does not only involve the field of committee work and a review of legislation- immensely important though those areas be- but perhaps the major work of this Senate is as a representative body of the States in the Federal field. It is in fact a States House. Because it has this immensely tremendous responsibility I believe it is important that the Senate does not concern itself with or judge whatever may be the choice of the Parliaments of the States. I think that is simple, basic and fundamental to the whole issue.

It really surprises me that the Government does not agree that this is the essential and basic character of the Senate and of the method of electing it. But more than that, it occurs to me that if the Premier and a significant part of the Government of New South Wales or, indeed, of any other State thinks that an unusual practice should perhaps be considered in filling a vacancy in the Senate that suggests to me- as I believe in honesty it would suggest to all people- that there must be an unusual and exceptional circumstance around what has arisen in the last few days. There must be an unusual reason to create the possibility of this sort of departure from what has been common practice over many years. I do not believe that we have to search very far to find -

Senator McLaren:

– Of course, we do not.

Senator SCOTT:

– No, we do not have to search far to find where there is this extraordinary difference which brings about this sort of circumstance. I suggest that it is found basically in the widespread area of disconcertedness that covers the Australian community today. I suggest that in the Parliament of New South Wales, among the people of New South Wales and among the people of the Commonwealth there is a very great sense of anxiety. In that circumstance, particularly from the point of view of the State governments in this country, surely the Senate is the only braking force that those governments have in the constitutional set up. When desperate action is suggested or mooted, and that is all that has happened to this point, one must logically look around for the cause. 1 am suggesting that there is in this country today a feeling of very great stress and concern. The Constitution has served this country well and hopefully will serve it well for many decades to come. But it would not be the first time that unusual practices have occurred. For instance, the changing of the name of the Federal government to the Australian Government. Is there a constitutional backing for that sort of thing or is this just the changing of a practice? It has happened.

Senator McLaren:

– Are you ashamed of the name ‘Australian’?

Senator SCOTT:

– I am not saying whether I am ashamed or not. I am proud to be an Australian. What I am asking is whether this is not a case of going around and changing a convention or practice or the coinage or the attitude in many cases to local government or the area of road finance. There are 101 areas in which there is creeping into this country a totally different attitude of the Federal Government. These are changes of circumstances, changes of attitude, which are not being worried over by the Government but are being implemented by the Government. Now when there seems to be a possibility of a change of stance in one of the States there is an enormous concern and an enormous fervour. These sorts of things are happening and being brought about by this Government on many occasions and in many fields.

I want to make the point that the greatest enemy, the greatest problem perhaps in this country today is lack of confidence and one of the things which brings about that lack of confidence is the fact that we find so many younger people in particular who are unemployed and receiving benefits. Yet they remain the sole judge of whether they should be employed or not. This is one of the basic things that must create in the total community great concern leading to a distinct loss of confidence. There is this extreme sense of frustration across the Australian community. There is a destruction of confidence and I do not believe that that sort of confidence has been helped in any way by the addition to the High Court by this Government of Mr Murphy, for in doing this has the Government not in fact sent one of its members not only to the High Court but to the High Court to sit in judgment over problems of legislation which he has virtually fostered and promoted in the Government? I do not believe that that is the sort of thing that creates confidence. There has to be in this country an enormous respect for the law. This is basic to our institution and basic to our survival.

Senator McLaren:

– Oh!

Senator SCOTT:

- Senator McLaren may not think that is necessary but most Australians believe that respect for the law, its institutions and its personnel is basic to the survival of democracy and freedom in this country. These are some of the things that are worrying the Australian people. If this is to come about, if we are to lose respect for the law and if we are to lose respect for its institutions and personnel then a free society is doomed and confidence has gone.

We should perhaps look very briefly at the 2 years preceding this particular circumstance here tonight. They have been marked by the great threat to the sovereign powers, the States and local government. There is an enormous threat and this is basic to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. There is a basic threat to the capacity of this Government to leave a very real measure of responsibility in respect of priorities and attitudes to the people who are on the spot. Government is tending more and more to be taken away from the people who should really know the priorities, the attitudes and needs of their society. This is one of the worries that brings about this sort of situation. There is no confidence in a country in which inflation runs at the sort of level that it runs in Australia, where it is twice as high as it is in America, where unemployment is higher than it has been in 40 years. These are circumstances which have not been imported. They are circumstances that have grown and been nurtured by the very manner of economic management or mismanagement that this country has been subjected to in the past 2 years plus.

When the Government came to office originally it started within very few months to tear away a large measure of legislation that, regardless of what is said in some quarters, has built a mighty stable institution in a relatively stable world. The Government started to tear away at measures in the form of tax deductions and incentives in respect of so many things, such as soil and water conservation, fodder conservation, fencing, investment allowances, superphosphate bounties, petrol equalisation. These are the things -

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– 1 rise to order. I invite your attention, Mr Acting Deputy President, to standing order 42 1. The subject matter before the Senate this evening is the general question of the filling of the casual vacancy and all matters germane to the motion and the amendment. I appreciate that it is a fairly wide ranging debate but I am sure that Senator Scott is prepared to concede that he is in fact reviving much of the subject matter of the debate that took place earlier today on another subject matter. I believe the continued irrelevance is out of order and cannot be linked with the subject matter of the debate this evening. Therefore I ask you to rule accordingly.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- As a matter of fact 1 have had some difficulty on this point. I was wondering whether the remarks which have been made by Senator Scott had a relevance to the matter before the Chair. In a debate of this kind there ought to be a measure of latitude accorded to honourable senators on both sides of the chamber to develop fully the arguments that they are putting to the Senate. I have taken some pains to follow very closely the comments made by Senator Scott. I must say that I have had some difficulty in relating the comments which he has been making to the matter now before the Chair. I said earlier that there ought to be at least some latitude for honourable senators to develop their themes. Nevertheless, the comments that are made ought to have a revelance to the motion and the amendment that are being debated. 1 trust that Senator Scott will indicate shortly to the Senate that the comments he has been making in fact do have a direct relevance to the matter before the Chair.

Senator SCOTT:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I regret it if I have moved away from what is regarded as relevant to the debate. In concluding my remarks, I want to bring to the notice of the Senate the fact that I have been attempting to develop a situation and relate it back to the extraordinary circumstances of the matter that is under discussion today. 1 have been trying to relate to this Senate and to build up a picture of the circumstances that exist in this country which are unusual. There are circumstances of high inflation and high unemployment, of lack of productivity and of not knowing where we are going. I have been trying to suggest to the Senate that these are the sort of extreme pressures that have been the cause of the actions that have been mooted in the case of the New

South Wales Government. This was basic to the logic of my thoughts as I moved through my speech and referred to certain things that have been happening over the past 2 years of the performance of this Government, ft is my purpose by disclosing the anxieties and the concerns that are so widely recognised throughout this community to show that there is a set of circumstances existing today which could be conducive to the sort of actions that have been and are being mooted by one of the Australian State parliaments.

This sort of uncertainty and anxiety that unquestionably has brought about the unusual approach. This sort of anxiety is added to by the fact that as policies are reversed, they are reversed for a short time or for an indefinite time. But ideologies do not change and consequently throughout the community there is anxiety and uncertainty that has led the New South Parliament into this circumstance, and who knows what other State parliament in some future circumstance, to consider taking what are admittedly unusual steps. I once again state my support for the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition which I believe is so complete and which I believe is all that is really necessary for this Senate to note in the circumstances in which it finds itself today.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think that there is some significance in the fact that both of the speakers in this debate from the Opposition side so far have been members of Parliament who have been selected by their States in accordance with the tradition which we seek to uphold, namely, to fill Senate vacancies caused by members of their own party. In order to underline the extent to which this tradition has taken hold in this country 1 would like briefly to remind honourable senators that senators in the same category in this chamber are as follows: Senator DrakeBrockman was appointed in 1958, Senator Davidson in 1961, Senator Sim in 1964, Senator Webster in 1964 and Senator Cotton in 1965. Senator Withers, the eloquent apologist but not defender of Mr Lewis, was appointed in this way in 1966. Senator Poyser was appointed in 1 966; that excellent appointment was a tribute to the judgment of the legislature of his State. Senator Laucke was appointed in 1967 and the egrerious Senator Greenwood in 1968. Senator Brown was appointed in 1 970, as was the honourable senator who has just resumed his seat, and nearly last but I hope not least, myself in 1971. I might remark that the predecessor of the present rather aggressive, rather brash new Premier of New South Wales, Sir Robert Askin, who estimated himself to be just as tough a fighter as Mr Lewis baulked at the proposition that he should reject precedents so brashly as to decline to appoint me. Last, and by no means least Senator Bonner, who I am sorry is not in the Senate chamber at this moment, was appointed in this way.

It may seem odd that a radical social democrat party such as ours should appeal so unashamedly to the precedent. But I would have thought that Senator Withers, whose amendment I find very attractive, could have gone the whole hog and condemned rather more straightforwardly the admitted departure from precedent that we have seen from this brash neophyte, Mr Lewis- he is known in the State Parliament, by the way, as the bull-roarer from Bowral- is a man who shoots from the hip, gets brainstorms and then thinks later or gets leaned on later by the very hard-headed members of his own Party. I think that the contrast between Mr Lewis and Senator Withers could not be more wide. Senator Withers -

Senator Jessop:

– What do you call Mr Whitlam? The terror of Terrigal?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 will accept suggestions. I have heard even harsher things than that said about him. I do not think there can be a greater contrast between the political style of Mr Lewis and the political style of Senator Withers whose judgment and wiliness 1 have come to respect in the time I have been here. I would think that a man like Senator Withers would be horrified at such a proposition. 1 think that we see a fair illustration of this tonight. He would be horrified to read that this wild boy from the bush, Mr Lewis, thinks that he should tear up the rules and do what he has been suggesting over the last few days that he was going to do. I am sure that Senator Withers and the more hard-headed people in his Party would have contemplated the possible consequences of the course of action which Mr Lewis seeks to set in train.

Honourable senators opposite, 1 ask you to contemplate this set of circumstances: Imagine, and from what I have heard from you lately it does not take much imagining, that the electors of this country should go so crazy as to re-elect a Liberal government. I ask honourable senators to envisage the situation of a Liberal Government in this country and a Liberal majority in this chamber of, say, 31 senators to 29 senators; in other words a possibility, given some sort of rationality in policy, of a stable government in this country- just a possibility. I ask honourable senators to not forget I am speaking hypothetically. Nonetheless I think honourable senators will concede that, if we have a government in the House of Representatives of the same complexion as the party with the majority in the Senate there is a possibility that that government, no matter how mistaken its philosophy, could give some sort of stable government to this country.

I ask honourable senators to stretch their imagination so far as to imagine again in this country the misfortune of a Liberal-Country Party government. I say to Senator DrakeBrockman that it is impossible that there would be a dog without a tail. I ask honourable senators to imagine a Liberal-Country Party government and in this chamber a majority for the government of 3 1 senators to 29 senators. Imagine some sort of a catastrophe, such as a Liberal senator from Tasmania falling over in the street and being bitten by a dog with rabies and perishing, and a senator from South Australia having the misfortune to die of old age or of the manifold misfortunes that beset the human species. I hasten to add that I am not pointing the bone at anybody. The vicissitudes of life are such that one can imagine that all of a sudden we could have a shortage of Liberal senators from Tasmania and a shortage of Liberal senators from South Australia. Honourable gentlemen like Mr Reece in Tasmania and Mr Dunstan in South Australia might be called upon to exercise the sort of judgment that is being exercised by Mr Lewis in New South Wales at this moment. If they were to decide in the light of the damaging precedent that had been set by the brash Mr Lewis that Bob’s your uncle, the rule book has been torn up, they could go in for the politics of the gutter and replace these unfortunate senators from Tasmania and South Australia with Labor senators.

We would then have a situation that across Kings Hall we might have a Liberal-Country Party government that had been elected a year ago, 2 years ago or even for the gestation period of 9 months, which is somehow said to be damaging to us because Senator Murphy was elected only 9 months ago, and in the Senate there was an adventitious majority for the wicked socialists of 3 1 senators to 29 senators. The wicked socialists, taking a leaf out of the book of their opponents, the devoted protagonists of democracy who saved Australia from the wicked socialists by refusing Supply, say: ‘Well, that goes for us too. We also will refuse Supply’. If that happened the democratically elected Liberal government would be thrown out by the sheer accident and unprincipled conduct of the Labor governments in South Australia and Tasmania and democracy would be denied. I suggest that those are the things that are exercising the minds of shrewd, wily people like the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and I would think most of the sensible people in the Liberal and Country Parties throughout Australia.

I predict- of course all predictions are dangerousthat the bull-roarer from Bowral in the next 24 or 36 hours will be told by the harder headed people in his party that he just cannot go ahead with that silly sort of project and that he had better pull his head in. We will find that he has taken constitutional advice and, much against his will, he has decided, even though it would have been better for the people pf Australia if he had proceeded to put somebody from his party or the Country Party into the Senate, all things considered that he will not go ahead with his proposal. Nothing is certain in this life. Maybe he is, as Mr Gorton suggested, off his head. Maybe he will not listen to advice. Maybe we will get somebody in defiance of precedent in this Parliament, but I predict- I would even be prepared to bet- that Mr Lewis will not go on with this proposition. I find a sort of attractive illogicality to the argument that has been put by Senator Withers tonight. What he says in effect is that Lewis is wrong but you, meaning us, drove him mad so you cannot really blame him for being wrong.

Senator Laucke:

– I take a point of order. I refer to standing order 4 1 8 which states:

No Senator shall use offensive words against cither House of Parliament or any Member of such House -

The persistent references by Senator James McClelland to the Premier of New South Wales have been such as to be offensive. 1 think they should be withdrawn.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 should not like to go too far in repeating the comment about Mr Lewis that was made by Mr Gorton if that offends Senator Laucke.

Senator Marriott:

– He did not make it in the House. You know that.

Senator McLaren:

– What about the comment concerning the Prime Minister a while ago? You did not object to that.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- Senator McLaren I call for order and I ask you to respect my call. Senator Marriott, I call for order and I asked you to respect my call. I have been asked to rule on a point of order on whether offensive words or offensive expressions have been used. 1 think that we would be canvassing the argument a little to accept that they were in fact offensive words, but apparently they do offend Senator Laucke. Senator James McClelland, I suggest that perhaps you desist from using those expressions.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, I am sorry if I have offended a gentleman like Senator Laucke whom I respect greatly. I should like to point out that I was not really categorising Mr Lewis as mad; I was really quoting an opinion that had been expressed about him by one of his own Party.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTPerhaps we should not pursue that line.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will content myself with using a more neutral term such as odd.

Senator Wright:

– I take a point of order. I forebore for quite a space of time when the Minister was referring I think in most abusive and offensive terms on several occasions not merely to a member of the New South Wales Parliament but to the Premier. To go on and to use substitutes insinuating, bearing the same innuendo, is, I think, a detraction from the level of the Senate and really a detraction from the spirit of your ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President.

Senator Keeffe:

– I want to take a point of order on the honourable senator who is taking a point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I will hear the point of order that is at present being put.

Senator Wright:

– Having regard to what has transpired in this debate I would think that it is much better in the interests of the Senate that the spirit of your ruling be observed and courtesy, in terms of criticism, be extended to any member of the New South Wales Parliament who has the duty relevant to this debate.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, before you rule on that point of order I point out that Senator Wright did not quote the standing order under which he has raised his point of order. I suppose that I could clarify that for the honourable senator but I suggest in all sincerity that if he has failed to clarify properly a point of order the point of order cannot be upheld.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I suggest to the Senate that we have allowed a certain amount of latitude in the course of this debate. Perhaps I might have intervened earlier. I did not because honourable senators had accepted the spirit of the debate and the manner in which it had proceeded up to that stage. It has proceeded in a reasonable spirit I suggest up to this point, and perhaps we can pursue it in that same spirit. I do not see anything offensive in the use of the word ‘odd ‘. It does not appear to me to be an offensive expression but I suggest to Senator James McClelland that we try to preserve the spirit in which the debate has proceeded to this stage.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Acting Deputy President, in accordance with the spirit which you are quite properly seeking to maintain in this debate and in accordance with the standards of temperance of language which have characterised all contributions in this place by Senator Wright, I would be prepared to be a little more bland and to replace the word ‘odd’ with the word ‘strange’. I await an objection to that word. I will now pass from the subject of Mr Lewis, whose name I think has been sufficiently bandied about in this place. I suggest that he has rated an importance which hardly belongs to him. The last reference I would like to make to Mr Lewis is to quote another distinguished Australian, the Premier of South Australia, who has suggested that what we have had from Mr Lewis in the last couple of days is an example of hillbilly politics. I will leave the matter there and let Mr Lewis rest in the Gunns Gully where he belongs.

I would like to advert finally to a suggestion from Senator Scott reflecting on the propriety of Mr Justice Murphy sitting in judgment on his own legislation. I would like to refer him to a learned authority in these matters, Professor Sawer of the Australian National University.

Senator Wright:

– I beg your pardon.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Despite the dissenting judgment from ‘Mr Justice’ Wright, Professor Sawer has suggested that an appropriate mix in the highest court of this country is, say, 4 technical lawyers- what the lawyers refer to as lawyers’ lawyers- and 3 lawyers who have had political experience. In this he is supported by Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick who himself was a distinguished practitioner of the political arts, who went on to high office in the High Court and who has said on more than one occasion that political experience, far from disqualifying a lawyer from the exercise of his judicial functions, adds spice and flavour to his consideration of the problems that come before him. I would remind honourable senators that there is abundant precedent for the appointment of distinguished politicians to the judiciary.I say this without any malice and not with tongue in cheek. Distinguished practitioners of the political art who have come from this place include Chief

Justice Latham; Mr Justice Spicer, whom I consider to have been a conspicuous success in the Australian Industrial Court and who, I might say, many people from the trade unions and from the other side of the political fence concede to have been a just, impartial and sensible judge; and of course more recently, Mr Justice Bowen who went to the Appeals Court of New South Wales only 3 months after having been reelected to this Parliament. These gentlemen, I think, illustrate the fact that courts are not diminished in any way by having added to their numbers men who have had distinguished careers iri this Parliament.

Those of us who knew Mr Justice Murphy- I suggest that includes most honourable senators opposite- will have no doubt that he will be a distinguished, fair and impartial judge. The fact that he has been in the hurly burly of politics will in no way diminish his capacity to fulfil his role in the way that I believe most of the learned judges of the High Court have fulfilled their duties. I believe that the antics that we have seen from Mr Lewis- I am glad to say not supported by Senator Withers- over recent days have been an extravagant reaction to the controversy which has surrounded the rather flamboyant, ebullient character who refreshed us all and who adorned this chamber for many years. We on this side, and I am sure in their hearts most honourable senators on the other side, wish Mr Justice Murphy well and in our hearts believe that he will be a fine judge as he was a fine politician.

Senator Wright:

– Are you supporting the amendment?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As might be inferred from what I have said, we on this side regard Senator Withers’ amendment as a worthy one and we are prepared to accept it.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I indicate that I, too, accept the amendment. I am delighted to hear from the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) that the Government has recognised the wording of the amendment as being more suited to the occasion than the motion that was moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) earlier this evening. The reason why the amendment which was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) is more acceptable to honourable senators is that its wording was carefully framed by the members of the Senate bearing in mind our relationship with one another and the respect that we hold for the position of one another in this place.

I ask honourable senators to contrast the amendment with the motion which was moved by the Government and which obviously was written in another place without an understanding of the sensitivities of the Senate and our relationships with one another.

I believe the words that were chosen by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry when he was addressing the Senate were unfortunate in some respects. I accept his attitude to the amendment. I accept many of the things that he has said. But I regret that he chose the manner thai he did to refer to the Premier of New South Wales. It is understandable that we on this side of the chamber have a respect for the Premier of that State of Australia, but surely as parliamentarians we all have a respect for any elected member of any House of Parliament in this country. I think it was regrettable to hear the way in which the Minister dealt with the personality, location or other attributes of the Premier. I do not accept his remarks lightly and I believe that reference should be made to his comments. The Minister instanced 2 States in which he said there could be a reverse situation from the one which confronts the Senate this evening. He instanced South Australia and Tasmania where vacancies could be filled by governments in those States. I remind him, as I have done on many other occasions, that to appoint a senator one must have a majority of members of both Houses in a State parliament. I put to him the proposition that such situations would not necessarily be as he related them. He oversimplified the situation in those 2 States.

Another matter to which the Minister referred was the proposition that a future double dissolution could be caused if we were sitting on the Government side of the Senate. I remind him that on the most recent occasion that we ventured into a double dissolution the people of this country entrusted us with a majority in both Houses of Parliament to allow us to get on with the business of governing. They did not place upon us the sanctions which were placed on this Government at the double dissolution of last year. This is why I think it is so important to put into context the election of the senators of Australia. We are an elected house of Parliament and we have constitutional rights and responsibilities. Because we have been elected we are able to function and accept the constitutional responsibilities. But there is a complete misunderstanding by the Government of what those responsibilities are. It does not accept and has not yet understood that if a Bill is to be passed through the Australian Parliament it must be passed through both Houses of Parliament. This is why it is so mystified that the actions of the Senate have resulted in some of its legislation being amended and some of it not being passed. Honourable senators opposite have been stressing that they are elected members of the Australian Senate. I remind them that the election last May did return a number of senators who in a particular sense are capable of exercising constitutional responsibility.

I want to make a personal comment on this present situation. I accept the words of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. They state fairly the situation as we see it as senators sitting on this side of the House. We accept that there is a constitutional requirement in regard to the filling of a casual vacancy. We do not selectively accept the Australian Constitution; we accept it in its entirety. That is why it is to be regretted that the morning paper in my State is able to print a headline containing the word ‘sabotage’ and represent it as having been used by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) against the Premier of New South Wales. The comment quoted from the Prime Minister’s remarks that this was an act of sabotage against the Senate, an act of sabotage against the clear will of the people of New South Wales and an act of sabotage against the Constitution. I wish that the Prime Minister was not selective in his indignation about breaches of the Australian Constitution. The situation surrounding the filling of this Senate vacancy is a reflection of the attitude of the people in the State of New South Wales and in every other State in this country, including the 2 States which have Labor Party Governments, that the Constitution has not been upheld by this Government since 1972 and that every means to circumvent it have been invoked by this Government. For a Prime Minister to now talk about upholding the Constitution is something that should be placed at his feet. His indignation should not be selective.

Senator McLaren:

– In which way has the Government broken the Constitution?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-In every way that this Government has been able to devise means to circumvent the Constitution in regard to State responsibilities it has done so.

Senator McLaren:

– Which part of the Constitution? Name it. You have just made an overall statement.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

- Senator, could I say to you -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- Order! Senator, please address the chair.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, various Acts passed through this Parliament are now residing in the High Court of Australia under challenge by the States of Australia because those Acts were devised by the Commonwealth Government to circumvent what have been the accepted and traditional roles of State Governments in the exercise of their elected responsibilities.

Senator McLaren:

– You would be well advised to await the decision of the High Court before making that accusation.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am stating the facts as they exist at the present time. I am stating that this is the attitude of the present Commonwealth Government with regard to the States of Australia. I am suggesting that the present situation is evidence of the reaction of a State Government when it has an opportunity to use its Constitutional power under section 15 of the Constitution to show its displeasure.

I believe that part 2 of the Opposition’s amendment is consistent with the attitude I hold. It commends to the Parliaments of all the States the practice which has prevailed since 1949 whereby when casual vacancies have occurred in the Senate the States have chosen a senator from the same political party as the senator who died or resigned. I believe that much thought has been given to the filling of casual vacancies in this Senate not only in order to preserve the balance of the representatives from the various States of Australia but also to keep in mind the spirit of the Australian Constitution and the system under which we are elected. It is of interest to note the views expressed by. the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in 1958 about the filling of vacancies. It is of interest to note that it was suggested that it might be possible for the States to make a compact that when the place of a senator for a State became vacant and that senator was a member of a political party the State Parliament or the State Government be required when filling the vacancy to choose someone who was a member of the same political party as the vacating senator. The Committee said that this was a matter which might well be considered at a Premiers’ Conference. I wonder whether later this week it might be appropriate to consider it at the Premiers’ Conference. Perhaps such an attitude could be adopted. Perhaps many other attitudes in regard to the relationships of the States and the Federal Government might be adopted at the forthcoming Premiers’ Conference. To talk of sabotage of the Australian Constitution, as the Prime Minister has done, only emphasises the attitude which this Government has had to the various Australian States.

I have no difficulty in accepting the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition in this place. I was delighted to hear that members of the Government party also were able to accept it. I believe that they see written into those words the spirit of the Senate itself as a corporate body, its relationship with the States and its acceptance that under the Australian Constitution there is a means and a requirement for the filling of a casual vacancy in this place. I commend the amendment and am delighted to think that it will have the unanimous support of members of the Senate.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I would have preferred to think that the motion would be passed in the form in which it was presented to the House. It is obvious now that the amendment will be accepted. At least we will have an expression from the Senate, in part, that there ought to be an observance by the New South Wales Government of the convention which has been adhered to since the proportional representation system for the election of the Senate originated in 1949. Referring to the general tone of the contributions to the debate from this side of the House, I had always thought before I became too closely associated with some aspects of the non-Labor Parties in Australia that our side of politics was a little better than the other. I had always thought that we had some ideals that we could present to the public and which would appeal more than those of others. Yet I found tonight that the Leader of the Opposition in this place (Senator Withers) justified his tacit defence of the Premier of New South Wales by saying that his actions were no worse than the actions of the Labor Party. In the process of putting his argument and his deductions he went on to say that because the Labor Party had done things which in his opinion were distasteful, so others ought to be excused for doing things which were distasteful.

Senator Missen:

– He did not say that.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-He did say it and an examination of Hansard tomorrow will show it. If the Leader of the Opposition were in the commercial world he would be subject to some restrictions of the law for presenting an argument as fallacious as he presented here tonight.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Under the Trade Practices Act.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-He could not stand the Trade Practices Act being applied in the commercial sense to his presentation of argument because he said that one bad action justified another. I was rather incredulous when I found that that thought had crept into Senator Guilfoyle’s argument, the honourable senator who just resumed her seat. She talked about a necessary respect for the Premier of New South Wales. Respect for a Premier is not automatic, lt has to be earned. So far the Premier of New South Wales has not earned it. As a spectator I was willing to be somewhat charitable about one remarkable statement he made in Melbourne soon after his election as Premier of New South Wales. I understand that he said: ‘One vote one value is’- expletive deleted- ‘nonsense’. I thought that his attitude in supporting the Queensland attack on one vote one value as a principle of justice in the Australian community was something that could be excused as a new Premier’s enthusiasm. But now we have this second attack on the general conception of democracy in Australia. He will have to take further action . . .

Senator Wright:

– Are you suggesting one vote one value has a place in the Senate?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– . . . in other directions, Senator Wright, to earn the respect of Australians. It is not good enough for honourable senators on this side of the House or the Premier of New South Wales to argue political points in justification of the avoidance of the responsibility of adhering to a political convention of such great value. The greatest part of the arguments from honourable senators on this side of the House tonight have been entirely party political. They related to party policies and attitudes and were used to excuse a Premier who would attack the system. This was another demonstration by people who cannot discern the difference between a political discussion and a retention of a system which enables that discussion to proceed. People far more eloquent than I am on the Liberal side of politics thankfully have expressed this in clear and no uncertain terms. Those Liberals who sprang to the defence of the convention and custom which we arc defending tonight should receive great praise from their side of politics. Mr Lewis, by his statement of intended action, has substantially let down all Liberals throughout Australia who have supported his Party, either at elections or with finance. Because of his statement all of us on this side of politics are a little diminished.

There has been talk tonight of State rights. All Premiers, except the Queensland Premier I understand, have said that this convention should be adhered to. I would have thought that it was a tacit State right to do the proper thing by this convention. Who is abrogating the obligation to uphold State rights now? Is it the Commonwealth Government or the Government of New South Wales by the stated intention of its leader? Who preaches State rights in this matter? It is easy to run to the Constitution and to say what this amendment does, that the responsibility is finally with the Parliament of New South Wales, but I believe that if this convention is breached it will be necessary to find some device to be put to the Australian public by referendum to secure a proper way of selection of replacement senators for resigned or departed senators rather than to rely on the whims and political choices of people such as Mr Lewis. I believe that will be the obligation of this Government if Mr Lewis proceeds with his stated intention. It will be the obligation of the Federal Government to put to the Australian people at the earliest opportunity a referendum to alter the Constitution to put beyond doubt the method of choice of successors and to prevent the piracy which has been intended in this case.

Senator Webster:

– What do you think should happen when an Independent senator resigns?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-That can be handled.

Senator Webster:

– You have not thought of that.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It has been thought of in great depth. There are procedures. There is one written into the Constitution of Tasmania. It is not totally satisfactory, but it is written into the Constitution of that State. It is operative. There have been other recommendations which Senator Webster can study and which are at his disposal. There is no totally satisfactory means. The intended action is not satisfactory. I believe that if the convention is breached in this way it would surely be the least desirable choice of all those which may be devised.

Senator Durack:

– What would happen in Tasmania now, in this situation, under that convention?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– We are not talking about what happens in Tasmania. We are talking about what is about to happen in New South Wales where there will be an attack on the general concept of democracy as held by most of Australia. That is what we are talking about.

Senator Durack, by his interjection, is tacitly supporting the person who makes this attack. I return to this point: Where have all the brave Liberals been during the crisis upon the matter of a replacement senator? There have been a few. I said earlier that they should be raised to the highest level of regard by Liberals in Australia. Where have all the other brave Liberals been? We know very well that if more Federal Liberals had spoken clearly yesterday or the day before the matter would be beyond doubt. Even this amendment will give the Premier of New South Wales some little let-out. May I warn those people who will appease others that it will not work ultimately. I have had long experience- too long experience- with the sort of people who would perpetrate such an act on a community. I remember clearly over a number of years appeasing those who would circumvent democracy. I remember coming to the peak of that appeasement in 1972 when I agreed to a scheme for the redistribution of boundaries for the upper House in South Australia. I subverted my entire political principles in that appeasement when I agreed to a new scheme for the election of Legislative Councillors in South Australia. It was new and was supposed to be democratic. It was worked out after long months behind closed doors so that the public’s will in South Australia would not be effective in the upper House.

I say that with considerable emphasis. There were long months of consideration. The words used, after many hours of discussion, were to prevent the will of the public from coming through and being effective in the upper House in South Australia. For party solidarity we agreed to appease. We approved a scheme which had a 2 to 1 weighting against city voters. Within 6 weeks the people who demanded that concession were demanding further concessions, after getting concessions to their undemocratic principles year after year. I warn members of the Liberal Party that to give in to these people is simply to encourage them to ask for more. One Liberal said to me tonight: ‘What do we do later? Do we take hand grenades with us? What is the next action after this?’ There can be no defence. If it is wrong, it is wrong. This deals with the principle of the manner in which legislation is formed in this country. 1 repeat that we should be careful to stick to the subject of the argument and to make sure that we do not use someone else’s alleged bad conduct as an excuse for our own side’s bad conduct. That is as high as the Opposition’s argument has run tonight. The argument is: The others have done something bad; it is not so bad if we do it ourselves. Where have the high ideals of those who support the Liberal Party throughout Australia gone? They rest with those who spoke first, and all credit to them. If honourable senators do not like the principle they will have to face it on another occasion.

It is interesting to note the people who supported Mr Lewis’s stated intention. One is the Premier of Queensland. An article in last week’s Nation Review’ reports an interview which the Premier gave on the British Broadcasting Commission in London. I am having its authenticity checked. My first preliminary check indicates that it is correct. This is as it is reported. These are Mr Bjelke-Petersen ‘s remarks on the BBC:

Gough Whitlam has this delusion that he speaks for Australia on these trips he makes around the world. There is no Australia . . .

Nobody seems to understand. There is no Australia. There are 6 separate, sovereign States in Australia, and I have come to London to make it very clear to the Queen, the Prime Minister, and the responsible Ministers that Whitlam simply has no right to travel around the world as though he actually had some competence to represent Australia.

I will not take the matter any further until I receive authentic backing for that report, which I hope to get from the BBC. I leave it before the Senate as a statement which I understand the Premier has not yet challenged. He is one of the people who have supported Mr Lewis in his early intention. I have further remarks to make about this matter but I understand that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) wishes to make progress with legislation tonight. Therefore I ask for leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 129

DARWIN RECONSTRUCTION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Cavanagh) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

The Darwin Reconstruction Bill provides the basis for implementing the Government’s plans for the reconstruction of Darwin following its devastation by cyclone Tracy on 25 December 1974. The Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson), when introducing the Bill in the House of Representatives on 1 1 February, gave a detailed statement on the events and activities before and after cyclone Tracy. I do not propose again to go over the ground covered by that comprehensive statement which is on record for reference by honourable senators. The disaster is the worst natural calamity in Australia’s history and this Bill covers measures necessary both to restore Darwin and to provide for the future safety of people and property of that city. I can only hope, Mr President, that honourable senators will grasp this as a singular opportunity for a unified approach to the proper restoration of a vital and characteristic part of the Australian nation and. indeed to Australia ‘s way of life. The proposed Darwin Reconstruction Commission embodies the means of achieving the reconstruction of that stricken city.

Darwin will be rebuilt. Honourable senators are assured of the Government’s intention to reestablish the city, and given the continued cooperation of elected community representatives, the business community, the trade union movement and the many individuals and organisations all with a view about reconstruction, we will proceed with rebuilding as we have done with recovery. The certainty of the intention to rebuild is conveyed in the provisions of the Bill. It may not be the Darwin of old; we have the opportunity of creating a city with improved facilities in which former residents and newcomers to Darwin will be able to lead a rich and full life in safety.

The Government moved quickly to establish the Interim Reconstruction Commission in order to make the necessary arrangements for the speedy restoration of the city. The Interim Commission has met 3 times and has resolved on a good many matters including the need for underground electrical wiring, a new building code, the necessity to consider Government assistance for housing to meet the stringent safety standards which will need to be laid down, the general nature of redevelopment of devastated suburbs, land availability, etc. They also recognised the need to employ as far as possible locally based firms in the reconstruction program and indicated their belief and intention that this mammoth construction task could and would be met by building organisations within Australia. Indeed, I would expect that the Department of Housing and Construction would play an important role in this construction field.

A wide spectrum of community interests has assisted the Interim Commission in the formulation of its views and plans. Apart from its distinguished Chairman, Sir Leslie Thiess, and the permanent heads of the Departments of the Northern Territory, Urban and Regional

Development and Housing and Construction, the nominees of the Legislative Assembly and the Darwin City Council represent the full involvement of the community in deliberations about reconstruction. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the publication and free distribution by the Interim Reconstruction Commission as from 4 February of the Cities Commission ‘Planning Options for Future Darwin’. This is not an authoritative final statement. It was intended as a basis upon which those with a view can consider some of the alternative starting points and has already proved effective in this respect.

I now turn to the particular provisions of the Bill. Honourable senators will realise that the Darwin Reconstruction Commission must be a forceful body which may need to vary some of the present and normal arrangements operating in the city of Darwin and its environs. The Commission should clearly have power to do this in the performance of its functions. Naturally the normal processes of government will gradually be re-established as the city is re-built. This is the underlying purpose of the Bill.

Clause 4 of the Bill limits the effective operation of the Commission to a duration of 5 years after commencement of the Act or such earlier date as is fixed by proclamation. After that date the Commission continues in existence but only for the purpose of winding up its affairs. Thereafter on a further proclaimed date the Commission ceases to exist and its continuing rights and obligations vest in Australia. This provision reflects the Government’s intention that the Commission should be a temporary body only and that as soon as possible the normal arrangements and features of government in the Northern Territory be resumed.

Clauses 5, 6 and 1 1 of the Bill establish the Commission and set down its functions and powers. These features and powers are typical of corporations with comprehensive urban development functions. Honourable senators will see that the Government’s intention is for the Commission to assist it in determining desirable development in the Darwin area and to carry out the planning associated with that development.

Clause 7 of the Bill enjoins Australian Government departments and all public authorities carrying on operations in the Darwin area to assist the Commission in carrying out its functions so far as is reasonably practicable whilst clause 8 provides that the Commission shall perform its functions in relation to development and construction in accordance with planning and development schemes approved by the Minister and together with clause 9 gives the Minister oversight of the Commission’s development and construction program actions.

I now draw the attention of honourable senators to clause 13 which enables the Minister to place under the Commission’s control land in the Northern Territory that is the property of Australia and is not comprised in a lease granted to any person. In order to meet the special needs of Aborigines in Darwin, it is intended that this provision will not affect areas such as Bagot and Kulaluk, except by specific Government direction after consultation with the Aborigines, nor prejudice any claims they may have. I would expect that the Commission and the Aborigines would co-operate in the planning of the development of such lands and in the proper housing and location of Aborigines generally. Let me say that it is not the Government’s intention to acquire ali the land in Darwin, as has been put forward in some quarters. Private construction on private land, with the approval of the Commission, will proceed hand in hand and complement the Government’s reconstruction program.

The remaining clauses of Part II of the Bill limit the erection of buildings and the performance of works on land for the purposes of the erection of a building or of the supply of services except in accordance with the approval of the Commission (clause 14). Associated with this provision is clause 1 5 establishing the right of the Commission, for the purposes of public safety or sanitation, to enter and work on land subject to certain restrictions and clause 16 under which the Commission may remove occupants from premises that are in a dangerous condition or unfit for occupation. Part III of the Bill constitutes the Commission and provides for its meetings and other associated matters. Part IV of the Bill provides for the appointment and terms of appointment of the General Manager of the Commission, whilst Parts V and VI provide respectively for the ‘ appointment of staff to the Commission and the finance provisions to be applicable to the Commission operations.

It is the Government’s desire that citizens of Darwin be as fully involved as possible in the rebuilding of the devastated city. To that end the Bill in Part VII provides for the appointment of an advisory body to the Commission to be known as the Darwin Citizens’ Council. Members of the Council are to be appointed by the Minister from nominees drawn from community groups in the Darwin area. In addition, the Minister may, at the request of the Commission, appoint advisory committees as it sees fit for the purpose of giving advice to the Commission on matters which the Commission refers to them (clause 51).

I now draw the attention of the Senate to some of the provisions of Part VIII of the Bill. Clause 53 was inserted as it seemed that there would be great difficulty in valuing land in the Darwin area over the next few years and the Government would not wish to take advantage of any fall in the value of land attributable to the cyclone. The clause, therefore, provides that for the purposes of determining compensation in respect of the acquisition of land under the Lands Acquisition Act 1 955- 1 973 the assessed value of land is not to be less than its value immediately prior to the cyclone if the improvements on it had then been in their present damaged condition. Section 18(8) of the Public Works Committee Act 1 959- 1 974 provides that no works, the estimated cost of which is more than $2m, may be commenced without reference to the Public Works Committee. Clause 54 of the Bill has the effect of enabling work in the category to be commenced by order of the Governor-General without prior reference to the Public Works Committee. However, it should be noted that the clause would not affect the power of either House of Parliament to refer to the Public Works Committee a work in the Darwin area irrespective of its cost.

In accordance with the Government’s view that the Commission must be a forceful body and be able to operate so that the rebuilding of Darwin might take place in an orderly way, clause 55 of the Bill excludes the operation of the Town Planning Ordinance 1 964- 1971 of the Territory as far as the powers and functions of the Commission are concerned. In addition, clause 56 places restrictions on the grants of titles to Crown land in the Darwin area without the concurrence of the Commission. Mr President, I believe the task facing the Commission and all involved in the reconstruction of Darwin is perhaps the most challenging one in Australia’s history. This legislation is designed to achieve the framework on which this task may be accomplished. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not oppose the motion, Mr President, but because of the importance that the Government attaches to the Bill I would ask for an early resumption of the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) proposed:

That the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I wish to move an amendment to that motion. I move:

The Opposition takes this step because it wishes to have a little more opportunity than it will have overnight if the motion moved by the Minister is carried. This Bill is of very great importance indeed, as has been stressed by the Minister. It refers to measures which must be taken to restore the devastation created by the worst natural disaster that has ever befallen Australia or any citizen of Australia. As the Minister said at the end of his second reading speech, the task facing the Commission and all involved in the reconstruction of Darwin is perhaps the most challenging one in Australia ‘s history. The Opposition entirely agrees with that assessment of the situation. It does not wish in any way to delay beyond absolute necessity the passage of this legislation through the Parliament to enable the Commission to get into operation. Nevertheless, because of the enormous importance of the Commission and because of the tasks ahead of it and because of the intricacies of the measure, the Opposition believes that there is simply not sufficient time available between 10.55 this evening and 1 1 a.m. or 1 1.30 a.m. tomorrow for us to give the consideration that such a measure deserves.

The history of the measure is such that we have not been able really to do any preparation in advance. The Bill was first introduced into the House of Representatives at 12.55 p.m. yesterday and it was debated in the House of Representatives and passed there this afternoon. In speaking to the Bill yesterday afternoon the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Snedden, made the position of the Opposition quite clear, that we wish to have until next Tuesday in order to fully acquaint ourselves with the provisions of this Bill and in order to give consideration to whether or not we should propose any amendments and, if so, what amendments. I do not wish to go through the Bill and indicate the various areas that we need to study; but as I have said, the Bill is of the greatest importance and there are some very intricate provisions contained in it. For instance, the Minister said in his speech that there needs to be provision to vary some of the present and normal arrangements operating in the city of Darwin. The Bill undoubtedly considerably alters the present powers of the City of

Darwin and its town planning arrangements and the powers and so forth of the Legislative Assembly. It also affects the rights of individuals, even their right to remain on their own land, because, as the Minister pointed out, there is a provision here whereby the Commission can order people to leave their own property, albeit only in very particular and serious circumstances. What I am pointing out is that the Bill does have a very wide-ranging effect, giving very great powers to the Commission and to the Minister.

In addition to these considerations, we are also concerned that the citizens of Darwin and their leaders should have an opportunity to consider this measure- not only the citizens of Darwin but the people of the Northern Territory generally and particularly the members of the recently democratically elected Legislative Assembly. The Bill itself has not been available to any of these highly interested persons until it was unveiled yesterday in the House of Representatives.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It was available to Mr Snedden for some considerable time.

Senator DURACK:

– I am speaking now of the people of Darwin and the people of the Northern Territory, the people who are directly affected by this Bill and who will be affected for the next 5 years, and in particular their leaders, not only the members of the Legislative Assembly but the councillors of the City of Darwin and other interested groups, particularly a group known as the Citizens Advisory Committee formed under the chairmanship of a Mr Ian Barker. All these people have expressed a very keen desire, and this is perfectly natural, to have an opportunity to study the Bill and to express their views to this Parliament. The course of action which the Government has taken in the House of Representatives has precluded any of these groups of people, and indeed any interested citizens of Darwin, from making their views known to members of this Parliament.

I have here a bundle of telegrams which my colleague Senator Drake-Brockman has already received from diverse people in the Northern Territory. I do not propose to read them but I refer to them and they are available for any honourable senators who wish to look at them.

Senator Webster:

– How many are there?

Senator DURACK:

-I have not actually counted them, but Senator Drake-Brockman has indicated that there are over seventy. Also Mr Snedden has received telegrams, Mr Anthony has received telegrams, and Mr Calder, the member for the Northern Territory, has received many telegrams. It seems to us perfectly reasonable to request that the people of the Territory should have the opportunity to consider this Bill and make their views known to the members of the Senate before we debate it. The request of the Opposition is only that the debate on this Bill be adjourned until next Tuesday. That is not the next day of sitting but the day after the next day of sitting and would enable us to have the weekend for consideration of the measure.

Debate interrupted.

page 132

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 132

DARWIN RECONSTRUCTION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator DURACK:

– I was just about to conclude. I was pointing out that the terms of our amendment to the motion are such that the Senate will lose only one sitting day in considering this measure. If we do not debate it tomorrow the next day of sitting is, in fact, 1 8 February which is the proposed day. So only one day of sitting is actually lost by the terms of our amendment. But it has the advantage of giving the Senate and the citizens of the Northern Territory an opportunity to consider the Bill and of enabling a much more rational and reasonable debate to take place on the Bill next week. I believe that this is almost the very minimum that we could accord to people who are so vitally affected by such enormously important legislation. That is why we proposed the amendment that the debate should be adjourned until next Tuesday. We will be anxious that it should be dealt with next Tuesday. There is absolutely no intention on our part to delay the Bill beyond that date.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I shall be very brief in reply. As I stated when Senator Durack asked for an adjournment of the debate, in the other place it went straight on. One would have expected it to go straight on tonight, because of” the urgency of the matter, even if it necessitated sitting half the night for the purpose of doing so. That is the urgency which the Government places on this legislation. But because of the hour and knowing that such action would not be acceptable I then indicated that I would not oppose an adjournment until tomorrow. But we want an early discussion. The situation is that as soon as the cyclone happened Cabinet had an emergency meeting and made a decision. It publicised the decision to set up the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. It named the chairman of the Commission. As soon as the Darwin Reconstruction Bill was available some time ago it was given to the Leader of the Opposition in another place (Mr Snedden) for his perusal.

Because of the importance of the matter the Government set up an interim commission to start activities. But that commission has no power and no teeth until we get this Bill through. It has been sitting unusual hours in Darwin. The Government’s action was such that on the first sitting day of this session in accordance with the forms of the House it gave notice of a motion which it would move on the next day of sitting. On the next day of sitting in the other place that House had the decency to decide to continue straight away with the debate in order to get the Bill over to this place. While we perhaps recognise the sanity of adjourning the matter until tomorrow, we find that there is this desire to adjourn it until next Tuesday. We are told that that involves a delay of only one sitting day. One would think that homeless people in Darwin do not suffer when it is not a sitting day, that one sitting day is unimportant. But it is not unimportant when it is 4 days over the weekend when the proposed Commission could have some authority to start the reconstruction of Darwin. Yet it is proposed to hold the matter over because it is only one of our sitting days. That is the importance that the Opposition places on rebuilding Darwin.

Of course there has not been time for everyone concerned with Darwin to have a look at the Bill. That happens in relation to most Bills. As the people’s representatives we have a responsibility to act for the people. Honourable senators will note that the second reading speech states that we have a citizens committee in Darwin for the sole purpose of assisting the Commission with what it requires. People in the southern States are crying out and revolting because they want to get back to Darwin. They cannot go back there because there are no homes for them. The Opposition wants to adjourn for another 4 days the whole question of whether power will be given to the Commission to start the job, which everyone . agrees should be started, of reconstructing Darwin. I hope that the motion, which proposes that the debate be adjourned until the next day of sitting will be carried.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

29 27

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Durack’s amendment) be inserted.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 29

NOES: 27

Majority……. 2

AYES

Teller Young, H. W.

Lawrie, A. G. E.

AYES

NOES

Darwin Reconstruction

Willesee. D. R. Wriedt. K.S.

Teller: Poyser. A. G.

Primmer, C. G.

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.17 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 February 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750212_senate_29_s63/>.