Senate
15 October 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1109

PETITIONS

Fraser Island

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 7 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 whereas the natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as part of the World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations,

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island,

that the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Government Aid for East Timorese People

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1 52 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 we strongly oppose any violation and interference in Portuguese East Timor by the Indonesian Government and we urge the Australian Government to extend its humanitarian aid to the East Timorese People and prevail upon the Indonesian Government not to interfere with the domestic problems ofPortuguese East Timor.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and Agents of the Private Insurance Industry throughout Australia.
  2. Complete unfairly with Private Insurers.
  3. ) Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

  6. That the insurance industry is already faced with.

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

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

Petition received.

page 1109

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1109

BUDGET

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate recall that the present Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, said on 25 August 1970 that the purpose of the Australian Labor Party was ‘to destroy this Budget and to destroy the Government which has sponsored it’? Does he further recall that his then leader in the Senate, the former Senator Murphy, said on 26 August 1970 that the Australian Labor Party would vote against the Budget and added, ‘my Party has decided to do whatever it can to drive this Government from office’? Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate further recall that on 4 November 1970, 23 Labor senators voted against the third reading of an Appropriation Bill? I add that the Leader of the Government in the Senate should recall that as the division list shows that he was one of the Labor senators who attempted to unsuccessfully reject the Appropriation Bill. Finally, how does the Leader of the Government in the Senate reconcile those past statements and actions with the cowardly attempts by the Government to avoid a proper election if the present appropriations are voted against?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · TASMANIA · ALP

-I think it is the normal role of an Opposition to try to get any government out of power. That is something that we all accept. It is also important- much more importantthat the procedures that we adopt in this Parliament are the proper procedures of the parliamentary system. Certainly manoeuvrings will take place by any Opposition if it sees the opportunity to bring down a government. I am not aware, particularly in relation to the latter part of Senator Withers’ question, of any desire or manoeuvres on the part of the Government to avoid an election. Let me assure him that, so far as I am concerned, if there has to be an election it will be fought on the issues that concern the Australian people and not on the manoeuvrings that take place inside the Parliament.

page 1110

QUESTION

AID TO SOUTH VIETNAM

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate whether the announcement recently of an aid shipment of wheat and milk worth $2. 4m to the Provisional Revolutionary Government in South .Vietnam will be followed by further aid to that country?

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

-The commodity aid package to which the honourable senator has referred is in fact a new beginning in the bilateral relationship between Australia and South Vietnam. I remind honourable senators that Australia has previously assisted South Vietnam, along with other Indo-China states, by the provision of cash and commodity aid through multilateral agencies such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. This most recent package is the first aid that we have given to the PRG on a bilateral basis. We know that the needs of South Vietnam are great for both relief and reconstruction requirements. We want to assist the Government of the. Republic of South Vietnam, first by helping to meet its needs for commodities, by the resumption of work on existing projects should that Government so desire, and by the planning in concert with that Government of the future aid program. It is our desire for friendly relations with the Republic of South Vietnam and our recognition of the postwar needs of that country that are-the foundation of this attitude.

page 1110

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My “question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: Is it evident that Ministers of the Labor Government and the Australian Labor Party now accept the evidence and the word of Mr Khemlani as against the word of the former senior Minister, Mr Connor? Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate now advise the Australian public, in Une with the promised policy of open government that the Labor Party has declared, whether it now accepts Mr Khemlani ‘s reported comment’ that Mr Connor made every move known to his boss, that is the Prime Minister? As the Leader of the Government in the Senate has on a number of occasions given the Senate an assurance that Mr Connor had made his position clear, can he give a similar assurance that the Prime Minister had no knowledge 0f Mr Connor ‘s involvement in the loans affair?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I am glad that Senator Webster at least referred to the ‘reported statements’ of Mr Khemlani. I hope that he is aware that a question has been placed on the notice paper of the House of Representatives by Mr Fraser seeking the tabling’ of all relative documents which may at this stage not have been tabled. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister will in fact respond to that question. As to whether one accepts the words or the comments of Mr Khemlani, I can assure the honourable senator that, on the information which has been made available to this Parliament, Mr Khemlani apparently was in contact with Mr Connor after 20 May. It is for the Prime Minister to table those documents if they exist- presumably they do- and then for the Parliament or the Australian people to make a judgment as to whether I and others were properly, informed by Mr Connor.

page 1110

QUESTION

STOCK EXCHANGE ACTIVITY

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he has noted reports today of jubilation in stock exchanges around the world, in particular at Wall Street. Does this throw any light on pressures being exerted by overseas investors and corporations who are said to exercise undue influence in the councils of the Opposition parties in this country to bring about the downfall of the present Australian Labor Government? In whose interests would these jubilant parties be working- the Australian people’s or their own? Finally, does this indicate that a change of government would mean a return to the situation where the affairs of this country and the use of its resources were dictated by decisions taken in overseas board rooms?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I do not think that anyone would be under any illusions as to the influence that large sections of the business world both in Australia and overseas have on the Opposition parties. I am quite sure all possible pressures would be exerted in a number of ways to bring about the downfall of this Government. It would be wrong to suggest that all the actions taken by this Government are ones which we would continue to take in the future. We have indicated only recently that our policy in the area of minerals and energy needed revision, and it was revised. Interestingly enough, that revision runs very parallel to the policies of the Liberal Party. However, there is no doubt that the influences to which Senator Devitt has referred, if they could be effective, would be used to bring about the downfall of this Government.

page 1111

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the absolutely incredible statement made by the Prime Minister in a Press statement last night. Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate recall the Prime Minister’s words that ‘at no time has there been any allegation of improper conduct, of dishonest conduct, of reprehensible conduct, of illegal or corrupt conduct’ on the part of any Minister of the Government? Does he recall the further statement of the Prime Minister that ‘no such charges were made in the Senate’ at any time? Are they not, according to the recollection of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, completely untrue statements by the Prime Minister? Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate not recall that allegations were made that money of the character sought to be borrowed could not be made under the Financial Agreement, that borrowings of that dimension were contrary to the Constitution and that the actions of the Ministers who signed the Executive Council minute of 13 December last year were a massive illegality and a criminal conspiracy? In the light of those facts and his recollection, is not the Prime Minister’s statement completely untrue and a massive cover up of the illegality?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I should have thought that Senator Greenwood, as a former AttorneyGeneral, would have shown a little more discretion in his choice of words. Early in his question he spoke of allegations- only allegationsand then went on to talk about criminal activities and illegalities. Certainly they are allegations, but they are allegations that have not been proven. The fact is that the Government acted on good legal advice when it allowed that Executive Council decision to be taken. It is nonsense to talk about allegations on the one hand and criminal activities on the other hand. The Opposition has been invited a dozen times to produce evidence of the so-called illegalities. Why does it not produce it?

page 1111

QUESTION

FEDERALISM: PAPER BY SENATOR CARRICK

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether in the interests of democracy and in view of the criticism of Sir Charles Court he would arrange for leave of absence for Senator Carrick to enable him to finish his paper on federalism.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I am sorry, I missed the earlier part of the question. I ask Senator Mulvihill to repeat it.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Mulvihill, would you repeat your question?

Senator Carrick:

- Mr President, I have a question -

Senator MULVIHILL:

-You will listen to what I have to say, Carrick. You have always been a fascist.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Mulvihill, you must address senators in the formal way.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to our Leader, Senator Wriedt. In the interests of reasonable discussions and democracy, I ask that the unfinished paper on federalism of Senator Carrick which was criticised by Sir Charles Court -

Senator Marriott:

– I take a point of order. Mr President, I ask you to rule that the question has nothing to do with the administrative responsibilities of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Keeffe:

– Have you changed your mind?

Senator Marriott:

– Excuse me, I am talking. Therefore, I submit that the question should be ruled out of order. You ruled yesterday, I think, at the request of Senator Poyser, that questions should not contain nonsense.

The PRESIDENT:

– I rule that Senator Mulvihill is seeking information from the Leader of the Government and that he proceed with the question.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I think my Leader Senator Wriedt knows the import of what I have said. I will leave it to him to help Senator Carrick.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I must confess I am not aware that Senator Carrick is seeking that privilege, but I am quite sure that if any Opposition senators wished to take some leave at present we would be only too happy to oblige.

page 1112

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator CARRICK:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. It refers to the published telex from the Bank of Paris to the Bank of India, Singapore, the authenticity of which has not been challenged in any way despite its publication for some days. I quote in part:

With reference to my discussions with Mr Khemlani we understand that the documents including letter of intent, mandate and acceptance from the Ministry of Minerals and Energy of Australia and the said documents deposited with Banque Board of Paris . . .

That telex is dated 1 September 1975, some 6 weeks ago.

Senator Wriedt:

– Whom is it from?

Senator CARRICK:

-It is a published telex from the Bank of Paris to the Bank of India, Singapore, which was representing Mr Khemlani. It has been published and published widely throughout the world. There has been no denial. I ask the Minister: What were these documents? Does he deny their existence? Do they include an Executive Council minute? Will he table copies of all such documents? If the Minister is unaware of the answers, despite the publication of the documents some 2 days ago and the gravity of their implications, will he give an assurance to the Senate that he will undertake an immediate investigation and give to the Senate a detailed reply either later today or, at the latest, tomorrow?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The document referred to by Senator Carrick is not a document which involves the Australian Government.

Senator Carrick:

– What about the letters of intent?

Senator WRIEDT:

-Just listen to me. Earlier I indicated- I thought you also would have been aware- that there is a question on notice in the House of Representatives seeking the tabling of any documents which have not already been tabled and which involve this Government. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will do that when those documents can be laid on the table of the Parliament. But the matter that is being raised now is not a matter which is of concern to this Government, nor should I concern myself with it.

Senator CARRICK:

– I have a supplementary question. I ask the Minister: Would not the existence of letters of acceptance and mandates and documents alleged to be issued by the Australian Government and alleged to be in the possession of the Bank be a matter of responsibility of the Australian Government? I ask him: Do such documents exist?

Senator WRIEDT:

– The supplementary question reminds me of letters written to the Moscow Norodny Bank Ltd very early in the loans issue. The person writing the letters, some broker in Europe, claimed to have authority from the Australian Government, which seems to be a parallel case to the one which Senator Carrick is quoting now. The fact is that authority did not exist for that person to transmit those telex messages.

page 1112

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE: REORGANISATION

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and concerns the recent passage of the Defence Force Re-organisation Bill, which provided for the reorganisation and integration of the Department of Defence. Is the Minister aware of any unrest within the defence forces following suggestions that this measure is the forerunner to integration of the Services themselves along the lines of the pattern adopted by Canada? What is the Government’s attitude to such suggestions?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There have been rumours here and there and unconfirmed reports that at some time the Government might follow the Canadian pattern, but I do not think that that argument was raised during the course of the debate in this place when the legislation was approved by the Senate. I think honourable senators will recall that the Prime Minister and the former Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, made it very clear that there was no intention to unify the defence forces in the way in which Canada had done, I read that today Mr Bruce White, who had 49 years in the Public Service, and a great deal to do with the current reorganisation, has commented that in his view the proposal to follow the Canadian pattern would be bad. That confirms the Government’s attitude. In addition, I think it is fair to say that Mr Bruce White, who is well known to most honourable senators on both sides of the chamber, can be taken to be an independent observer of what the Government did. We note that his reign as Secretary of the Department of the Army has been terminated by the passage of the legislation upon which he comments. I note also that, according to recent policy statements made by the Minister for Defence, there is no clear intention by the Opposition to make any attempt to disturb what is a progressive move.

page 1113

QUESTION

AIR NAVIGATION CHARGES

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport by saying that for Tasmanians the main way of travelling interstate is by air and that TAA and Ansett have already had fare rises of more than 20 per cent since July this year. Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s 80 per cent cost recovery program will mean that the airlines will have to contribute an additional $32m in landing charges- or air navigation charges, as they are more correctly termed- during the remainder of this financial year? Will the Minister also confirm that the Department of Transport is attempting to exempt the overseas airlines from any additional charges because Australia already has the highest landing charges in the world? Will the Minister admit that its policy of loading additional landing fees of $10m to $12m on to each of TAA and Ansett will result in massive air fare increases of some 20 per cent to 25 per cent, which of course would be so detrimental to the people of Tasmania?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– As the honourable senator knows, this matter was investigated during the recent sittings of the Estimates Committees, and I think the general position is as stated then. The Minister presently is considering to what extent the cost recovery targets of the Government ought to be achieved. Everybody knows, including the honourable senator who asked the question, that the first examination of cost recovery was not started in the reign of the Labor Government but was determined by the previous Government. The matter is also being examined by every international organisation. The reports of the international organisations show that every government presently is looking at ways of achieving cost recovery because of the very heavy expenditure incurred in maintaining air services and aerodromes. So what the Government is doing is not unusual. All I can tell the honourable senator at the present time is that the aspect to which he refers is receiving the very close scrutiny not only of the carriers but also of the Minister and his Department. The Government is attempting to recover as much of the cost as possible, as are most governments. As to the current position, I will have to ask Mr Charles Jones for information and I will let the honourable senator know the result of that.

page 1113

QUESTION

SKIM MILK POWDER

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and concerns the current depressed market price for skim milk powder. I ask whether any action has been taken at the international level to improve market prospects for skim milk powder. Have all or only some milk companies cut prices to dairy farmers?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that the world market position for skim milk powder is quite serious. There is a very big oversupply at the present time- a supply in excess of one million tonnes. Even in Australia the stocks are three to four times their normal levels. The returns which come back to the Australian dairy industry are of course very significantly affected by the fall in prices which has followed this over supply of powder. The interim prices which are paid to dairy farmers under the equalisation arrangements of the dairy industry will almost certainly be significantly affected.

A meeting of the main suppliers of skim milk powder is currently being held in Brussels this week; the European Economic Community is one of the major suppliers. The talks are being held in an endeavour to rectify the over supply situation. I have not had any information back as to what progress has been made, but it would appear at this stage to be optimistic to expect any return to normality in the world market for skim milk powder, certainly within the next 12 months. But it is possible that the meeting that is being held in Brussels will be able to find at least some temporary solution.

page 1113

QUESTION

RESIGNATION OF MINISTER FOR MINERALS AND ENERGY

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister made a statement in which he said that he had been misled by Mr Connor- that this had led him, the Prime Minister, in turn to mislead the House of Representatives. He went on to say that this constituted a breach of parliamentary standards and that it was in these circumstances that he, the Prime Minister, advised the GovernorGeneral to accept Mr Connor’s resignation. The Prime Minister’s statement that he has had to perform a painful duty to defend and preserve a parliamentary convention, namely the obligation to tell the truth to the Parliament, suggests that the Prime Minister took action to obtain Mr Connor’s resignation. On the other hand, Mr Connor issued a statement suggesting that he retired because of ill health. I ask the Minister: Can he tell us which of the gentlemen is telling the truth or, if I can put it in very simple terms, did Mr Connor jump or was he pushed?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– In view of the painful length of the question it can go on the notice paper.

page 1114

QUESTION

BIRTHS DURING OFFICE HOURS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health: In view of what appears to be a growing practice of inducing births in office hours- that is between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.- would he inform the Senate whether the Australian Medical Association supports such a practice? Can he also say whether or not any research is being undertaken or proposed on the possible physical or mental effects this practice might have on mother and /or child?

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

– I am afraid that I was not aware of the practice of inducing births in office hours. I suppose it would enliven an otherwise dull morning tea break. I do not know what effect it has on the mother and child. However, it could have a rather startling effect on fellow clerks and stenographers. I shall refer the matter to the Minister for Health and obtain a detailed answer for Senator Melzer.

page 1114

QUESTION

TRADE WITH SOUTH AFRICA

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs as the representative here of the Minister for Overseas Trade. I refer to a statement made by the Minister for Overseas Trade, Mr Crean, on 3 September last, summarising developments in the overseas trade field in which that Minister said, inter aiia:

The Trade Commissioner post in Capetown South Africa was closed on operational grounds in May of this year.

In view of the highly favourable trade balance we have with South Africa and in view of the importance of South African trade to South Australian secondary industry in particular, will the Minister obtain information from his colleague as to what constituted operational grounds as the reason for closing the Trade Commissioner post in Capetown? Were the so-called operational grounds transient and is consideration now being given to re-establishing the post? If not, why not?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I have some recollection of the statement. I do not remember it in detail. I shall ask my colleague to get the information for the honourable senator.

page 1114

QUESTION

POSSIBLE EARLY ELECTION

Senator McINTOSH:

-Has the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation seen a letter which was published in yesterday’s West Australian from a member of the Liberal Party who expressed regret at Mr Fraser ‘s apparent ‘bending’ to expediency and to pressures from within business circles to refuse Supply and bring on an early Federal election? Has the Minister any evidence to suggest that the pressures from business circles on the Opposition Leader are coming from the private insurance companies? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the policy of the insurance companies of slashing social welfare expenditure is also being adopted by the Opposition?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I was rather delightfully surprised to read in yesterday’s West Australian a letter from a Mr Michael Beech who appears to be one of the few members of the Liberal Party who apparently want to uphold the traditions of Australian parliamentary democracy.

Senator Durack:

– He may have changed his mind in the last day, as Professor Castle has.

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

-Senator Durack suggests that Mr Beech may have changed his mind. It may well be true that in the light of the events of the last day he is no longer a member of the Liberal Party. I can see that that could be so. I would not blame him if that were the case. However, while he was still a member of the Liberal Party he wrote this letter to the West Australian in which he drew attention to those matters to which Senator Mcintosh has referred. As I have told the Senate on a number of occasions, I do have evidence that a number of insurance companies, and the insurance companies collectively through their organisations, have been giving’ substantial assistance to the Liberal Party and the National Country Party in New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia. Whether they have been able to induce the Liberal and National Country Parties to adopt their social welfare policy which primarily seems to consist of the demolition of what has been constructed under a Labor Government, I do not know, because until now we do not know what the social welfare policies of the Liberal and National Country Parties are,

page 1115

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen reports that the United States of America and Japan have reduced inflation to approximately 8 per cent? In View crf the fact -that the Government has used the argument that’ inflation in this country has mainly been imported, I ask: Will the Government investigate the methods used by our main trading partners to halt inflation and import the cure to this country?

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA · ALP

-I am not able to say whether or not that comment is correct. There has certainly been a decline in Japan’s rate of inflation in. the last few months. The decline in the inflation. fate in that country has been more than that in the United States but, from memory, the inflation figures in the United States are still running at about 12 per cent or 13 per cent, and I think in. Canada inflation. is running at about 18 per cent. I have no doubt that my colleague, the Minister for Labor and.Immigration, will shortly be publishing the consumer price index figures for the September quarter, which are the latest available. I think that they will show some very encouraging signs for Australia’s rate of inflation. But I must ask to have the question placed on notice in order to get a more detailed answer.

page 1115

QUESTION

TERRITORIAL POLICE FORCES

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask the Minister for Police and Customs whether he has seen a circular letter signed by Mr A. J. Oldroyd of the Police Association of the Australian Capital Territory representing his own Association and that of the Northern Territory Police. He indicates support for the proposal that the police forces of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory should be responsible to the legislative bodies in the’ Territories when they attain self government What is the Australian Government doing about this?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Police and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, I, ha ve seen the circular letter. I received a copy sent by Mr Oldroyd on behalf, as he claims, of the Police Association of the Australian Capital Territory and supported by the Northern Territory Police. His statement that his Association wanted the legislative bodies in the Territories to take control of the police forces came as a complete surprise to me and a complete surprise to the Police Association of the Northern Territory. The secretary of that Association immediately sent a telex to the Secretary of my Department denying the assertion and stating that it recognised the difficulties that the Legislative Assembly would find in financing the police force. He thought that it would be better for his members to remain under the control of the Department of Police and Customs. The letter from Mr Oldroyd also went on to state that both Legislative Assemblies had passed legislation in relation to the control of the respective police forces and that it had been ignored. Of course, this is not true. Both Legislative Assemblies, under the proposed Australia Police Bill, will be represented on a 4-man advisory committee which will be set up to advise the police. Two members of the committee will come from the respective Legislative Assemblies, one member will be a representative of the Commissioner of Police and the other member will be a representative of the Police Association.

The activities of Mr Oldroyd are very unfortunate. I question whether they are supported by the big body of policemen who, it has been suggested, do not want to become members of a larger organisation. Even at the present time we find a difficulty. We could be consulting with the Association on the aspects of the Bill. The Association is carrying on a campaign against the Bill and the interests of its members are being somewhat neglected because of our reluctance to approach the Association at this stage on account of its unwillingness to co-operate.

page 1115

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate refers to a series of questions which I placed on the notice paper to each Minister, including the Leader of the Government in the Senate, requesting the titles of all papers, reports and documents produced by or for the Government since 1972 which have not been publicly released. Why has the Prime Minister instructed all his Ministers not to answer that question? Was the Prime Minister’s statement of refusal to answer my question on 2 October 1975 the official end of open government? Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate see a danger in not answering the question as being a threat to our parliamentary system of representative government? Does he agree that such secrecy totally contravenes the spirit of open government and that it could well lead to a situation similar to the one which led to the departure of Dr Cairns and Mr Connor from the Ministry? I conclude by drawing the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the fact that he, on behalf of the Prime Minister, gave me an answer to this question on 2 October.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-A11 I can say in reply to the honourable senator’s question is that I understand that there would have been a great deal of work, time and expense involved in seeking the information which had been requested. I must confess that I am not entirely conversant with the matter. For that reason I will need to obtain a more considered answer.

page 1116

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Agriculture. I ask: Has he seen today’s Melbourne Age which states that on becoming Minister for Minerals and Energy the Minister said that he was pleased to be rid of farmers? Similar reports appeared in at least 2 other newspapers. Did the Minister make the remark reported by the Age and by a couple of other newspapers? If so, why?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I saw the report. It is unfortunate how these comments are made. I make it quite clear that the relationship which I have had with the rural community has been extremely pleasant, for all the fact that I may differ with many of its points of view and it with mine. But, no, I have no satisfaction in being rid of farmers in any sense whatsoever. I do not suggest, nor have I suggested at any time in the past, that I, like everybody else, do not seek wider experience in government. I certainly reject any suggestion or reports that I am glad to see the back of farmers.

page 1116

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AMBASSADORS IN FRANCE

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it not a fact that the Budget cuts will involve a considerable reduction in essential services overseas which are designed to assist our exports and other trading operations? In the light of this position, is it true that Australia is now extravagantly represented by 3 Ambassadors resident in France, namely, the Ambassador to France, the Ambassador to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and, lately, Mr Oswin, the former Secretary of the Department of the Media and now Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural organisation. Is it a fact that the cost of maintaining the Ambassador to UNESCO alone is at least $200,000 a year?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– It is well known that there will be cuts in expenditure by all departments. Consistent with that policy, my department also is cutting down expenditure and has asked ambassadors and heads of missions everywhere to be as prudent in their expenditure as they possibly can. Senator Missen pointed out that having 3 ambassadors in one town is contravening that Government policy. Naturally, we have an ambassador to France. The headquarters of the OECD and also the headquarters of UNESCO happen to be in France. We have had an ambassador to the OECD for goodness knows how long. Until recently we did not have an ambassador to UNESCO. We have taken the opportunity of appointing a man who I think is well qualified to be our ambassador to UNESCO. It so happens that we have the 3 ambassadors in one town. If those organisations were in different cities in which we did not have an ambassador, I suppose the argument raised by Senator Missen would not arise.

page 1116

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask the Special Minister of State: As only companies with an annual turnover of more than $20m a year are required to notify price increases to the Price Justification Tribunal, what action is the Tribunal taking in respect of prices charged by other businesses?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As the honourable senator will know the Prices Justification Tribunal, for constitutional reasons, is empowered to inquire into and report upon prices that are charged only by foreign trading or financial corporations that are incorporated under a State or Territory law. It would therefore not be possible for the Tribunal to deal with price increases by other forms of business. In relation to companies, it is true that only those business with annual turnovers in excess of $20m are required to notify the Tribunal of proposed price increases. Shortly prior to my becoming the Special Minister of State- from recollection I think some time late in 1974- amendments were made to the Prices Justification Tribunal Act which enabled the Tribunal at its own discretion or by direction of the Minister to inquire into any prices that are charged by other companies within its jurisdiction. As the honourable senator will observe from the annual report of the Prices Justification Tribunal, in the period between October last year and 30 June this year the Tribunal selectively carried out a number of inquiries in cases in which it felt there was evidence of a substantial or high percentage increase or when other factors pointed to some unusual features. The Tribunal has already investigated about 650 cases of this nature as the result of inquiries that have been put to it by members of the public or consumer organisations. As a result of the investigations conducted by the Tribunal in some 60-odd cases, the prices were lowered. In some cases, refunds to customers were involved also.

page 1117

QUESTION

BOXING CONTROLS

Senator MARRIOTT:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Minister inquire from his colleague whether the Government is considering the proposals put forward by the Australian Medical Association, as reported in the Australian on 5 August 1975, relating to controls of boxing in light of the fact that 88 deaths have resulted from boxing in Australia, mostly from delayed brain haemorrhages?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-There have been discussions between officers of the Department of Tourism and Recreation, the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security on this matter. I think that a week or two ago the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, Mr Stewart, issued a statement on this matter in which he discussed a proposal that a Boxing Commission should be established in Australia, presumably similar to that which functions in the United States of America. I do not remember the full text of Mr Stewart’s statement but it was to the effect that if a Boxing Commission were established, it would imply some recognition by the Australian Government of boxing whereas, as I recollect, his view is that boxing itself is a rather barbaric form of sport which ought to be discouraged rather than regulated. However, I will obtain a copy of the statement which was made by Mr Stewart who is in his capacity -

Senator Marriott:

– I would rather have what the Minister for Health, Dr Everingham, thinks.

Senator WHEELDON:

-The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has responsibility for matters relating to sport. It is difficult to work out who has responsibility for boxing as I suppose that nobody has ever administered it in the past. But it has been taken by Government decision that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation should be responsible for it. I will obtain a copy of Mr Stewart’s statement and see that it is provided to Senator Marriott. If he wishes to follow up this matter later, I will be happy to do so with him.

page 1117

QUESTION

LETTER WRITTEN BY SIR ROBERT MENZIES

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has the Minister seen a copy of the letter which Sir Robert Menzies sent to Sir Philip Game in 1 932 commenting on the circumstances in which the late Mr Lang was dismissed from office and giving Sir Robert’s opinion on certain constitutional matters which are again being aired today. What is the substance of the letter and does it illuminate current constitutional issues?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Following the dismissal of Mr Lang in 1932, various interested parties including constitutional lawyers wrote letters to Sir Philip Game. Some of them were preserved by his widow, Lady Game, and have been published recently. Among them was a letter from the then Mr Robert Menzies, then a rising lawyer, in which he expressed his opinion about the events that had just transpired. One illuminating passage which I think might help honourable senators opposite in these highly charged times to make up their minds about the proper course of conduct reads as follows -

Senator Durack:

– Table the letter.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will table the document that is in my hand. It is not the entire letter.

Senator Durack:

-Not the full letter?

Senator JAMES McCLELLANDEverything that I read will be tabled.

Senator Durack:

– Should you not table the full letter?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would have thought that honourable senators opposite in these troubled times would have been combing through the history books to get whatever guidance they could from the great men of the past as to how they should behave today. Sir Robert Menzies, Mr Menzies as he then was, wrote:

Briefly, the newspaper demand that you should dismiss a Premier on the ground that there was some reason for believing that he no longer enjoyed the confidence of the electors always seemed to me to be based upon an absolute misconception of the constitutional position of a modern Governor. Under the Australian system of universal suffrage and triennial Parliaments, with a legally recognised and responsible Cabinet, it must, in my opinion, follow that so long as a Premier commands a majority in the Lower House and so long as he is guilty of no illegal conduct which would evoke the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, he must bc regarded as the competent and continuing adviser of the representative of the Crown. For a newspaper to urge a dissolution because in its opinion the Government has lost the confidence of the electorate is a mere impertinence. The constitutional authority of a Premier rests almost entirely upon his success at a general election, and upon his continued authority in the popularly elected House, and not upon irresponsible speculations as to whether he would have lost his majority if the Constitution had provided for annual and not triennial elections. Moreover, these are days (and now I speak as a politician) in which any Government may. in the stern discharge of its duty, be compelled to take steps which render it unpopular with the electorate. This, however, so far from being a good cause for its recall, may constitute its greatest claim to reputation, and one of the factors which strengthens the hand of a Government fresh from victory at the polls is that it may look forward to a period or office in which its policy may be dictated by convictions and not by the mere necessity for vote catching.

I table the document.

page 1118

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. 1 ask: Is it a fact that the most recent freight rate increase of 40 per cent imposed by the Australian National Line on its coastal shipping route between Melbourne and Brisbane has been reduced because the competition from road transport operators is so great that it has meant that the ANL has been in fact losing cargo?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I would like to get an answer to that question from the Minister.

page 1118

QUESTION

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I remind the Minister of his announcement in a ministerial statement on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands that he intended to establish an interim advisory council, including Home Islanders, to advise the Administrator. I ask: Has the council been appointed? If so, when is it to meet and how is its establishment being received by the Cocos Malay community?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I can tell the honourable senator that the initial support which the Home Island community- that is, the community living on the same island as Mr Clunies-Ross in the Cocos (Keeling) Islandsgave to the original proposal of the Government to establish an interim advisory council has continued. One of the members of the Imarat-that is, one of the members of the headmen appointed by Mr Clunies-Ross- has not yet indicated his intention to serve on that council. But, with that exception, all the persons whom I invited on behalf of the Government to serve on the council have accepted appointment to the council. All the appointees, apart from the Administrator- who, of course, is the Chairmanthe Government Medical Officer and the Official Secretary, who is the executive officer of the interim advisory council, have been drawn from the Home Island community. They reflect a number of interests in the community. As well as some members of Mr Clunies-Ross ‘s Imarat there is represented a broad cross-section of members of the Home Island community. Indeed there is an Island majority on the interim advisory council. The advice of the council is being sought by the Administrator on a number of matters concerning the community. The Administrator has advised me that the first meeting of the council is expected to be held at the end of next week.

page 1118

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I refer to the Minister’s reply yesterday during question time in which he made expressions of regret and apology for the statement ‘The public knows all that it needs to know . . . all that it needs to be told ‘. Does the Minister recall saying yesterday in his reply-

I do not for one moment suggest that the public is not entitled to know everything about a matter about which some doubt may have been raised.

Can the Minister assure the Senate that the public is now in a position to know everything about the controversial and doubtful overseas loan affair?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As far as I know this is the case, but, of course, I would not presume to be an authority on this matter. I have not combed through all the files on this matter. I should think that it would be manifest to the public that the reason why certain events have occurred in the past couple of days is that the Prime Minister of this country, in accordance with the highest tradition of parliamentary democracy, insisted that a Minister who had misled the Parliament should pay the fullest penalty for such action.

Senator Webster:

– Is that so?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think he said so. In answer to a question that was directed to him by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday Mr Whitlam made clear that he had been misled himself and that that was the reason why he had given a certain answer to the Parliament. So I say that it is quite clear that the attitude of this Government is that nothing which is relevant to any matter in dispute, such as the loan crisis, should be concealed from the public.

page 1119

QUESTION

STAFF APPOINTMENTS TO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND IMMIGRATION

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration and relates to Press reports in this morning’s Australian headed: ‘Wilenski staff in strike vote over outsiders’. The article alleges that members of the Minister’s Department propose to take industrial action against the Permanent Head of the Department, Dr Wilenski, because he has advertised certain departmental vacancies outside the Public Service. Can the Minister tell the Senate what the policy of his Department is with respect to these outside appointments?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Following the expansion of the manpower programs of the Department of Labor and the amalgamation of that Department with the former Department of Immigration, a reorganisation and expansion of the State offices were carried out. A number of new positions were created and a number of others were upgraded. The Department considered that it could not simply promote existing officers in its State regions into all the new positions without ensuring that they were in fact the best people available for the jobs. To do so would in any case have been a breach of the guidelines laid down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on indexation because it would have provided to white collar workers large salary increases of a sort which were unavailable to other unionists. In explaining this decision to the staff, the Secretary of the Department, Dr Wilenski, said in a circular:

I see it as essential that from time to time we test the market where there may be suitably qualified and experienced people in other Departments or outside the Service. Their recruitment can strengthen a Department by bringing fresh insights and perspectives.

There has been considerable misrepresentation of this decision and one thing that I should like to make quite clear is that all appointments to the Department will be made in accordance with the procedures under the Public Service Act. Such appointments are the responsibility not of the Permanent Head but of the Public Service Board. In accordance with normal practice a representative of the Board sits on all interview committees and the Board is the final arbiter of whether anyone should be appointed from outside. One of the proposals put forward by the secretary of one of the most important unions involved, the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, is that the Association should be represented on the selection committees which will interview applicants for the advertised positions, and this suggestion is receiving serious consideration.

page 1119

QUESTION

DISMISSAL OF MINISTERS

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In the light of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that he had dismissed 2 Ministers for misleading Parliament, how does the Government intend to restore its credibility in the eyes of the Parliament and the public? Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate accept that the Prime Minister did not take any action against these Ministers until newspapers had managed to prove that they were not telling the truth some weeks or months after serious doubts had been publicly raised with respect to those Ministers’ integrity? Will the Government give consideration to issuing guidelines on the subject so that Parliament and the public can have some means of judging when members of the Government are telling the truth?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is hardly a question that warrants an answer. However, I will just indicate that in any circumstances where allegations are made concerning the impropriety of any individual, no action will be taken against that person until such time as some verification can be established. I am sure that no Prime Minister can be expected to be conversant with every action that has been taken by one of his Ministers. If something has been done or not done by a Minister and this has been brought out by some source outside the parliamentary system, I do not see anything exceptional about it. It is something that can happen under any government. I do not see why the Prime Minister should be expected to lay down such absurd guidelines as were suggested in the question.

page 1119

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Special Minister of State whether he has seen a report in the Australian of 24 September of the conference of the Australian Institute of Management in Canberra at which the Prices Justification Tribunal was accused, among other things, of having terrifying powers and responsibilities that are hard to define and of being both anti-competition and anti-profit. Does the Minister consider that these are sustainable criticisms, particularly in the light of the Tribunal’s second annual report?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have seen the article that has been referred to by the honourable senator. The reported criticisms, though, are in very general terms. There have been statements to the quite opposite effect from other business quarters. It might be of interest to the honourable senator to know that some of those who originally sneered at the Prices Justification Tribunal as being a toothless tiger when the Labor Government established it are now attempting to portray the same Tribunal as somewhat of an ogre. There is, of course, no truth in either notion. The proper function of competition is to ensure that consumers receive the benefit of the lowest possible price. The major purpose of the Prices Justification Tribunal is to overcome market defects which companies would otherwise be able to exploit so far as consumers are concerned. The Tribunal determines the maximum justifiable price and leaves the market to establish, through competition, the actual price below that level. As the honourable senator will be aware, the present Leader of the Opposition has indicated to the Australian people that if his Party comes to office it will disband the Prices Justification Tribunal. If honourable senators opposite read the first annual report of the Tribunal they will observe that in its opinion it has saved the Australian consumer in its first year of operation some $250m in excess prices.

page 1120

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. I refer to the Minister’s reply to my question yesterday in which he refused to table all relevant documents in the overseas loan negotiations. The Minister has this morning referred to the undertaking of the Prime Minister in response to a question upon notice in the House of Representatives to table relevant documents. Will he accept that this matter is now directly within his own responsibility as Minister for Minerals and Energy? Will he respond to my request by tabling immediately in the Senate all relevant documents?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The answer again is no, because that information will be provide in reply to Mr Fraser ‘s question to the Prime Minister.

page 1120

QUESTION

APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Is it true that the Apple and Pear Corporation is currently having difficulty in carrying out its oper tions? Has the Corporation put proposals to the Government for financial assistance? If so, can he tell the Senate the Government’s attitude to this problem?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Last year the Australian Government made a grant of $200,000 to the Apple and Pear Corporation because of financial difficulties it was experiencing then. The Corporation, which is the body which replaced the Apple and Pear Board, has much greater activity now and much greater expansion of its research activities in promotion and marketing, etc. Consequently its budget is greater. At present legislation is before the Parliament to provide a levy to finance the operation of the Corporation. Pending the collection of that levy next year, the Corporation will be finding difficulty in its cash balance position. I have proposals before me which I am currently considering in conjunction with the Treasurer. The legislation establishing the Corporation gave it powers to borrow under Government guarantee. So there are alternatives available to the Corporation, either through the granting of money from the Commonwealth or through the raising of loans on the commercial market under that guarantee.

page 1120

ASSOCIATION OF IRON ORE EXPORTING COUNTRIES

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present an agreement establishing the Association of Iron Ore Exporting Countries, together with a statement by the Minister for Overseas Trade relating to that agreement.

page 1120

GRANTS COMMISSION REPORT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Grants Commission Act 1 973-75, 1 present the forty-second report by the Grants Commission on special assistance for States, 1975. Due to the limited numbers available at this time, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1120

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Report

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) I bring up an interim report from the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System.

Ordered that the report be printed.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Sir Magnus CORMACK (Victoria) I move:

I should like the indulgence of the Senate to make a few observations in support of that motion. In moving that the Senate take note of the report, I wish to make a brief comment about the work of the Committee and the nature of the interim report. Before I go any further, I should like to express my own particular pleasure at the Committee having been effectively and most generously governed by the present Speaker of the House of Representatives as its first Chairman and then by Mr Berinson, who has now been translated to the Ministry, and at the deep interest that has been taken by the present Chairman of Committees in the other place, Dr Jenkins. I should like to add also for the information of honourable senators that a substantial portion of the interim report which has been tabled is due to Senator Rae.

The Committee has been in operation for a year now and in that year has concentrated almost completely upon the first aspect of its terms of reference, namely, the establishment of a new and balanced system of committees. The Committee took a considerable amount of evidence from members of Parliament, including party leaders, from ex-members and senators, from academics and from the learned Clerks of both Houses. After taking this evidence the Committee was coming to a general consensus about the form of the new committee system that it had in mind and what recommendations it should make.

As a result of protracted efforts by the Committee, approval was finally given by the Government for a sub-committee to travel to Ottawa and Westminster to see at first hand the committee systems of those parliaments. This visit was particularly important and particularly fruitful. Out of the visit comes the report of the sub-committee which is contained in this interim report of the Committee which I have tabled. The sub-committee report goes against the weight of evidence taken in Australia, in some cases, especially in regard to the establishment of committees to conduct continuous and longranging scrutiny of public expenditure proposals and in regard to committees which deal with legislation. The full Committee has agreed that the sub-committee report should be published without any comment. I should make it clear that there is a minority dissent in the report which expresses the view that this practice should not be followed and that a full committee should ratify a sub-committee’s report before presenting it to the Parliament. I agree with the general tenor of much of the dissent, but at the same time, like the dissentor, I am obliged to say that there is little or nothing in the sub-committee’s report to which I personally take any exception.

The basic recommendations of the subcommittee were:

  1. the appointment of legislative committees to consider bills;
  2. the restructuring of the standing committees of the two Houses to provide them with jurisdictions which relate to specific areas of government operations;
  3. the revamping of the Standing Orders committees along the lines of the British Procedure Committee;
  4. restructuring of the Public Accounts Committee- extending its financial role and restricting it to the House of Representatives;
  5. the retention of Senate Estimates Committees (with better information and better research support);
  6. combining the functions of the Public Works, ACT and Northern Territory Committees within one Senate committee;
  7. extending the scope of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee.

Mr President, I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1121

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That Business of the Senate be postponed till the next day of sitting; and

That after the consideration of Government Business, order of the day No. 1, that is, the Inter-State Commission Bill, orders of the day Nos. 2 and 3, namely the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76, be postponed till after the consideration of order of the day No. 4, namely the Loan Bill.

page 1121

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 14 October.

Postponed proposed new clause 1 7 A.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:
VICTORIA

-When the Committee reported progress on this Bill last evening it had concluded its consideration of the clauses of the Bill and the amendments moved with the exception of proposed new clause 17A moved by Senator Wright, the further consideration of which had been postponed. The Committee will therefore now return to the postponed new clause. The question is that the proposed new clause 17A as moved by Senator Wright be inserted in the Bill.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I know that Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Withers have discussed the procedure to be followed in relation to this matter; but it might be appropriate if at this stage I give the official Government view about the proposal put forward by Senator Wright so that it will be in the record and honourable senators will be able more appropriately to consider this matter. Firstly I wish to make some general but I think relevant observations about Senator Wright’s amendment. The Government has consistently acknowledged the need for the closest attention to efficient communication between the various centres of this country. It recognises the special dependence of Tasmania on sea transport. Indeed, the very object of re-establishing the Inter-State Commission is to bring into existence a continuing expert body that will always be available to make recommendations to the Parliament so that action can be taken.

I would invite Senator Wright to examine once again the provisions of the Bill as it is now amended. It will give this Commission a clear charter of investigation over interstate transport and the capability to seek out the truth and propose positive remedies for problems. No more would the government of the day need to set up special commissions with attendant delays and cost of establishment when a problem arose. The Inter-State Commission will always be there when required. So I would point out that the amendments accepted by the Government and approved by the Senate last night already pave the way for a substantial advance in catering for the transport requirements of a State such as Tasmania.

It is spurious for Senator Wright to suggest or imply that this Government has not had regard for Tasmania’s shipping needs. After 23 years of neglect it was the Whitlam Government which set up the Nimmo inquiry into the problem.

Senator Wright:

– I should not allow you to read a speech when you use those phrases.

Senator BISHOP:

- Senator, as honourable senators know, the report of this inquiry is expected by the end of this year. It is the first time that any Government has attempted to grapple with Tasmania’s difficulties.

I should like to put on record what has been done by the Government. Firstly there have been subsidies of $4m to $5m this year to north bound general cargo while awaiting the Nimmo report. Secondly there is liaison with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to ensure that whenever possible essential Tasmanian shipping is exempted from strikes and bans by the maritime unions. On some occasions- I think 3 occasionsTasmanian ships have been so exempted. Thirdly, the Government has made available more than $ lm to allow the Tasmanian Government to purchase the Ra to ply to Tasmania ‘s dependent islands. Now this Bill provides for a continuing supervision of all interstate shipping, including to Tasmania.

Last night I mentioned that it seemed to me that the thrust of the proposed amendment runs counter to what the Opposition parties had insisted upon- that is to say, the deletion of all the provisions of the Bill directly regulating or providing for the regulation of interstate transport. It seems to me that paragraph (b) of the amendment in particular simply could not be made to work without a power to make legally binding orders. But the Opposition has insisted on deleting those provisions from Part III of the Bill. I would also observe that paragraph (b) would have the potential of making the InterState Commission the most powerful statutory body in Australia. It would have the legal capability of directly controlling interstate shipping, including private shipping, virtually according to its own whim. This goes far beyoind what was originally proposed. The clause would give the Commission the power to make or break shipping operations without the responsibility for its decisions. In reality paragraph (b) is a selfoperating provision which would in effect enable the Commission to socialise interstate shipping without ministerial or parliamentary approval. I wonder whether the full potential of that has been realised.

One may be pardoned for wondering what paragraph (a) of the amendment means. Senator Wright observed that it is vague but I want to point out, for example, what the relationship would be between this provision and the responsibilities of the Australian National Line under its Act. However, I should remind honourable senators that the Bill originally contained a clause, clause 13, which would have enable particular powers and functions already vested in other bodies under other laws to be transferred to the Inter-State Commission. As I said last night, the Government decided to withdraw the provision. That was what was wanted by the Opposition. Once again Senator Wright’s amendment would run counter to this. It would attempt to vest powers and functions conferred by other laws in the Commission. It would also have the added disadvantage that it would be completely general in nature without any concern at all for the particular circumstances. I have no doubt that this has the potential for creating serious problems.

However, if Senator Wright or any other honourable senator would like to suggest specific functions under existing laws that could be transferred to the Inter-State Commission the Government would be happy to consider those proposals. But let us first get a commission and get it operating. The Government has always recognised the potential value of the Inter-State Commission but it has seen the first priority as getting the body re-established. As it grows in stature it can be given additional functions by the Parliament. That is the time at which we should be considering the kinds of things that might be covered by paragraph (a).

Paragraph (c) of Senator Wright’s amendment is an attempt to write into the Bill powers that go far beyond those contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Since the early days of Federation, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to which I referred last night, has provided the code for the industrial relations policy of the Government of the day. This Government takes the view that industrial relations are a subject to be dealt with in the sphere of the conciliation and arbitration processes and not in a piecemeal fashion in the manner proposed. It is, of course, a matter of irony that one of Senator Greenwood ‘s main complaints about the former clause 1 3 was the possibility that it might be used to take industrial matters away from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and bring them into the jurisdiction of the Inter-State Commission. So we see again that Senator Wright’s amendment is contrary, it seems to me, to the attitude of the Opposition and the point made by Senator Greenwood to which I have just referred.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– The Opposition has not yet had an opportunity to meet and form a view on the amendment put forward by Senator Wright. In those circumstances I would ask that consideration by the Committee of that amendment be postponed until a later hour this day to enable the Opposition to formulate a view.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I would indicate on behalf of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) and the Government that we have no objection to consideration of this matter being postponed. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Government would like the matter to be settled today, so we hope that there will be an opportunity to bring it back on this afternoon so that it can be determined; or if not today, no later than tomorrow.

Progress reported.

page 1123

LOAN BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 October on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

- Mr Acting Deputy President, in addressing myself to the Loan Bill yesterday I was concerned to demonstrate a number of points which I will briefly recapitulate. Firstly, I demonstrated that the amount of money sought for the Loan Bill was for the purpose of balancing the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Secondly, I indicated that receipts into the Fund for the present financial year had been maximised and overstated at $ 1 9,000m. Thirdly, I pointed out that expenditures from the Fund had been understated and minimised at $20,000m. Fourthly, I said that as a consequence of this the deficiency in the Fund requiring funding by the device of the Loan Bill will exceed the estimated $1,1 00 m and is likely to exceed it by a very large amount. Fifthly, I illustrated that the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has now agreed that there has been very gross understatement of the Budget deficit expected for this year, a deficit which will not be $2,700m but which already, by the end of the first quarter, is in excess of $ 1, 800m. Sixthly, I had pointed out that although this Bill authorises only the application of loan moneys for purposes related to defence expenditure, the Appropriation Bills now before us contain provision for expenditure of up to $ 1,790m on defence and so the Government could conceivably, using the mechanism of this Bill, apply any amount of money up to almost $ 1,800m for the purposes of balancing the Consolidated Revenue Fund. When, inevitably, Additional Estimates are presented the Government could apply much more money because there would be a very large deficiency in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and it is a deficiency which is widening. In speaking yesterday, the final point I made was that the larger deficit will aggravate inflationary pressures and as the Treasurer told us so naively in his Budget Speech, more inflation means more unemployment. 1 carry on by stating that this Loan Bill is of very great importance to the States. There is only one available pool of loan money; there is only one pie which can be divided. If the Government wants to take a greater slice for its own purposes, that will mean that less money is available for the States, less money is available for local government and less money is available for the other arms of government which have legitimate calls upon loan funds. Only one amount of loan money is available. The sharing of that available pool is properly the function of the Loan Council. That is what the Loan Council is all about. That is why the Loan Council exists. The Government’s effort to raise large and unstated amounts of money through mechanism of this Loan Bill is, to say the least, disturbing.

The purpose of this Bill is to allow the Loan Council to be by-passed, to allow the voice of the States to be ignored, to allow State cautions and worries to be overridden and to allow State fears about Government financing to be laughed at. The Australian Government is seeking more than its fair share of available loan money and the States, local government and semigovernment bodies will, as a consequence, get less. I think the Government wants this money for purposes which are closely related to its general financial irresponsibility. I think we are entitled to draw these points to the Government’s attention.

The Bill actually is open ended. Once again I draw the attention of the Senate to clause 3 of the Bill which, in defining the amount of money which may be borrowed, expresses it in terms of the size of the deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund- not as a definite amount of money but as an amount which represents the difference between receipts into that fund and expenditures from it, limited of course, to the amount that can be applied for defence expenditure.

With this Government, all open ended commitments are dangerous because this Government is totally irresponsible. All open ended commitments for this Government are inappropriate. I must illustrate how irresponsible the Government is by referring briefly to some of the recent events.

The Government has undertaken loan raisings of the kind that it would undertake when this BUI is passed. It has undertaken loan raisings in the last year. What has been the effect of these loan raisings? What is the standing of the Government led by Mr Whitlam as a result of his forays into international loan raising? This Government is characterised by nepotism, by internecine strife, rocked by continuing scandal by fratricide as Minister after Minister is destroyed by incompetence, and by Ministers who mislead the Parliament. Senator Grimes, who is seeking to interject, seems to forget just how bad the deceptions have been. I remind him that in May Mr Lynch directed a question in the other place to the then Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor. Mr Lynch asked Mr Connor:

With whom was the Minister negotiating to raise a $2,000m loan in the Middle East? Who was the person who received a letter on official notepaper and copy of an Executive Council minute authorising him to act on Australia’s behalf to raise funds internationally? Was this gentleman offered a commission . . .

The answer given by Mr Connor at that stage is worthy of note. He stated:

The question is largely a figment of the honourable gentleman’s imagination.

This is the answer given by the then Minister for Minerals and Energy. He goes on to show why it is a figment of Mr Lynch ‘s imagination. He states further:

At no time has any mandate been given to any individual to enter into negotiations and with authority to act on behalf of the Government of Australia.

This is a Government whose Ministers will get up in the Parliament and will mislead the Parliament on matters relating to the raising of loans.

Senator Wright:

– When was that?

Senator BAUME:

– That appeared on page 2650 of Hansard of 22 May 1975.

Senator Webster:

– Were you saying the Minister was being consistent or inconsistent?

Senator BAUME:

– I would say the Minister’s actions during the past few months have been consistent with the answer he gave to that question. But this Government has had to seek the resignation in disgrace of several of its Ministersresignations dragged out reluctantly from Ministers who, far from adhering to the principles of parliamentary and ministerial responsibility, had to have their commissions withdrawn and who have resigned only when absolutely forced to the brink. They are Ministers who have expressed no remorse for what they have done and no remorse for having lied to the Parliament and the people of Australia. This Government makes Tammany Hall at its worst resemble the happy country of Shangrila. The Government’s standing is important in the raising of loans and the standing of a national government is important in negotiations. This Government has no probity, it has no credibility and it has no standing. Mr Khemlani, by means of his statutory declaration and by means of the telexes which he has released, has shown up this Government. He has shown up its Ministers as people who have no regard for truth, and no regard for Parliament. There has been a systematic deception of Parliament which has been cold, emotionless and quite deliberate.

The issues in this Loan Bill are issues involving the credibility of this Government, its honesty in matters concerning government finance, its deception of the Parliament and the people and its capacity to raise large amounts of money in a world in which it now stands discredited.

Australia today faces a constitutional crisis. It is a crisis of confidence in the Government, a lack of confidence in its honesty, a doubt about its capacity and considerable concern about its purpose. Throughout this country today Australians are demanding honest, competent, effective and balanced leadership. They are not getting it from the Whitlam Government and they have not been getting it ever since 1972. There is not a newspaper editorial in the country today which is not calling for the removal of the Whitlam Government. The Australian people will not find what they want from the remnants of the Whitlam team, reduced as it is by continuing disgrace and removal of its Ministers.

I will finish my contribution to this Bill by reminding the Senate of the words used by Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of England when he dismissed the Long Parliament. The words are as follows: ‘You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go’.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate has been treated to a pantomime from the Opposition in relation to this very important Loan Bill which has been before the Senate for some 7 weeks. Seven weeks ago the Government introduced a machinery Bill after having it passed through the House of Representatives for a simple process of financing its 1975-76 Budget. It happened that at that time the Senate was debating the Budget. Of course, we had a record number of speakers in the debate on that occasion. It is clear that even in respect to this Bill which is of very small significance to the Budget we are regaled with similar types of speeches and examination of the Government’s Budget strategy for 1975-76.

Of course, what honourable senators opposite have endeavoured to do since the Whitlam Government came to office in December 1972 has been to subject this Government to a guerrilla war, to a search and destroy concept in an endeavour to try to undermine public confidence and to bring about the defeat of the Government. In some circumstances it may have been regarded as a legitimate ploy. It was not long after the election of this Government that honourable senators opposite set about deliberately to create the conditions which led to the double dissolution in early 1974. When we examine the activities of honourable senators opposite in the intervening period of time we can understand why it is that this Government has been forced onto the defensive as it has sought to bring about the essential reallocation of resources and to bring about a much more egalitarian society. The contributions by honourable senators opposite, including those who have spoken in the last few days, indicate that facts and logic have no place in their contributions. Those contributions are no longer relevant to the debate and no longer relevant to the issues before the Senate. In point of fact, I think that we can say that honourable senators opposite can be regarded as presenting a pathetic case and putting the Opposition in somewhat of a laughing stock category.

It could be said of Australia, in terms of its financial stability and in terms particularly of its loan position and its credibility in terms of financial standing, that probably no country in the western world has a more stable loan position. Yet, if one were to listen to the contributions of honourable senators opposite, one would imagine that this country was bankrupt, that people were starving, that unemployment was rampant and that there was no way in which the Government could carry on its legitimate activities. Of course, if we listen to the speakers from the Opposition side it is clear that they did not even understand the basic essentials of Budget estimates. They are only estimates. They are not part of a dogmatic document which has to be accounted for in terms of income or expenditure without variation. They are determined and drawn up on a whole number of imponderables and varieties in activities, whether they be on the income side or the expenditure side.

The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has, in accordance with the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-73, the very authority to raise these sorts of funds. The Treasurer was quite correct in introducing the Bill in the other place and the speakers on the Government side in this place, subsequent to its being introduced here, were quite right in describing this piece of legislation as a machinery measure for a very simple expedient of financing defence expenditure as provided for in the 1975-76 Budget. Opposition speakers have followed the path traversed by Senator Cotton. The debate grew more hysterical when the position was expanded by Senator Carrick and of course, grew more and more emotional as it was expanded by Senator Baume last evening and again today. The Budget documents show that two-thirds of the funds for defence expenditure are provided for in this Bill. Loans will be raised in accordance with this Bill once it becomes law.

Of course, this is provided for in table 9 of Budget document No. 4. It clearly shows the amount that is to be raised. It clearly shows the intent of the Government and it clearly shows that it is a logical and proper procedural motion which is now before the Senate. It shows that the estimated expenditure normally charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund will exceed substantially the estimated receipts. In this consideration it is proper that loan funds shall be raised. Of course, honourable senators opposite have suggested that there is something wrong and that the Government should go to the Australian people to raise finance for the purpose of its Budget estimates. They have criticised the Government for its endeavours to raise funds overseas to carry out its legitimate public works activities and responsibilities. Honourable senators opposite- in particular Senator Baume- are now criticising the fact that we shall raise this one from within the Australian community. Senator Baume has suggested that this is some departure from the norm and that this is something to be regretted. He has, of course, ignored the fact that those in either the private sector or the public sector who invest in this loan have the responsibility of making the decision for themselves. They are under no obligation. They are acting under no force or coercion. They are able to make that decision based upon their estimation of the credibility of the loan or the government of the day.

The prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is only part of the overall deficit provided for in the 1 975-76 Budget, must be met in some way other than deficit budgeting. Of course, the Government has correctly sought the confidence of the Australian investing community in suggesting that it should provide certain sums that are set out in Table 9 of the Budget Papers. It is the usual practice. Past governments, Labor and Liberal-Country Party, have resorted to this practice. The answers supplied to the questions asked by Senator Cotton in this place several weeks ago show that in 1968, 1970 and 1971 Liberal-Country Party governments followed this procedure precisely . in respect to their Budget deficits or their Budget responsibility in those- years.- Of course, theexpenditure would normally” be met out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund,. If in fact, as a result of some fall off in the income side froth, ; say, a decision by large sections of the Australian community not to buy liquor or cigarettes, there were a fall off somewhere “within those Budget Estimates the Government would have the right, and has always utilised the right, either to have a greater deficit at the end of the year or to bring a Loan Bill before the Houses of the Parliament for the purposes of supplementing its-Budget Estimates. That is nothing unusual. It is not a device, it is not new and it is not a departure from the norm.

It is obvious from the thinking of the “members of the Opposition about the way in which any public instrumentality, least-of all- the Australian . Government, is financed that they have no clear understanding of what is required in these areas. ‘ Budget Estimates are npt documents which cannot be reviewed from time to time. As has been stressed by Government ‘speakers in the other place and in this place, such a review is one of the options which are available to governments and. it will be an option which, if there were to be a change of government, clearly would be taken up by the incoming government, whenever that may be,- whether it be this year, next year, in 5 years .or to- 10 years. It will resort to the same strategy as this Government has resorted to in respect of this matter.

The Senate Estimates- Committees sat for long hours- longer than normal-considering the Budget Estimates and were subjected in harass-ment and time-wasting as certain senators, in particular the 3 honourable. senators who have . led the; debate in this place namely Senator Cotton, Senator Carrick and Senator Baume, put the officers of the various; departments on the rack in an endeavour “to* -find; &3£!&ing onto which to latch in order to justify their political ambitions .at this point in time- and they failed miserably ip find one issue in those meetings of the Estimates Committees upon which they could fault the financial administration of this Government. Despite the fact that” they used every endeavour and questioned for -hours and hours in tedious repetition, as they moved from Committee., to Committee trying to establish something onto, which they could latch in order to bring about that reprehensible situation of which their Leader spoke earlier this year when he assumed the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia they failed to find a fault. It is normal for Oppositions to exercise this investigatory power, but the degree to which and the emotion with which they have exercised it on this occasion spells disaster for the Australian community. There will be disaster if that is to be the degree of polarisation of politics in Australia.

As has been pointed out, the mechanism that is being adopted in this case is being adopted to finance part of the Budget. A great deal has been said by members of the Opposition about deficits. There is nothing sacrosanct about deficits in terms of the preparation of Budgets. Those of us who have been in local government recognise the juggling that has to go on and, if you like, the manipulation that has to go on and the expectation that has to go on in terms of expenditure. A similar situation applies in the States and in the Commonwealth area. The suggestion that there is something immoral or improper about a deficit at the national level means either that the Opposition has no understanding of the situation or it is the victim of its own propaganda, its own fears and its own prejudices as it endeavours to create a political climate in this country to justify the breaking of a convention. Of course, that is what the members of the Opposition have been searching for throughout the whole of this spring session. They have been searching for an issue on which to try to justify the breaking of probably the last convention insofar as parliamentary democracy is concerned. They have been associated with every ulterior, improper activity in respect to breaking down respect for the parliamentary institution.

One has only to look at the way which the members of the Opposition have applied themselves in respect to this piece of legislation. When Senator Cotton took up this matter 7 weeks ago he asked a whole series of questions, which have been recorded in Hansard. He has probed, queried and asked and he has probed, queried and asked again in respect to a whole variety of matters. He has asked some 20-odd questions. I am not going to canvass them all because time will not permit. All of the questions which have been raised by honourable senators opposite, including those who have spoken in the last day or so, have been answered by the Government and its economic advisers. Of course, when one looks at those questions one sees that they do indicate that the members of the Opposition have availed themselves of the opportunity of asking questions and that those questions have been propertly answered and that when those questions have been properly answered honourable senators opposite have moved on to other questions in an attempt to attack the credibility of this Government.

I have talked about the subject of deficits. I want to refer honourable senators and those who have adopted some sort of fair-minded approach to the subject of deficits to a very interesting article that appeared in the Age of 1 October in which Budget deficits were considered as a proportion of the gross national product. Of course, the article puts Australia’s position in relation to this Budget deficit, the one that is under attack, the one of which the Loan Bill is part of the general overall deficit. The Age, in its assessment of whether Australia was stepping out of turn and whether Australia was making incorrect economic judgments and management decisions, was able to produce a graph showing that Australia was in the same category as Germany and the United States of America and that New Zealand and Great Britain were in a worse position than Australia in their Budget deficits. Australia ‘s Budget deficit represented some 4 per cent of its gross national product. Australia was in line with the United States of America and Germany which also had Budget deficits which represented 4 per cent of their gross national product. In New Zealand the figure was 5 per cent, in Great Britain it was 8.5 per cent and in Japan, which is very close to us, it was 3.5 per cent. Yet it is suggested that there is something wrong with our position. Despite those figures which are official Budget figures in the countries concerned, there appeared in the back pages of our free Press at least an indication that the Americans were not going to breach their Budget deficit estimates. On page 58 of the Sydney Sun the same date as the date of the article in the Melbourne Age, to which I have referred, the following appeared:

The U.S. Budget deficit for the 1975-76 financial year could soar as high as $A70,200 million from the current estimate of $A53,040m . . .

That is a $ 1 7,000m increase, which represents an increase of about 30 per cent in the deficit provided in the American Budget. Are honourable senators opposite therefore suggesting that America is in a crisis situation, that the American Government should be overthrown by subversive conspiratorial methods, that the American Government is on the downward trend, that the American Government is sliding into bankruptcy and that the whole of the capitalist system in America is in danger of falling. Of course not.

Nevertheless for party political reasons and for the purpose of trying to create the political climate which has been the political object of the Opposition parties since they lost office in December 1972, they are setting out to highlight and exaggerate our position and to create the conditions which will justify the rejection of another Bill that will come before this chamber which will seek to provide money which is essential to enable the Government to carry out its program.

If the theory is that the public sector has a very limited role to play in the overall development of this country, I would like honourable senators opposite to get on their feet and say so. However, they are always strangely silent when it comes to the question of the role that the Australian Government should play in the redistribution of resources in this country and to the question of providing facilities for those who are less fortunate than others. We always find that those spokesmen who are most vocal and most caustic and who use the most extravagant language are those who are strangely silent when we ask them to indicate what sections of public expenditure they would reduce. They are never prepared to identify themselves with cut backs in public spending. Of course, there would be reasons for this. Opposition parties want to gain office by a devious trick, by capitalising on certain political trends that are taking place in this country without having any clearly identified policy with which to win an election. The high drama facing this country at the moment is the result of this deliberate policy, this concoction, this presentation of issues in the highly emotive terms of which we have heard so much in the Senate since 1 972.

Looking at government expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product, we find again that Australia is in one of the better positions among the Western countries. For example, government expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product was 33 per cent in the United States, 39 per cent in Canada, 42 per cent in France and 50 per cent in Sweden. Where is Australia? It is at the bottom of those countries I have just read out, at some 32 per cent. Yet the parrot cry and the politicalisation that has been taking place in recent times suggest that what has happened in Australia where we have raised the proportion of public spending in relation to the gross domestic product is an act of immature, inexperienced and irresponsible politicians.

Senator Webster:

– Hear, hear!

Senator GIETZELT:

– Quite the opposite is the case. Those on the other side of the chamber who say ‘hear, hear’ show to the Australian people the horrible alternative that faces them in the event of the Opposition bringing about the constitutional crisis which it is seeking to bring about in this country. Even on the question of taxation revenue as a proportion of our Budget income- this is another area in which we have had a lot of emotive thinking and public statements from the Opposition- it is instructive to note that in 1974-75 total taxation revenue as a percentage of gross national product in Australia was only 30 per cent. In the heartland of capitalism in the United States, it was 33 per cent. Yet Opposition senators have the temerity to suggest that this Budget, this piece of legislation, this method or procedure or machinery which is a normal process of government has some ulterior motive and that there is some reason for it to be probed and rejected by the Senate. Table 9 in the Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditure dealing with the loan fund shows that the loan represents $1,1 52m out of the total Budget of $ 19,000m. From the point of view of simple mathematics that represents only 6 per cent of total government Budget income for this financial year, 1975-76. The purpose of the loan is to finance defence expenditure, which represents 8.8 per cent of Budget expenditure this year.

How can anyone argue rationally and logically that the Government’s endeavours to finance its defence expenditure through the stratagem of a Loan Bill represents irresponsibility and a stratagem which is different from that adopted in past years? In the large number of answers that Senator Wriedt provided to questions asked by Senator Cotton and in the answers to another lot of questions placed on the notice paper by the Opposition in which all the queries were raised, one still finds that honourable senators opposite reject the explanations and the defence that the Government and its economic advisers have provided and they have taken the stand in respect of this legislation that the Government is acting improperly and irrationally. Senator Carrick subjected the Senate to his usual hysterical rancour, making assertions which are completely denied, which have no substance, which ignore the degree to which the Government went on providing answers to questions which have been recorded in the Senate Hansard.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15p.m.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was discussing the questions that had been raised by Opposition senators about the deficit in the 1975-76 Budget which they were criticising as being inordinately large and one which could not be held to that figure. I have had a chance to examine the contribution of Senator Cotton in this respect. He pointed out that it is proper and competent for the Government to finance deficits by domestic borrowing or by having access to the credit pool created by the Government itself. Whilst I can say that he raised some doubt about the capacity of the Government to raise this sort of money- I think Senator Walsh pointed out in his contribution yesterday the success which the Government had met in the last loan borrowings- I have no doubt that the Australian people would respond to the launching of this Loan Bill for the purpose particularly of financing the Government’s defence expenditure, or two-thirds of it.

It is interesting to note that Senator Cotton drew attention also to the fact that during the last 2 years savings banks deposits have risen by about $2,000m, which represents almost a 20 per cent increase on the deposits of a year ago. This hardly seems to me to represent the sort of crisisprone economy which the Opposition has been speaking about so vehemently in this place. Of course, the loan and the deficit with which the Government is associated have been strongly criticised by Mr Fraser and his speakers in this place. But going through the Leader of the Opposition ‘s speeches and contributions to conventions and the Parliament in recent times it is very revealing to find that he has committed himself to adopting the Mathews Committee proposals over a 3-year period. This will cost $300m. He will abolish the levy on the export of coal. This will cost $720m. He will reduce personal income tax by $500m. He will reintroduce the 40 per cent investment allowance. This will cost $300m. He will abolish the levy on the export of beef. This will cost $20m. He will reintroduce the superphosphate bounty. This will cost $30m. This makes nonsense of the rhetoric which Senator Baume was speaking today. In the light of the Leader of the Opposition’s public statements, the Budget deficit will rise from $2,800m to something like $4,000m. In those circumstances I think we ought to reject the comments that have been made so irresponsibly by Opposition senators.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating the Loan Bill 1975. The general public of Australia is unlikely to appreciate the significance of the Bill. Public finance becomes a remote problem to most people who, once they have elected a government to manage their national affairs, presume that financial negotiations made on behalf of the people will be carried out with legality and integrity. In the early stages of progress towards bankruptcy in private business the holders of shares in companies often appear to be in a mental trance, an attitude of disbelief relating to the financal affairs of their corporation, until these financial problems come to an immediately extreme financial state and to a point of disaster. So it appears in these days that Australian Labor Party Government control of the Australian public purse has reached that state. I ask: Is bankruptcy threatened in this country by this Government? Do these men, these Labor Ministers, who show a face of confidence to the people really understand the outcome of their actions? I doubt that they do.

The results of nearly 3 years of Labor control have irreparably harmed most sectors- I think it not unreasonable to say all sectors- of the Australian public interest. It is as attractive for private business as it appears in public affairs to put off the evil day until it is at hand. The outcome is one which people do not wish to face. This Federal Labor Government has misled the Australian public. Those people who in good faith followed the promises of Whitlam, Cairns, Crean, Connor and Cameron have learned at one time or another along the line that the Government is untrustworthy and that the Party for which they voted, in which they placed their confidence, has seen fit to rid itself of the hopeless Ministers who on a number of occasions have not only misled the public but also in their untruthful declarations have been protected by their Labor colleagues. But their falsehoods have become evident and their own Party members have turned on them. In recent days another Minister was flung out of office. This is a pitiable state of affairs for the Australian Government. Clearly today it is a sorry story of a confidence trick attempted on the public, protected for months and months by Ministers and the Prime Minister. It has been eventually made clear to the public as a most despicable confidence trick on the electorate.

The matter to which I refer is the borrowing capacity of this Government. Public borrowing is a matter which should prompt the utmost righteous outlook and national responsibility by the Government. After contemplating each of the affairs that have resulted in the discharge of Ministers under the Whitlam Government- each untruth, incidentally, wrung out of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), wrung out of the Leader of the Government in this House (Senator Wriedt) and all other Ministers by the constant questions by the Opposition in this place attempting to get to the truth- one does not need any further proof of the abject failure of Labor.

Can we believe the statements of the various Ministers in this House that all borrowings by the Australian Government were put aside five or six months ago and that no action has taken place since? Is it logical for anyone to believe that senior government Ministers were not aware of what was happening?

I think it is a ridiculous proposition that neither the Prime Minister nor the senior members in the Cabinet- having been alerted last April and May, by questions on notice in this place, that there were rumours of borrowings throughout the whole world and discussions of the thousands of millions of dollars that apparently the Australian Government was trying to raise- took any further interest in the great volume of overseas telexes that came through to the senior Ministers of this country indicating that borrowing activity was still going on. My own belief is that this information has been known by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and by other Ministers since May.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What is your evidence of that? Have you any evidence?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator McClelland asks what evidence there is. I have been in this Senate for a number of months now while questions have been asked of Senator James McClelland and of his colleagues as to whether loan negotiations were still continuing. Righteously he would rise in his place day after day and say: ‘You have the assurance of Mr Connor; you have the assurance of the Prime Minister that there are no negotiations’.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But where is your evidence against him or me?

Senator WEBSTER:

– The evidence is that you were misled and that you in turn misled this House.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is another thing altogether. You said I knew.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator James McClelland cares to interrupt and say: ‘What is the evidence?’ The fact is that evidence on this matter has had to be dragged out of the Ministers day after day. They should be on their feet apologising for the abject faults and falsehoods that they have brought into this Parliament. If they are not ashamed of themselves they ought to be.

Senator Walsh:

– Tell us about the lie that took us into Vietnam.

Senator WEBSTER:

-We have another squeak from the Western Australian senator- we heard his contribution on this matter- and I hear the croaking from up there at the back. A leader with any respect for his own image would declare immediately in this Parliament that he had misled the Parliament, although perhaps unintentionally. Surely those who have followed the disgrace and discharge of the various Ministers during these past months must endorse my comment that any leader with any respect for his own image would resign immediately.

Senator Wright:

– Under the principle of responsibility in government.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Wright is quite correct in what he has said, and I fully agree with him. This is an important matter because the whole basis for this Bill is a suggestion of borrowing from the Australian public. Indeed, the limit of borrowing that has occurred is a very definite responsibility of this Senate. Labor policies in so many instances appear to have been so stupid, and those policies have as their basis this Government’s anxiety immediately to socialise the community. Of course, those who have ever cast a vote for Labor must acknowledge that that is what they voted for. While the Prime Minister at all times has stood and announced his policies, and I do not doubt that in the ensuing months he will do so again, not one member of the Labor Party will stand and say honestly: ‘We intend to socialise Australia’. What has happened under Labor policies is that, in its abject attempt to bring disgrace to the community by those socialist policies, the Government has harmed the whole of the electorate. Those who put their faith in Labor, those who elected this Government, in truth did not elect it for that socialist activity, but we have seen in almost every area a pro-socialist, pro-communist attitude expressed by the Australian Labor Party. One cannot but say, if one looks at our overseas relationships, and again I believe that they have a great influence on our borrowing capacity, that each one of us as a member of the community has been taken along in this pro-communist friendship with communist nations throughout the world. It has been done without experience, without vision and without integrity by many of the Labor Ministers. It is difficult to absorb the harm which Labor has wrought on the economy of this country.

Senator Poyser:

– He has got a speech writer.

Senator WEBSTER:

-No, not a speech writer, just a note handed to me by somebody who claims that Labor is the friend of the communists. If you like, I will even table the document for you because you would be proud to have it, I am quite sure.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)- Do I understand that that document is going to be tabled? If it is, I should like to get a proper and accurate report.

Senator WEBSTER:

– In truth, no political party would face office happily in the next 2 years, and I say that meaningfully. No political party would look forward with pleasure to the next 2 years of federal management in government. It will be a most difficult time for whichever party happens to be in power. That position has been brought about by the mismanagement of this Government, and the citizens of this once great stable country, where men and women were keen to work and to achieve, were proud to know that as good Australians they were creating one of the most outstanding countries in the world, now face a position where their country is noted abroad for the double standards and irresponsibility of its political leaders. In a very few years the theory put forward by the socialist planners has blackened and permeated the whole moral fibre of this country. One has to look only at what happened in New Zealand; one has to look only at the situation today in Great Britain.

Senator Sheil:

– Once great Britain.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Yes, once great Britain. One can see where a Labor government is entrenched for any time the disaster which follows. Labor certainly has brought its share of ruin to this community and irreparable damage has been done. The Australian Government’s Budget for 1974-75 resulted in a deficit of unprecedented size, and that is one of the main factors involved in this Loan Bill. There was a total deficit of $2,567m and a domestic deficit of $ 1 ,949m. That was the biggest deficit this country had faced for years; in fact, it was the biggest deficit ever, the largest deficit in the previous 9 years being $642m in 1967-68. 1 note again the limitations of that figure. A government that at this time last year stated to the people that it would manage the affairs of this country and bring about a deficit of some $500m, a figure that was accepted by this Parliament, ended its financial management of the Australian economy last year with a deficit of $2,567m. The major part of the deficit in 1 974-75 was financed by short-term borrowings, by the issue of 13-week and 26-week Treasury notes, and those were bought largely by the banks and the money market dealers. I point out that those notes were not taken up by the public. The net increase in Treasury notes on issue for the year was $ 1,689m, and that has brought the total amount on issue up to 30 June to an astounding $2,076m.

I recognise that in times when the Government has been discussing borrowing sums to the extent of $4,000m and $8,000m-figures that were put up in the House of Representatives and in this place to indicate the limits of what the Government thought it could take into the country and adequately use for temporary purposes- we have become immune to recognising that in the financial affairs of Australia the limits of borrowing and the limits of use of money have become disastrous to this community. But we are accepting to some extent deficits of $2,000m. Are we accepting the fact that the Australian community will be required to repay those moneys at some stage? Does the community realise that under a pretext, by suggesting that there is to be a changed and better taxation system, in truth this Government intends to get approaching $2 ,000m more out of the Australian public by way of taxation in this year? Have we come to recognise that the ridiculousness of the financing of the Labor Government in the past years has generated a situation in which, while 3 years ago the inflation rate was running at some 3 per cent or 4 per cent it has risen progressively over the past months to a point where it is predicted that the percentage will be in the twenties, and even the Budget Papers themselves indicate that there could be an inflation rate as high as 25 per cent.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Where does it say that?

Senator WEBSTER:

-The fact is that all of this is being created by a Government which has the intention of wrecking the community.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Where is that?

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Minister for Labor and Immigration sings out and sings out. He is trying to put on a brave face to try to -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Let us have a few facts.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Why does the Minister not concentrate on trying to reduce the unemployment in the community. While the Government is trying to raise loans and is attempting to disrupt the whole economic community of this country it is paying no attention to the unemployment that it has brought about.

The Budget Papers claim that there may be as many as 400 000 people unemployed at the end of the year. I think we would all expect that the problems that will be created in January of next year will be extreme for any government, because school leavers are going to place a harsh burden on the community. But why has this situation occurred? It has occurred because of the stupidity of the propositions which Labor made in previous Budgets in which it declared that it could see the opportunity of moving from private sector financing, which was the employment sector of the community, to government and public sector financing. We find that as a result businesses are closing, employment is restricted and there is no confidence by those who have money to invest that they should expand their businesses. The employment prospects for all our sons over the next years are very delicate. Are we to have a situation in this country as has been achieved in some other socialist countries whereby those who have finished their academic training at universities find that there are no opportunities available for employment? Again, Labor has done this intentionally. When it decided to cut protection to the industry of this country by pulling out of the air some figure of 20 per cent and saying: ‘We will slash protection of industries right across the board ‘, it had no thought for, and it did not concern itself with, those who would be unemployed.

Senator Walsh:

– Is that socialism?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Well, I think that within the next few weeks some of the unemployed may even come from this place. I do not know how they will get a job in line with the philosophy that Labor has put down. But we are accepting that there will be a high rate of unemployment, something that we never expected to see in this community. We are accepting high rates of inflation, which rocketed under Labor to 16 per cent or 17 per cent some 9 or 10 months ago. This matter was in the hands of the Labor Government to control. It is interesting to look at the private banking sector and the Government controlled banking sector and to note the criticism that has been made by Ministers in respect of the private sector. The private banking sector was the first to drop the interest rate. It was the private banking sector which had to give the lead to the Commonwealth and State banks to reduce their rates of interest.

Would it not be wonderful if Labor could only learn the folly of its ways? But it has not done so. We have seen one Minister- the first- discharged for his lack of integrity and his inability to tell the truth in another place. We have seen Minister after Minister discharged by Mr Whitlam. I do not know whether present members of the Labor Party are proud that their friends are receiving such treatment at the hands of a Prime Minister. I do not accept that the Prime Minister was not aware of all these overseas loan negotiations. I believe that responsibility lies with him. He should, if he is a man of honour, make a declaration to the Parliament that he is as much to blame for those things that have occurred as are the Ministers who have been discharged.

That responsibility certainly is relevant to the facts that have emerged in respect of the ACTUSolo proposition. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is now going to make the facts clear in respect of the negotiations with Mr Connor and the supposed directors of ACTUSolo. But we have had an amazing proposition which certainly could not be sustained from a commercial viewpoint. One can only imagine the attitude of the directors of an insurance company or of a banking group should it be held that only one director should take responsibility for an action. Any competent board of directors would logically have a united responsibility. But we find in the case of ACTU-Solo that Mr Hawke is able to say that it is all Mr Souter’s fault. But the argument cannot be accepted that a newly registered company, which has as its main expenditure moneys totalling hundreds of thousands and even running into millions of dollars to be used for the purchase of crude oil would have a managing director who was not aware of the transactions. Eventually the truth must come out, just as it must for our present Prime Minister- that he is involved and he fully understands what has been taking place in these loan negotiations.

The Australian Government Budget outlays totalled $3,284m in the first 2 months of 1975-76. I ask the Senate to note those figures very closely. I remind honourable senators that I am talking about outlays in this particular year; I am not talking of a year, the period in which the Government proposed it would have a $500m deficit and managed its affairs that well that it ended up with a deficit of $2,500m. I am speaking of a Government that says to us: ‘We expect to have something in excess of a $2,000m deficit in this year. ‘ I repeat that the Australian Government’s Budget outlays total $3,284m for the first 2 months of 1 975-76. That represents an increase of 48 per cent on the outlays in the same period of the previous year. Would anyone with any accounting knowledge believe that the Government is going to live up to the assurance that it has given us in relation to its expenditures? It is just not possible. Under normal circumstances a Loan Bill such as the one we have before us would be brought before the Parliament to raise minor amounts of money to be applied to such purposes as defence expenditure. But we are faced with a situation in which the Government is looking for unlimited borrowing, as is suggested under the terms of the Bill- although it must be limited to about $ 1 ,800m, because that is the total of the defence expenditure.

This type of borrowing has reference to what took place at the commencement of the moves to obtain overseas loans. We are all well aware of the fact that in December last at an Executive Council meeting former Senator Murphy, the Attorney-General of the time, is said to have advised Ministers in this Government, including Mr Whitlam- all the other Ministers involved have now been discharged from their offices- to borrow to the extent of $4,000m with the general aim of depositing that money on loan in a bank in America and expending it on various projects which would take years and years to establish. In fact, the borrowing was to be over a period of 20 years, which would have meant that Australian citizens would have had an obligation to repay somewhere in the vicinity of $17,000m. The then Attorney-General said that it could be claimed that such a borrowing would be for temporary purposes. Whatever is the history of this country, whatever is the history of that former AttorneyGeneral, whatever is to be the future of the one Minister who is left out of those 5 Ministers who attended and constituted that Executive Council meeting, the Minute which was the result of that meeting will rebound to the disgrace of all those who were associated with it.

Under this Bill, the Financial Agreement- that is, the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States on the ability to borrow and the limit of the borrowing- restricts the Commonwealth’s power to borrow. Our forefathers apparently saw that it was wise for the States and the Federal Government in relation to matters of borrowing to be united in their views and to have some responsibility to the people of Australia. Clause 4 (4) of the Agreement provides that moneys shall not be borrowed by the Commonwealth otherwise than in accordance with the Agreement. Clause 6 authorises borrowings within the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth for any purpose but on terms decided by the Loan Council. It also prohibits, in effect, the use of loan moneys by the Commonwealth in a particular financial year of more than the amount decided by the Loan Council. It does that by providing that excess borrowings shall be deemed to be moneys received by the Commonwealth in the following year on account of its loan program for that year. That provision is found in clause 6 (5) of the Agreement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will not waste too much dme in dealing with the remarks of Senator Webster who preceded me in the debate because, as is his habit, he has treated us to assertion rather than evidence. He has constantly contradicted himself. Let me take a few side swipes at him before getting on to the gravamen of the debate. He made some play on the fact that there have been frequent changes in the Ministry of the Labor Government. I would remind him that when we last had a coalition of Liberal and Country parties changes were infinitely more frequent. Mr Daly was able to point out in a debate on the Appropriation Bill 1971 that in less than 4 years Australia had had 3 Prime Ministers, 4 Ministers for Defence, 5 Ministers for Foreign Affairs and 3 Treasurers. In fact, since March of that year, in a period of 6 months, they had had 2 Prime Ministers, and another one was about to come up.

Senator Webster:

– I thought you would tell us how many misled the Parliament and how many had to be thrown out.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, I will do that. I will do precisely that. I would remind the honourable senator that a Liberal Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, misled the Parliament about the origins of the Vietnam war and produced letters which completely confounded him. An invitation to Australia to join the war turned out, when correspondence was produced, to be an offer from Australia to be. in it. I would remind Senator Webster also that the sanctimonious Mr Lynch who has played such a prominent role in recent times lied twice to the Parliament, once about the practice of bastardisation at Duntroon and another time about the chaining of a soldier named O’Neill in a gunpit in Vietnam. The important distinction, of course, is that the liars on Senator Webster’s side did not see fit to resign but carried on as though nothing had happened.

He also said that wherever Labor comes to power there is disaster in its trail. Evidently he forgot that the most prosperous countries in the world, according to the latest figures produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, are the Scandinavian countries which have had Labor administrations almost throughout living memory, and that in Germany, where there is another social democratic government, things are much more prosperous than in most of those countries of the world which have conservative governments. He forgot also that, bad and all as things are in Great Britain at the present time, the people of

Britain, after a trial of a conservative government led by Mr Heath who was supposed to have the solution to all of the problems which Mr Wilson had not been able to solve in his previous administration, decided to throw out Mr Heath and return to a Labor government, as will the people of this country if the Liberal-National Country Party people are stupid enough to take the measure which we understand they are about to take today and tear up the rule book.

So much for Senator Webster. Let me return to the subject matter of this debate. I submit that on the face of it there is some mystery surrounding this debate. This Bill has been before the Senate since 2 September. As Senator McAuliffe stated on an earlier occasion when the Bill was being debated, the remarkable thing is that it is being debated at all, for it is a routine, machinery Bill to secure authority to borrow sums of money for financing the defence expenditure which will be charged to the Loan Fund during 1975-76. As previous speakers have pointed out, Liberal governments introduced similar Bills in 1968, 1970, 1971 and 1972.

There has been an interesting progression of speakers from the other side of the chamber on this Bill which really did not rate more than about half an hour’s debate anyway. We started off with the general, Senator Cotton. We came down the line to the colonel, Senator Carrick, and we then had the subaltern, Senator Young. Today we came down a little bit further to the sergeant, Senator Baume, and we just heard from the lance-corporal, Senator Webster. The quality of the debate has varied greatly but there has been one constant theme, and that is that there is something sinister, perhaps even something reprehensible, about this routine Bill. However, in the past couple of days the mystery attached to this debate has been unravelled. It was all part of the carefully orchestrated presentation of reprehensible circumstances. Either the honourable senators who have taken part in this debate did not know about the Khemlani plot or they did not know whether it would come off. Now that they consider that they have their reprenhensible circumstance in the disclosures by Mr Khemlani in the last couple of days, they have decided, as has been adumbrated so incautiously by Senator Webster, that they will tear up the rule book. So this debate in which we are now engaged has become academic. The Loan Bill no longer has to supply the reprehensible circumstance which Senator Cotton, Senator Carrick and other lesser speakers have attempted to impute to it. They now believe that they have in what Mr Khemlani has said in recent days all that they need to provide the pretext for throwing this Government out of office.

Senator Poyser:

– How much did they pay him?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That would be an interesting thing to explore, too. I suggest that the sooner we wind up this hollow farce the better. Let us pull the preliminary boys out of the ring and get on with the main event, which is the rejection of the Appropriation Bills. I assume that that will happen sometime later in the day. But first of all I would like some opportunity to mop up the ring which is littered with falsities, half-truths, gross exaggerations, preAdam Smith economists- especially from that great pontificator Senator Carrick- and wild rhetoric anticipatory of the hustings which they can hardly wait to mount. The most absurd claim and the most absurd expression of that claim which came from Senator Baume was that ours is an irresponsible Budget, especially in its deficit aspect and that these presumptive rulers of this country have something better to offer.

What we have heard, of course, is merely a rehash of what was said by Mr Fraser and Mr Lynch in other places. Mr Lynch, that poor man’s Milton Friedman, has been engaging in an exercise of looking at the monthly deficit, multiplying that figure by 12 and concluding from that what the Budget deficit will be. So he comes up with different figures in different months. For instance, 12 times the July deficit comes to an annual deficit of $9m. If he multiplies the next month’s deficit he gets $6m. He completely ignores seasonal, fiscal and monetary changes. Of course, this is the sort of exercise we have also had from his imitators in this place.

Senator Webster:

– What does the honourable senator believe it will be? I bet he does not tell us.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-If Senator Webster, that giant of economists, can tell us, when his government comes to power, at any moment in the fiscal year within $300m, $400m or $500m what the deficit will be- of course he will have a deficit as I will demonstrate- he will be a very surprising figure as far as I am concerned. If he knew anything at all about this problem he would know that no responsible politician or economist would presume to say at this stage of the fiscal year exactly what the deficit will be. It is subject to all sorts of fluctuations. Senator Webster will find when he gets out of the realm of promises into the harsh world of reality that he will be subject to the sorts of strictures which he and Senator Baume, in their economic ignorance, have been uttering today.

Among the most absurd statements which have come from the Opposition is the statement that our deficit will not be $2, 800m but $3, 500m- I concede that to be a possibilitybecause, the Opposition says, of the success which we are having in wage restraint. Is that bad? Is the Opposition suggesting that we would be better off with a $2,800m deficit and wages soaring by something like 30 per cent instead of having a $3,500m deficit and wages growing at half the rate at which they grew last year? That is the picture which is emerging. When honourable senators opposite get their hands on the power for which they are so greedy we will be very interested to see what sort of wages policy they have. I have had a look through the pompous vacuous document which purports to be the industrial policy of the Opposition. I have conducted a debate before large audiences with its putative Minister for Labor and Immigration, the man who will take my place, Mr Street. I have waited in vain for some enunciation from the Opposition as to how it hopes to cope with the wages explosion which I and the Government concede was a disaster in 1974. I have come away with the conclusion, especially after listening to Mr Fraser ‘s prognostications for his Budget, that the Opposition has a very simple answer to inflation. These are the people who are self-righteous about unemployment.

They are embracing the old-fashioned, discredited proposition of the short, sharp shock. What they have in mind and what is implicit in Mr Fraser’s Budget proposals is to reduce public expenditure by a further $ 1 billion, or 5 per cent and that this will vastly increase unemployment very rapidly. They hope that this will be the discipline which will enable them to bring down inflation. In other words, they do not bother to tell us that in countries whose inflation rates are so admired by the Opposition, the unemployment rates are far greater than that which is tolerable in this country. Obviously this is to be the strategy of the government which aspires to take our place. Honourable senators opposite plan to discipline the work force by massive unemployment.

If honourable senators look a little further into this document to which I have referred and which is the Opposition’s industrial policy, they will find that the Opposition avoids the word penalties’. Evidently honourable senators opposite do this on the basis of the old Japanese proverb that the soft word does not scratch the tongue. Instead they talk about consequences. If workers go on strike or if unions misbehave themselves they will be visited with consequences. Mr Fraser, when pressed to define consequences shortly after the appearance of this flaccid document, reverted to the old, tired remedies of fines, gaolings and de-registration. I ask honourable senators to contemplate for a moment de-registration. Can anything be sillier or more discredited than that way of disciplining unionists? They disobey and defy the system so the Opposition would put them outside the system. Then they would be unreachable like the builders labourers at present in Melbourne. There is a long, drawn-out industrial upheaval in the building industry in Melbourne. Other unions can be brought before industrial tribunals but the builders labourers are not amenable to be called before any tribunals because some smart employer got them de-registered during some dispute.

Mr Fraser and Mr Street have learnt nothing from the days when they imposed fines on unions, gaoled O’Shea and thought that all one had to use in order to have industrial peace was some sort of a bludgeon. I think they will find differently. As I said in the debate which I had with Mr Street recently, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) gave me this job, which I believe is one of the most arduous jobs in the country, on my birthday. I predict that if this portfolio ever falls into Mr Street’s lap he will think that all his birthdays have come at once. I cannot see how there will be any capacity in the government, which aims to succeed this Government, to solve the most urgent, pressing and difficult task of a modern government, which is to persuade the work force- I use the word ‘persuade’ because there is no other way in a democratic countrythat it is not in its interests to think that wage increases of any proportions at all, regardless of consequences, are anything but counterproductive to them because the increases fuel the forces of inflation which in turn lead to greater unemployment. They must be persuaded to accept reasonable increases in wages which keep pace with rises in the cost of living. In the interests of national health they must accept some sort of reasonable approach to wage increases.

I have listened in vain to the spokesmen for the Opposition to hear about their approach to this problem. I can only conclude that on this matter of the most important task confronting a government in a modern industrial society spokesmen for the Opposition have given no thought to this question, that they are bankrupt of ideas and that they will revert to the old, discredited methods which will merely aggravate industrial relations. In short, they have nothing as responsible as we have to offer. They have no wages policies and nothing to offer unions except penalties, which I say they call consequences, and more unemployment as their prime disciplinary weapon. I suggest that they should on the eve of resorting to this bushranger grab for power- which I understand is to be announced by the would-be Prime Minister at any moment- pause to contemplate the consequences of what they are about to do.

I suggest to honourable senators opposite that as a result of what they have in mind the civilised political contest, which is the only basis of the preservation of democratic government based on a reasonable consensus, will disappear and that the rules of parliamentary democracy and the contest in the framework of parliamentary democracy will be taken out of the Parliament into the streets. Can we be surprised if the people who have some hopes of a reform and who see that a reforming government such as ours, no matter what mistakes it may have made- I freely concede that we have made mistakes- is not to be allowed to govern but is to be thrown out because there is an adventitious majority against it in the non-elected House, decide to abandon the parliamentary system and resort to direct action? This is something that I had hoped would not happen in this country. I had hoped that the people- even the conservatives who believe that it is outrageous that they have to cede power to a social democratic party, even for one termwould be long sighted enough to learn something from the lessons of history and that they would realise that to tear up the rule book and to deny the democratic processes is to invite disaster.

They are polarising society in a way which can only lead to the sort of contest that has been endemic in Europe and in the Latin American countries and which I now fear will become the norm in Australia. I can think of nothing more conducive to fomenting communism and anarchy in this country than the action which the Opposition proposes to take today. The Opposition should bear in mind also that the pendulum swings and that it is very difficult in a modern industrial society- especially in a period of inflation such as has been bedevilling the world over the last few years- for any government to govern. There was a note of fear, I thought, in the otherwise purblind speech of Senator Webster as to the difficulties the Opposition parties will experience during the ensuing 2 years if it becomes the Government. They will be able to blame it all on us for a few months.

Undoubtedly, they will enjoy a honeymoon and they will say: ‘Yes, you were told by the previous Minister for Labor and Immigration that there would be 400 000 people out of work. We inherited that problem from them! That, of course, will be able to throw some sort of a smokescreen across the real situation when 600 000 people are out of work and then when 800 000 people are out of work.

I do not know how many the Opposition parties will be able to accommodate and how long they hope to have that sort of short, sharp shock. I suggest to them that once launched it will be harder and harder to control. In those circumstances there will be other Senate elections, that is if the Opposition proposes to allow the Constitution to operate at all. There will be other adventitious majorities. There will be a Labor majority in this Senate and then, of course, I suppose the Opposition will be telling us that we should revert to the rules that it tore up and we should not run the country according to the Rafferty’s rules which they created. I think the Opposition would be very naive to believe that once having created the precedent- in fact it has been created twice because if we remove the euphemisms that surrounded last year’s events, there was, in effect, a refusal of Supply- it will be very difficult to persuade any party in this country which gets an adventitious majority in this Senate in the future not to use its power to throw it out of office. I think that will be lamentable. What are we going to have in this country? We will have an election every 6 months, 12 months or 1 8 months. How can any party plan and how can any government introduce long-term measures if it has to be constantly looking over its shoulder at the accidental majority in the Senate, especially if it becomes the norm to adopt the policies of Mr Bjelke-Petersen and search around the rubbish heap of discarded political figures in order to find some accidental figure who is venal enough to do whatever he is told to do in this place.

While I am saying that, I would like to pay a tribute to Senator Bunton who, despite the hopes of Mr Lewis that he was putting a stooge into this place, has shown that he is a man of honour and a man of principle. But the precedent has been created that any government in a State of a different persuasion to the Government in Canberra can cast around and find some pathetic figure like Senator Field, inject him into this place, pull the strings and make him do whatever is required. Is that what we are going to have? Are we going to have a string of puppets in this place? Are we going to have accidental majorities which will be able to negate the will of the people, as expressed in the most recent election for the popular House? Is this to become the pattern of Australian politics?

Let me deal in passing with the notion that this is in any way a democratic House compared with the one across the way. In this House 10 senators represent the 500 000 people of Tasmania and 10 senators represent the 5 million people of New South Wales. Can our opponents not see that the mere statement of those figures refutes the notion that this House should in any way in matters like this be on an equal footing with the House of Representatives which is elected by all the people? I ask honourable senators opposite to pause in their moment of euphoria and contemplate just what they will set in train. But in saying this, I would like to say that they must not interpret from anything that I have said- if I may adopt the words of their leader- anything which indicates any intention on our part to hand power to them on a plate. If honourable senators opposite take us on, we will be in there trading punches. Before this is over they will know that they have been in a brawl.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I had intended to speak directly to the Loan Bill but I feel that some comments of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) should be answered briefly. He described trie Senate as a non-elected House. I would like to think that he would feel that that was a misinterpretation of the Australian Senate. It is a democratically elected House but he seems to be overlooking the compact of federation in its Constitution and in the way in which it represents the people of Australia. It must be a House which has the recognition of the present Government because of its eagerness to add to its numbers and to use the Constitution in a way that could add to its numbers members elected from the people of the Territories of Australia. To suggest that this is a non-elected House, as has been done by the Minister, is to be grossly inaccurate. I feel that it misrepresents every honourable senator who sits in this House. The Minister spoke about the tearing up of the rule book. The rule book did not need much tearing up, it was so tattered from the operations of the present Government over the past 2Vi years.

Senator Poyser:

– You know that is wrong.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The rule book has been abused in a way that the Parliament has been misled by the Government. Those are the consequences, if we wish to use that word, which perhaps has led the Government to its present attack on the elected Senate of Australia. I want to refer to the Loan Bill. As Senator James McClelland said, it is a Bill which some weeks ago was introduced into the Australian Senate and was described by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Senator Wriedt) as being a machinery measure required to secure authority to borrow amounts for the financing of defence expenditure which will need to be charged to the Loan Fund during the year 1975-76. It has been some weeks in its passage through this House because many questions needed to be asked. Answers have been given freely by the members of the Department of the Treasury which have assisted the Opposition and which have, I believe, assisted the Senate in its deliberations on this Bill. It has been said recently by the Minister for Labor and Immigration that the Budget deficit is now set at a different figure from that which was envisaged. In fact, we are talking now about a Budget deficit of some $3, 500m. He regarded that as being peculiarly related to wage restraint. I remind him that it also is related to income reduction by the Government because of the growth of unemployment and a lack of earnings which were anticipated by the Government when this Budget was cast.

Let me say something more about the Bill itself and the questions which I believe I would still like answers to as this Bill proceeds through the Senate. The Government is seeking authority to charge to the Loan Fund some expenditures which would normally be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This Bill will authorise borrowings for defence purposes so that defence expenditure can be charged to the Loan Fund rather than to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is the basis of the Bill. I am not questioning that. A series of questions was asked by Senator Cotton on the matter. Senator Wriedt supplied answers to those questions early in September. It will be recognised that those answers originated further questions. On 10 September 1975 Senator Cotton raised a further 18 questions to which answers have been provided for our consideration. Senator Cotton referred to the level of the Budget deficit when he addressed his remarks to this Bill. That Budget deficit has been stated quite freely as being $2,798m. We believe that this is an important Bill for us to pursue until we have an understanding of its intent, to the point at which we can relate the Budget deficit of this year to the Budget deficit of last year and the actual result of budgeting for 1974-75. We were concerned to put into perspective the fact that in last year’s Budget an amount of $570m was the anticipated deficit but the actual deficit which resulted at the end of the year was $2, 567m. It was in that context that many of our questions were cast so that we could have some understanding and direction from the Australian Treasury as to what would be the result of this Bill.

We recognise that the Loan Act permits defence expenditure in specific appropriations in a particular financial year to be transferred to the Loan Fund. I am not questioning that particular premise. I am not using that as a basis for further questions. I accept that the Loan Act does permit that defence expenditure. I also understand that that cannot apply retrospectively. I understood that the Government required the passage of this Bill so that as soon as possible it could start charging defence expenditure in a way that allowed it to use the processes which exist under this Bill. The total proposed appropriations for 1975-76 under the heading of Department of Defence are $1,7 lim. This compares with an estimated need of $1,1 52m of defence expenditure to be charged to the Loan Fund. They appear to be enormous amounts and for this reason, looking at the deficits that occurred in July and August of this year, not multiplying the deficit for each month by twelve as has been suggested, but still being very concerned at the size of those deficits, we believed we should find the purpose of this Bill and what the result of it would be if an early passage were given to it without question.

We understand that by about the end of October this year the Government will have spent almost $600m on defence under the Supply Act (No. 1). If the passage of the Loan Bill were delayed beyond this time, the Government would not be able to support its current Budget plans because the amount of Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditure it could then transfer to the Loan Fund would be less than the present Budget calls for. If the Government anticipated running a larger deficit than has been indicated in the Budget statement- this now appears likely and I do not think that it is contested- the critical period would be earlier than late October this year.

Two answers given to questions have raised further questions so far as I am concerned. In particular, the inescapable question I would ask relates to the method of financing the deficit. We were given some answers with relation to this matter but I still wonder what will be the situation in financing the Australian deficit if the loan money market fails to respond. Many details have been given in relation to financing the deficit but the question is still there: How will it be financed if the loan market does not respond? In answer to a question that was posed by Senator Cotton on behalf of the Opposition, we were told in part that consistent with the objective of financing the monetary policy the Government would be endeavouring to increase the sale of government securities, especially to the non-bank public and that the record August loan this year was an encouraging response in this regard. It was stated, however, that the Government would be aiming to finance most of the deficit by means of the sale of government securities, but it is impossible to be more precise than that was the term that was used in answer to our questions. So we posed a question: What will happen if the domestic market cannot finance the $2,800m deficit? In other words, what will happen if the domestic market cannot finance a $3, 500m deficit? It is this area of questioning that has led us to pursue in great detail the matters that we have pursued in order to seek the answers in the way we have outlined earlier. The deficiency in the Budget statements gave only a partial indication of the Government’s proposals for economic policy in 1975-76. In particular, we state that there were no clear guidelines given by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) in his Budget Speech with regard to the conduct of monetary policy in this forthcoming year.

He mentioned that the liquidity of the banking system should be sufficient to meet the basic immediate needs of the economy for finance without being fully accommodating to inflationary demands. That was stated on page 19 of the Treasurer’s speech. But the answers that we did obtain to the questions have led us to understand that the information that now relates to the growth of money supply is that the likely growth in the volume of money- that is M3- in 1975-76 might be about 20 per cent between June 1975 and June 1976 with some slowing down in the quarterly rate of growth during 1 976. This forecast was based on the assumptions that there would be no new fiscal measures during 1975-76, no significant change in Australia’s external economic policies and the general intention of monetary policy as outlined in the earlier Budget statement would be upheld. That is an answer but it still leaves open the question of how the financing of the Budget deficit will be undertaken. The information that was given to us with regard to the record Budget deficit of $2,798m led us to ask the Government how it proposed to finance this, and the following information was given: There would be net drawings under overseas credit arrangements of minus $3 1 m, net proceeds of other overseas borrowings of somewhat more than $50m, net proceeds of bond sales to the non-bank public were to be increased, but there was no firm target offered and it was suggested that sales would be influenced by general monetary conditions. We were further informed that there would be a considerable volume of net sales of bonds to the banking system, that there would be a net change in Treasury notes on issue which would depend on general monetary circumstances and that the use of cash balances with the Reserve Bank would be a residual although the Government would try to avoid excessive reliance on this means of financing the deficit. After further questioning on what might be regarded as excessive reliance on the use of cash balances in financing that deficit, further information was provided by the Government. The Government said that it would be aiming to finance most of the deficit by means of the sale of government securities. If the Government failed in meeting this objective there would be an excessive reliance on cash balances.

The answer to the question that we posed does give some explanation as to the change in the timing of the next Commonwealth loan. However, it still leaves open the question whether the Government would rely on open market bond sales to secure its monetary strategy, rather than quantitative controls. There has been a hint, however, that if the target for bond sales is not fulfilled the Government might resort to such controls as calls on statutory reserve deposits rather than allow interest rates to increase further. That hypothesis has been given further support in the answer given to question No. 14 of 10 September in which it was stated that if the domestic market cannot finance the $2, 798m deficit residual financing with the Reserve Bank would be necessary. Those are not small matters and they are not matters that should have been dealt with by the Minister for Labor and Immigration in the way in which he chose to use what should have been a responsible speech on a Bill which has been of great concern to the Opposition.

The other matter that does concern us is the using of this process as it relates to the Financial Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. Clause 3 (8) of that Agreement requires the Commonwealth and the States to submit their loan program to the Loan Council and clause 3 (9) empowers the Loan Council to decide the allocation of borrowings between the Commonwealth and the States where it decides that the full amount of loans in the program cannot be borrowed at reasonable rates and conditions. There is an important exception to these restrictions of the Financial Agreement which by section 105a (5) of the Constitution have a supra-constitutional force. The last sentence of clause 3 (8) of the Financial Agreement reads as follows:

Loans for Defence purposes approved by the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall not be included in the Commonwealth’s loan program or be otherwise subject to this Agreement.

It is clearly that provision that has dictated the content of the Loan Bill 1975 and its predecessors. I think it is time that the Australian Senate looked at this matter of finance as it relates to the Parliament and the control by the Executive of the procedures which have been used. It was for that reason that we were very careful and cautious in posing questions in order that we may have a deeper understanding of the effect of these matters.

So we do refer to the fact that the deficit as it was cast by the Government this year will be at a higher figure than was anticipated and that is for the 2 reasons that already have been mentioned. One of the reasons is that the increases in wages and salaries as they relate to government services are an undoubted increase that can be foreshadowed without any disagreement. They are not included in the Budget and I do not question that point, understanding the way in which Treasury regulations require Budgets to be cast in this country. The other matter that is important and that always seems to be overlooked is the collection of revenue by the Australian Government. The fact that at this stage the Treasurer has pointed to lower collections in revenue, added to the fact that we have increases in expenditure, leads inescapably to the conclusion that there will be a much higher deficit in the forthcoming year than has been envisaged.

I come back to the original question which I posed and which is the most important question of all, that is, how will the Government finance this deficit if the loan money market does not respond, and if all the difficulties which can be envisaged in our economic climate at present develop what will be the action of the Government to deal with these matters? It is for that reason that I hope that when there is some response later today to this Bill more perspective will be given to the consequences of the use of this Loan Bill for defence purposes and the matters that are so important to the management of the Australian economy.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This Bill was presented to the Australian Parliament by the Australian Government on 20 August 1975. Three months later it is still being debated in the Senate and its passage is being frustrated by the Opposition.

Senator Baume:

– Not 3 months.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The best part of 3 months.

Senator Baume:

– Two months.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-At least 2’/4 months- from 27 August to 15 October. But let us not argue about the number of months. Let me compare its passage with the passage through this chamber of the Loan Bill 1971. When honourable senators opposite were in government it took about 5 minutes for that Bill to be passed. This Bill has taken some 2 months to get even to the second reading stage. We have not yet reached the Committee stage of the consideration of the Bill. We have had question after question being asked day after day, week after week and month after month. The Opposition is still continuing on it merry way in frustrating the Government in its efforts effectively to govern the affairs of this country.

In connection with that matter let me read out the record of the Opposition since this Government came to office insofar as the results of divisions held in this chamber are concerned. In the first session of this Parliament after the election of the Labor Government- from February 1973 to December 1973- there were 174 divisions. The Opposition won 121 and the Government won 43. The other ten were decided on non-party lines. Between 28 February 1974 and 10 April 1974- the time when the Opposition threatened to reject Supply to the Government on the last occasion; a mere 1 8 months after we were elected to office- there were 45 divisions. The number of divisions won by the Opposition over that period of about 6 weeks was forty-five. No division was won by the Government. The next period was the period of the Joint Sitting. On 6 and 7 August 1974 there was a Joint Sitting of the Parliament brought about as a result of the double dissolution that was forced upon the Government in April 1974. In that Joint Sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate there were 6 divisions. They were won by the Government.

The next period during which the Parliament sat was the Budget period of last year. Between July 1974 and 1 1 December 1974 there were 138 divisions. Of those 92 divisions were won by the

Opposition and 35 divisions were won by the Government. There were 1 1 divisions decided on non-party lines. Between 1 1 February 1 975 and 12 June 1975- the first sessional period of this year- there were 116 divisions taken in this chamber. The Opposition won 107 of them and the Government won 8 of them. The other one was decided on non-party lines. Of a total of 1 16 divisions held in the first session of this chamber this year there were 107 divisions won by the Opposition. In the period from 9 July to 22 July, which is when a special sitting of the Senate was called by the Opposition to discuss the overseas loans affair, there were 4 divisions. They were all won by the Opposition. I come now to the present sessional period. Between 19 August and 9 October- last week- there were 19 divisions. Sixteen of them were won by the Opposition. Not one of them was won by the Government. Three of those divisions were decided on nonparty lines.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– How many Bills have you got?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I will come to the Bills in a moment. Of the 502 divisions that have been held in this chamber since this Government has been in office 385 have been won by the Opposition, 92 have been won by the Government and there have been 25 others. It is in the spirit of that frustration of government that, 2 months after this legislation was presented to the Parliament, the Opposition is still pleading for answers to more and more questions that it poses day after day. Despite the pleadings that the Opposition made earlier in August, when this legislation was presented, about wanting more information about this, that, and the other question before it would agree to the passage of this legislation, we find that 2 months later on Senator Baume ‘s estimate- Vh or 3 months on mine- the Opposition has clearly embarked upon a campaign by which, it hopes, to assume control of the destiny of this country. I wonder whether it knows what it is doing by its actions here today.

The political history of this country has been that for the greater part of federation anti-Labor governments have occupied the treasury benches in the Australian Parliament. However, because of proportional representation there has always been a fine balance, certainly in the last 30 years, between the Opposition and the Government in the Senate. By breaking all the well known conventions this year, from the time when former Senator Murphy was appointed by the Government to the High Court and the Lewis Government in New South Wales sent to the Senate a person of a different political persuasion from that of the Party to which former Senator Murphy belonged, and by the actions of BjelkePetersen in Queensland sending to this place a person who was not of the same political persuasion as the late Senator Milliner, the Opposition has taken advantage of politics by accident to try to assume control of this country. Its concern for the wellbeing of the people of Australia is nil. All it wants is power.

Let me turn to the Bill. It is a Bill merely seeking the authority of the Parliament for the raising and expending of moneys by the Government for defence purposes, and it is described simply as the Loan Bill 1975. It is a simple Bill consisting of 5 clauses. In typical fashion the Opposition has unmercifully and unnecessarily made this a long protracted and frustrating debate again as part of its stalling tactics, as part of its born-to-rule syndrome which it is so arrogantly displaying now. What is the history of the presentation of this legislation? The Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 20 August, the day after the Budget was introduced. It went through the House of Representatives on 27 August. It was introduced into the Senate on 27 August, the day on which it passed the House of Representatives, by Senator Wriedt, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister representing the Treasurer. Debate on the matter was adjourned until 28 August. On 28 August it was adjourned until 2 September. On 2 September it was adjourned until 10 September. Then it was adjourned until 1 October, then until 8 October, and yesterday it was brought on for debate. The debate has been adjourned on at least 2 occasions because the Opposition, specifically Senator Cotton, asked for further information on aspects of the Bill.

How does the passage of this legislation compare with that of an almost identical Bill presented by the McMahon Government to this Parliament in 1971? It was a Loan Bill authorising the then Government to raise loans. The Bill of the McMahon Government was introduced on 4 May 1971. The second reading debate occurred on 1 1 May 1971. Senator Willesee on behalf of the Australian Labor Party spoke on the Bill for 3 minutes; Senator Byrne on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party spoke on it for 3 minutes; Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson on behalf of the then Government spoke on it for 3 minutes, and it passed through all its remaining stages without amendment or debate. The Bill that we are now debating is in nearly identical terms, almost word for word but for an ‘if or a but ‘, or an ‘ and ‘ or a ‘ for ‘ or a ‘to ‘ or an ‘of. It is practically the same Bill but it has taken 2 months to be debated in this Parliament. As my colleagues have pointed out, the Bill authorises borrowings for defence purposes so that defence spending can be transferred out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Loan Fund in order to avoid a potential Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit. It is merely a machinery measure, a measure that was adopted by the previous conservative Government, and it differs in no significant respect from similar Bills that were introduced by previous anti-Labor governments not only in 1971 but also in 1968 and 1970.

The Bill does not authorise defence expenditure over and above those that are already approved by Cabinet for inclusion in the Budget and the use of the device of a loan Bill, which I emphasise is in accordance with long established usage and precedent, is simply a preferred alternative to obtaining authorisation from the Loan Council for borrowings to fund the deficit. That, of course, is a housekeeping matter of concern only to the Australian Government and not to the Loan Council. Possible alternative ways of meeting the prospective Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit, such as by obtaining authority to charge expenditure other than defence expenditure to the Loan Fund, would require legislation and also Loan Council approval under the provisions of the Financial Agreement. Surely those few words indicate the simplicity of this Bill. It is a Bill of 5 clauses and, I suppose, no more than 500 words. It is beyond my comprehension why the Opposition has sought to delay the passage of the Bill other than to arrogantly display its borntorule syndrome. Of course, the Government should have known what was ahead of the passage of this legislation because the day before it was introduced into the Senate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lynch, issued a Press statement which said:

  1. . The Opposition has decided to defer passage of the Loan Bill 1975 pending a satisfactory explanation by the Government about the financing of the record 1975-76 deficit.

Then he said in his Press statement that a number of questions would be posed and went on to say:

The Opposition also wants an indication of how the prospective deficit in the month of August -

That was 3 months ago- is to be financed; whether the Government has taken measures to increase its cash balance with the Reserve Bank and whether the Government is prepared to give a substantial indication of the main guidelines of its monetary policy.

Certainly on 2 occasions at the request of the Opposition the Government has deferred further consideration of the legislation so that questions posed by Senator Cotton, Senator Carrick and others could be referred to the Treasury and the Treasury officials, working overtime, could present information to the Government. The Government then presented the information to the Opposition but as a result of answering those questions further questions were asked. Again I emphasise that the Opposition in the Senate was given its riding instructions by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives the day before the Bill was presented to this Senate when he said that the Opposition had decided to defer passage of the Loan Bill pending a satisfactory explanation being given by the Government of the financing of the deficit. We all know that a loan Bill of the type which is now the subject of discussion cannot be made retrospective. It can apply only to defence spending and only from the date on which the Act receives royal assent.

If this Bill had been passed in August, as we had hoped, the Act would have applied from 1 September and would have been functional now. Because the Opposition has decided to reject the Appropriation Bills that are to be debated in this chamber later this evening, its members have lumped this Bill in with their actions in regard to those Bills. Despite all the innuendos, all the assertions and the accusations by the Opposition, this is the real reason why the Opposition refused to give the legislation a passage. This is the real reason why we as a government persist with the legislation. There is no retrospectivity in relation to the Bill. It can apply only to defence spending and only from the date on which the Act receives royal assent. The sooner the Bill receives royal assent and becomes an Act of this Parliament the better it is for the welfare of all Australians.

The advice tendered to the Government was that the Bill should be introduced early in the Budget sittings. The Budget sittings commenced on 19 August. This Bill was introduced in another place on 20 August. It passed the other place a week later on 27 August. Because the advice tendered to us was that the Bill should be introduced early we introduced it in the Senate on the day on which it passed the House of Representatives, and we urged that its passage through both Houses be expedited.

Senator Devitt:

– That was 6 weeks ago.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Six weeks ago, as my colleague Senator Devitt said. A lot has been said by Opposition members in the debate about the Bill permitting overseas borrowing. It has allowed them to rehash their old story that they have been harping on ever since Parliament resumed this year. But the Bill has been drafted in a traditional form. I emphasise that it is very similar in verbiage and wordage to the McMahon Government Loan Bill of 1971. It follows a pattern similar to legislation that was enacted by anti-Labor governments in 1968 and 1970. Senator Baume referred to clause 3 of the Bill. If he compares clause 3 of this Bill with clause 3 of the 1971 Bill-the Bill that was introduced in similar fashion by the McMahon Government- he will see that the provisions are practically word for word. Yet he spoke for about half an hour on the gravity of passing legislation without querying the implications of what was contained in clause 3 of the Bill. Technically, the Bill permits borrowings overseas. When my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, introduced the Bill, he stated:

The timing and amounts of borrowings and the particular form of securities to be issued will be determined as part and parcel of the Government’s overall domestic borrowing activities throughout the financial year.

I emphasise the word ‘domestic’. Quite clearly, there is no intention of borrowing overseas under the authority of this Bill. In any event it should be clear to anyone that the use of the proceeds of any borrowings under the authority of an Act when it came into force would be restricted to expenditures under the defence appropriations that are approved by Parliament. I emphasise that the Government finds its legislative program frustrated in typical fashion by the Opposition- a Bill introduced in August, not yet passed in October. This year, as we did last year, we introduced one Loan Bill. In the last year of the last conservative Government, namely, 1972, 4 Loan Bills were introduced. Their passage through Parliament was speedy, as was the 1 971 Bill about which I have spoken- all in contradistinction to the way in which the Opposition has treated our legislation. My friend Senator Sir Magnus Cormack interjected earlier, when I was citing the number of divisions that have been held in the Senate since the election of the Labor Government- the few that were won by the Government and the large number that were won by the Opposition- and asked about the number of Bills that the Senate has rejected. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard 6 foolscap pages listing the Bills that have been initiated in the House of Representatives, that have been introduced twice and have failed to pass twice in the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bonner)- Is leave granted?

Senator Greenwood:

– You can vouch for the accuracy of the document?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was provided by the Senate Records Office. Therefore I assume, in contradistinction to any remarks you might make here from time to time, that the journals which I seek to incorporate in Hansard are accurate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

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

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS NEGATIVED, DEFERRED, LAID ASIDE, OR REFERRED TO SENATE COMMITTEES February 1973-August 1974 Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill 1973, 1974 National Investment Fund Bill 1973, 1974 Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1973 Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1973 Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1973 Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1974 Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) 1974 Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974 Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1974 Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill 1974 Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill 1974 Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974 Health Insurance Bill 1973 Health Insurance Commission Bill 1973 Health Insurance Levy Bill 1974 Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1974 Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1974 National Health Bill 1974 Lands Acquisition (Australian Capital Territory) Bill 1973 Minerals (Submerged Lands) Bill 1974 Minerals (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Bill 1974 Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973 Post and Telegraph Bill 1 974 Post and Telegraph Rates Bill 1 974 Seas and Submerged Lands Bill 1973 Seas and Submerged Lands ( Royalty on Minerals) Bill 1 973 Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill 1973 Representation Bill 1 973 Superior Court of Australia Bill 1974 Trade Practices Bill 1973, 1974 {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I seek leave to have incorporated in *Hansard!* foolscap pages listing the Bills that have been amended by the Opposition from 27 February 1973 to 9 October 1975. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bonner)-** Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- >NUMBER OF BILLS AMENDED BY THE OPPOSITION > >27 February 1973-13 December 1973 > >Australian Citizenship Bill 1973 Australian National Airlines Bill 1973 Cities Commission Bill 1973 Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1973 [No. 2] Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill 1974 > >Referred to Senate Committee, 1973, 1974; negatived 1974 > >Negatived twice negatived 1974; passed Joint Sitting 1974 > >Referred to Senate Committee 1973 > >Negatived 1973. Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1973 [No. 2] passed, with amendments, 1973 > >Deferred 1974 > >Negatived 1973, 1974; defeated at Referendum 1974 > >Deferred 1974 > >Negatived 1973, 1974; defeated at Referendum 1974 > >Laid aside by House of Representatives 1973; laid aside by Senate 1974; defeated at Referendum 1974 > >Referred to Senate Committee 1973; negatived 1974; defeated at Referendum 1974 > >Negatived 1973; negatived twice 1974; passed Joint Sitting 1974 > >Negatived 1974 > >Negatived 1973 Negatived 1974 > >Deferred 1973, 1974; negatived twice 1974; passed Joint Sitting 1974 > >Deferred 1974 > >Deferred 1973; passed, with an amendment, 1973 Deferred 1973; negatived 1973 > >Negatived twice 1973; negatived 1974; passed Joint Sitting 1974 > >Negatived 1974 > >Deferred twice 1973; amended bill, with amendments, passed 1974 > >Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill 1973 Fisheries Bill 1973 > >Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill 1973 > >Industries Assistance Commission Bill 1973 > >Law Reform Commission Bill 1973 > >Meat Export Charge Collection Bill 1973 > >Parliament Bill 1973 > >Pipeline Authority Bill 1973 > >Public Works Committee Bill 1973 > >Schools Commission Bill 1973 > >Seas and Submerged Lands Bill 1973 [No. 2] > >States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1 973 > >States Grants (Petroleum Products) Bill 1 973 > >States Grants (Schools) Bill 1973 > >States Grants ( Universities) Bill 1 973 28 February 1974-10 April 1974 > >Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill 1974 > >Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Bill 1974 > >Aged Persons Hostels Bill 1974 > >Australian Film Commission Bill 1974 > >Financial Corporations Bill 1974 > >National Health Bill 1974 (No. 2) > >National Health Bill (No. 2) 1974 > >National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill 1974 > >National Roads Bill 1974 > >Parliament Bill 1974 [No. 2] (Private Members Bill) > >Public Service Acts Amendment Bill 1 974 > >Roads Grants Bill 1974 > >Trade Practices Bill 1974 > >Wool Industry Bill (No. 2) 1974 11 February 1975-12 June 1975 > >Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill 1975 > >Australian Bureau of Statistics Bill 1975 > >Australian Housing Corporation Bill 1975 > >Children's Commission Bill 1975 > >Darwin Reconstruction Bill 1975 > >Electoral Laws Amendment Bill 1 974 [No. 2] ( 1 975 ) > >Grants Commission Bill 1975 > >Parliamentary Counsel Bill 1975 > >Postal and Telecommunications Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1975 > >Postal Services Bill 1975 > >Racial Discrimination Bill 1975 > >Public Service Acts Amendment Bill 1975 > >Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1975 > >Superannuation Bill 1975 > >Telecommunications Bill 1975 19 August 1975-9 October 1975 > >Nil > >Notes- > >. Includes clauses negatived > >Does not include Family Law Bill 1 974 [No. 2] > >Some of the above Bills also amended by the Government {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP Clearly the Opposition is determined to continue on its own merry way- breaking the well known conventions that have existed in the political life of this nation for many years. It is about to take the final step- a step which could well spell out the end of political stability and, regrettably, political democracy in this country. The Opposition refuses to accept the ruling of the people. We have heard so much from the Opposition about the Government having received from the people a mandate for the House of Representatives at the double dissolution election but not having received a mandate for the Senate. I remind the Opposition that when we were given a majority in the House of Representatives in May last year, at the double dissolution election, we received a greater number of votes for the Senate than the combined opponents of the Government. Although we may have had a minority of numbers, at that time we had an equal number of senators as the combined Liberal and Country parties. It is only since that time- as a result of **Senator Townley** becoming a member of the official Opposition after he had been elected as an Independent, as a result of **Senator Murphy** retiring from this place to become a Justice of the High Court, and as a result of the death of **Senator Milliner** from Queenslandthat the Senate is now in its present situation. The Opposition refuses to accept the ruling of the people. By its actions it is encouraging anarchy in this country. By its actions today all its past talk about the rule of the law is a lot of mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus. I urge Opposition members to rethink the gravity of their actions. Obviously they know not what they do. **Senator Sir MAGNUS** CORMACK (Victoria) (3.54)- We have listened during approximately the last hour to 2 florid speechesone from **Senator James** McClelland, the second from **Senator Douglas** McClelland who has just resumed his seat. **Senator James** McClelland barely addressed himself to the Bill. He took up most of his time in threatening that if the Opposition did this or did not do that, subsequent events would take place in which those opposed to the Government would take to the streets. That is what he said, that we would encourage the people to take to the streets. In other words, what he was preaching was what has happened before. He was prophesying that circumstances could be contrived, and we all know about them from our reading of history, for a revolutionary situation. One of the reasons that the Senate was created was to prevent that situation. We then listened to a speech from **Senator Douglas** McClelland which took the form of reciting the number of divisions that were won and the number of divisions that were lost, as though that is the mark of government or the mark of frustration by an Opposition. The honourable senator knows perfectly well that the Senate has co-equal powers with the House of Representatives, except in certain categories of money Bills. In all other respects they are equal. The Senate is charged by the Constitution at least to slow down the processes by which government conducts itself. **Senator Douglas** McClelland knows as well as I do that when the present Justice of the High Court, **Mr Justice** Murphy, was **Senator Murphy** and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, he accepted the responsibility as Leader of the Opposition to slow down the processes of government in the House of review. He even had the Senate called back in the middle of one winter to knock out a proposed regulation imposing taxes on the people in the form of post office regulations to increase postal charges. Do not let me hear this rubbish that the members of the existing Opposition are the people who are frustrating the will of government. We are not frustrating the will of government at this juncture. We, and the people, went through the experience earlier this year of seeing how the Government proposed to obtain money by loans. Goodness knows, we thrashed this matter out some months ago. The Government was willing to distort the constitutional processes in order to obtain money by getting an oral opinion from the then Attorney-General at an Executive Council meeting at which I believe neither the Governor-General nor the Vice-President of the Executive Council were present. I do not know what sort of Executive Council it is when neither the President nor the Vice-President are present. Nevertheless, four Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, accepting an oral opinion from the Attorney-General of the day, said that the money could be borrowed for temporary purposes. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- No, probably it would be considered in the exceptional circumstances. {: #subdebate-37-0-s7 .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator SIR MAGNUS CORMACK: -That is so, but the Opposition demonstrated subsequently that it was not to be borrowed for temporary purposes but for other purposes. How could any Opposition, having undergone the traumatic experience of seeing the constitutional processes distorted for one reason or another, approach the problem of the defence Loan Bill? What was this money going to be used for? The Opposition was entitled therefore to probe as much as it possibly could to discover why this money was going to be raised. It is known and quite obviously manifest that the reason the Government is anxious to raise money under this procedure is that it failed on the temporary purposes side of the equation and has to go to the defence side of the equation. Under section 105A of the Constitution it can seek to obtain money without the permission of the Loan Council to finance a deficit. But why was it financing a deficit? The reason it was financing a deficit was that for over 2 years it had been spending money at a reckless rate far in advance of the capacity of the revenues of the Government to sustain the public purse, known as the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I remember that during the 1972 election campaign when the then Leader of the Opposition, **Mr Whitlam,** was asked how he was going to finance a number of promises obviously involving vast sums of money he replied that he was going to finance them out of inflation. He proceeded to finance them out of inflation, and he financed them out of inflation to such a degree that after a year of that form of financing he began to blame the inflation rate on external circumstances when in fact, as all honourable senators know, the inflation rate in Australia was obtained and forced as a result of the forced draft spending of government money far in excess of the money it was returning into the Consolidated Revenue Fund through receipts from taxation and other forms of government income. We have arrived at the accumulated situation where even a government as reckless as this one has to start funding deficits, and part of the funding of deficits, of course, is borrowing on the public credit. There are 3 ways in which one can borrow on the public credit. One way is to ask for a loan which has to be funded finally, and that is the purpose of the defence Loan Bill which I shall examine in more detail in a moment. There are 2 other forms of government financing under the prerogative, and they are by issuing Treasury Bills, or by Treasury's borrowing cash balances from the Reserve Bank. I do not intend to canvass the general theory of how a government financies itself, except to say that Parliament has a responsibility when it is asked actually and specifically to fund certain loans. One of the methods of government financing, of course, is a loan Bill by which any government can seek the approval of Parliament to borrow money for defence purposes. In reality it is for temporary purposes because what happens is that the ordinary annual services of the government under defence are financed out of loans, and this takes the pressure off the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is also true to say that the government, having borrowed money for defence purposes, may not expend money in excess of the appropriation which Parliament authorises in order to allow the Bill to go through. That is a very general description of how the Government proposes to doit. What honourable senators must understand is that this device, which has been used since 1953 to my knowledge, when it first came to my attention, has been used for a short time and for smallish amounts of money. Notwithstanding anything that has been said today in this chamber, the facts are that, to the maximum of my knowledge and researches, previous governments have always informed the Senate of the amounts of money they intended to borrow for loan defence purposes. **Senator Douglas** McClelland made great play of the fact that since the Bill was entered into the Senate by message on 27 August- and I accept his word for thatthe Opposition has been probing the reasons for it, but the thing that has stuck in the gullet of the Opposition is that this is a defence Loan Bill that does not specify any quantity of money. It is an open-ended amount. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- I would have thought it did. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -I will explain that to you in a moment, but it is not explained clearly to Parliament. I turn to the 1971 Loan (Defence) Bill, of which **Senator Douglas** McClelland, in an oratorical and rhetorical way, says this 1975 Bill is a copy. I have referred to the Records office, and the only loan Bill of that description passed in 1971 became the Loan (Defence) Act 1971, Act No. 103 of 1 97 1 , which was cited as an Act to approve the raising by way of loan of moneys in the currency of the United States of America and to authorise the expending of those moneys for defence purposes and for purposes connected therewith. It then goes on to state how that will be done and how it will be funded. So by no stretch of the imagination can that Loan (Defence) Act 1971 be described as being the same as the Bill that we have in front of us at the present time. Every Bill that I have come across in the context of authorising the raising and spending of money for defence purposes has carried within it a clause stating what is the amount of money to be raised. Section 3 of the 1 973 Loan Act to authorise the raising and expending of money for defence purposesby this present Government- states: >The Treasurer may, not later than 30th June, 1973, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1966 or in accordance with the provisions of an Act authorising an issue of Treasury Bills, borrow moneys not exceeding in the whole Three hundred million dollars. Let us turn to the current Bill. Clause 3 of the current Loan Bill states: >The Treasurer may, from time to time during the financial year ending on 30 June 1976, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1973- That is what I have just quoted from the 1973 Act or in accordance with the provisions of an Act authorising the issue of Treasury Bills - That is common - borrow moneys that, together with any moneys previously borrowed under this section, do not exceed the amount that, at the time of the borrowing, he considers to be the greatest amount by which the moneys lawfully available for expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in that financial year are likely to be less than the amount of expenditure authorised to be made from that Fund in that financial year. Well, if ever there was some drafting gobbledegook, that is it. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- And it is contrary to the Audit Act. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -In my opinion it is contrary to the Audit Act. It asks Parliament to agree to the raising of an openended loan with no money spent. There is a curious element in the second reading speech of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, **Senator Wriedt,** who is reported at page 320 of Hansard of 27 August 1975 as saying: >The Bill does not authorise additional defence expenditures. It will simply allow us to re-allocate from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Loan Fund part of the expenditures of the Department of Defence already authorised in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1975T76- which has not been authorised- and which are subsequently authorised in the 197S-76 Appropriation Acts. which have not been authorised. The Minister then went on to say: > >When this Bill is enacted I shall move an amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76, to permit the defence expenditure specified in that Bill to be charged to the Loan Fund. So by some backtracking process we come to the position that what the Government is attempting to borrow is something not in excess of approximately $1,1 50m as I recollect from the ordinary annual services of the Government that relate to defence and can be properly applied to it. This seems to me a most curious device, because as I sat here and listened to some of the florid phrases of the 2 Senators Mcclellands my mind went back first to 1953 when **Senator Wright** drew the attention of the then Senate to the problems of financing under section 53 of the Constitution and to my own entry into the debate in 1963 in another context but relating to the method by which governments attempt to obtain money. I mentioned in 1963 that at that time the Bills were being presented in the Senate in the form of a tack. There will be some honourable members sitting here in their places who do not know what is meant by 'tacking'. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- A yachting term, is it? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -For the information of honourable senators I should like to quote from page 335 of the fourth edition of **Mr Odgers'** *Australian Senate Practice* which contains a definition of the word. I admit that maybe I could have found the definition much more difficultly in the Parliamentary Library. But **Mr Odgers** had this to say: >The term 'tacking' is defined in the following extract from a joint opinion by **Sir Robert** Garran, **Sir George** Knowles, Professor K.. H. Bailey, and MrG. B. Castieau, given in 1943 on the question of whether clause 2 of the Income Tax Bill 1943 contravened section 55 of the Constitution: I am now relating the problem of tacking to this loan defence Bill. I shall read out the opinion and I hope honourable senators will bear it in mind. The opinion is as follows: >In setting out the question referred to us we have deliberately refrained from the use of the word 'tacking', which is a term with a long Parliamentary history but with no fixed meaning. Strictly employed, it denotes the inclusion in a money Bill of an extraneous clause to secure its passage through an Upper House which cannot amend money Bills. I hope that honourable senators will mark that, because the loan defence Bill is brought into the Senate first, it has an implied tack on it, the Senate cannot amend it but if the Senate does pass it the Government will then amend the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ). To me this is a legislative device which no Parliament should tolerate. I go on to add that the distinguished lawyers also said in their opinion: >More loosely used, it is said to include any Parliamentary procedure as a result of which the adoption of a money Bill is linked with the fate of any other measure. That is what this Government is attempting to do. There is every reason therefore that the Senate Opposition, charged with some of the responsibilities that relate to the management of money and the management of legislative process, should pay attention to what has been happening. All **Senator Wriedt** says is: 'We are tacking. If you will pass this loan defence Bill we will undertake to move an amendment to Supply Bill No. 1 '. Should that be done? Should the Senate accept this form of tacking? I am not going to argue that at the present moment. But I go on to say this: Whoever remains, whenever an election takes place and whatever the composition of the Senate may be in future - {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- 1977. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK: -Well, whenever it is, **Senator Cavanagh.** You are a prophet not without honours, save in your own country. That Senate will then have to take cognisance of the greatly extended use of a device by which governments are raising money to take care of shortfalls in the public purse. But when the device was first used as I recollect in 1953 I do not think any honourable senator then sitting in his place nor in the years that have passed since then, could ever have contemplated that the Senate would be presented with a situation of enormous deficits such as of the nature that this Government has produced through its own misgovernment. It is almost a maddened form of expenditure to ask that somewhere in the vicinity of $ 1 , 1 50m should be borrowed as a partial funding of the deficit. Notwithstanding all the rhetoric of **Senator James** McClelland or all the rhetoric of **Senator Douglas** McClelland, who have spoken in this debate, this Bill is in fact a benchmark to indicate the incapacity of the Government to manage the finances of this country. I have nothing more to add at this stage except to say this: If it is my lot on some future occasion when Supply Bills of one nature or another come before this House I shall as a man of Parliament invite honourable senators wherever they are to support me to see that Parliament exerts a greater degree of control over the public money than is being exhibited at the present moment. {: #subdebate-37-0-s8 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP -- I enter this debate to say a few words because not only **Senator Cormack** but many other speakers on the other side of the chamber obviously have not read the second reading speech that was made when this Bill was introduced, containing the full explanation of the purpose of the Bill. Possibly the Bill was introduced so long ago that one's memory does not go back that far; nevertheless, a full explanation was given. **Senator Cormack** was far out in his interpretation of the Bill. The first thing that the Bill does- and I think that **Senator Baume** raised this earlier- is to place a limit on the borrowing. This limitation is contained in clause 3. Clause 3 of the Bill states: >The Treasurer may, from time to time during the financial year ending on 30 June 1976, in accordance with the provisions of the *Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act* 191 1-1973. or in accordance with the provisions of an Act authorising the issue of Treasury Bills, borrow moneys that, together with any moneys previously borrowed under this section, do not exceed the amount that, at the time of the borrowing, he considers to be the greatest amount by which the moneys lawfully available for expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in that financial year are likely to be less than the amount of the expenditure authorised to be made from that Fund in that financial year. The second reading speech states: >It is not possible at this stage of the financial year to be at all precise as to the amount of defence expenditure which will have to be charged to the Loan Fund. That amount, which can be expected to be sizable, will be a residual affected by all other transactions of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is for this reason that the Bill does not specify a fixed amount of borrowing. Instead, like similar Bills introduced in recent years both by this Government and by previous governments, the Bill seeks authority to borrow . . . The extent of the borrowing is prescribed in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) under the defence expenditure for the current year. It may not be necessary to borrow the total amount; it will be some amount less than the total expenditure set out in Appropriation Bill (No. 1). **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack read out a similar provision contained in the Loan Bill of 1958 and 1956 or some other year when the amount stipulated was $3m. The Loan Bill 1971, which was Bill No. 36 of 1971, contained practically the same wording as does clause 3 of this Bill. It states: >The Treasurer may, from time to time during the financial year ending the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and seventy one, in accordance with the provisions of the *Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act* 191 1-1966, or in accordance with the provisions of an Act authorising the issue of Treasury Bills, borrow moneys that, together with any moneys previously borrowed under this section, do not exceed the amount that, at the time of the borrowing, he considers to be the greatest amount by which the moneys lawfully available, apart from this Act, for expenditure by the Commonwealth in that financial year are likely to be less than the amount of the expenditure authorised to be made by the Commonwealth in that financial year. The purpose of the borrowing on that occasion was for defence purposes. So we see that the very wording of the Bill introduced in 1971 is used on this occasion; it is not a departure. It is a provision which appeared in the previous Bill. In his second reading speech the Treasurer **(Mr Hayden)** points out that moneys can be obtained from 3 funds- the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Loan Fund and the Trust Fund. As he points out- this is in reply to the comment made by, I think, **Senator Baume** that we do not know the extent of the deficit- the passing of this Bill does not increase the deficit this year. The Bill is related to the expenditure of money provided for in the Budget Estimates, and this is the method of raising that money. The Treasurer points out in his second reading speech that in a year in which the estimated deficit is some $2, 700m, which is the planned deficit, and when the income is not as great as the expenditure, the balance has to be made up from some other source. He gets authorisation under this Bill to make up out of the Loan Fund what cannot be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the defence expenditure which is contained in the Estimates. The purpose of the Bill is to raise that amount for that purpose, and I think this is the practice which normally applies. What has come out of the debate? It has been suggested that we do not know the extent of the deficit for the ensuing year because the Estimates are based on figures supplied some time last March and that even between then and now the wage bill has increased and is anticipated to increase further during the year. This has always been the practice followed in relation to these things. It is in accordance with Treasury regulations that we should accept at the time of formulating the Budget the figures that then apply. During the sittings of Estimates Committee G **Senator Carrick** was most insistent on pointing out on every possible occasion that the inflationary situation and wage increases during the year would greatly increase the expenditure during the intervening period. One of the purposes of Treasury's Trust Fund is to cover expenditure which is unknown at the time of formulating the Budget and to make the necessary allocations. I think the reason for the Trust Fund was best supplied to Estimates Committee G by **Mr Reiher,** Director of the Department of Housing and Construction, in answer to a question asked by **Senator Carrick.** He said: >The situation has been for very many years that Budget estimating is always done on current costs for basically 2 reasons: Firstly, not to anticipate, and hence notionally endorse a rate of inflation on the one hand and, secondly, not to put more money into a Budget than is absolutely necessary at the time which may cause people to take a less than careful attitude to the spending of that money. For those reasons there are Treasury regulations which make it essential to estimate expenditure at a particular time. I now come to the question of the time that the debate on this Bill has taken up for no apparent reason. This matter was raised, I think, by **Senator James** McClelland. Usually a Loan Bill is accepted as part of the Government's policy. **Mr Fraser** has given a Press conference at which he has said that the Budget is to be rejected. It is alleged by **Mr Fraser** that this is a sudden decision because he claims that the reprehensible circumstances have arisen which justify him in doing so. I think the Senate listened with interest to **Senator McLaren** when he told of the conversation during which the decision to refuse Supply was taken. That conversation took place around a table on the occasion of a meeting held before **Mr Fraser** was elected Leader of the Liberal Party. The refusal of Supply was one of the conditions of his attaining leadership. He said with confidence that the Opposition would refuse Supply only if there were reprehensible or unusual circumstances. Of course, he knew at the time that he was going to have what he would claim to be such circumstances. I was in a group of people who heard the honourable member for Bonython **(Mr Nicholls ) jokingly ask Mr Lynch on his return from overseas: 'Have you got plenty of information on Khemlani, Phil?' Mr Lynch said: 'We have got some information'. The honourable member for Bonython said: 'You are not using it?' Mr Lynch replied: 'No, we think we will keep it for an election'. So even before Mr Fraser was elected to the leadership the Opposition had the information which now constitutes what is claimed to be reprehensible circumstances. That information which exploded in the Melbourne** *Herald* was known to Philip Lynch at the time of his return from overseas. He knew it was to be used for the purpose of bringing about an election, and it has now been exploded. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Have you really ceased playing marbles? How can you use that boyish argument? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- It would be a boyish argument if it had not happened. But everyone knew that information existed. The authors of the plan said beforehand that they never thought that it would be linked together. But the whole thing has been linked together and things have happened as they proposed they should. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Yesterday we asked the Prime Minister to act. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- The Opposition is so embarrassed, as is shown by the questions which were asked today in the other place and here. **Senator Webster,** who interjects away from his normal seat, made it plain in his speech that the Government should resign. The reason for the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** being asked to resign is, as he said today, to get the Opposition out of its embarrassment and out of the hostility which it will face from the electors because it is refusing supply. On the matter of refusing supply, the Leader of the Opposition issued a Press statement in which he said that he regretted refusing supply, but he also said: 'We will not be doing anything to stop social security payments or pensions. We will do our best not to deprive public servants of their salaries'. His attitude is that he will do everything not to deprive those on social security of their benefits and that he will do everything possible not to deprive public servants of their salaries. The Prime Minister, acting in accordance with the Constitution, says that he has no obligation to resign when supply is stopped. He can possibly get monthly appropriations for the payment of the salaries of officers of the Department of Police and Customs, for the payment of pensions and for the payment of the salaries of those who write out the pension cheques. The responsibility will be on the Opposition from month to month as to whether pensioners get their cheques. If the Government cannot exist we come to the position where we have to face the distress of the people. We simply put the reason why someone is not getting his salary. The reason why someone is not getting his pension is because of the attitude of the Opposition in this place. I think it was never intended- I hope to have something to say on this matter during the debate on the Appropriation Bills- that the Senate should be in the position where it uses its power for the purpose of stopping supply. I do not know the attitude of the Opposition to the present Bill. It is a Bill which seeks to borrow money for defence purposes. This Bill has nothing to do with the approval or the rejection of expenditure for defence purposes. This Bill deals only with the method of obtaining the money. The Government thinks that it is in accordance with its Budget estimates. It is one of the methods used to get approval for expenditure under the Budget. I would like the Senate to consider for a moment the position in which it places itself by the action of breaking all conventions today. When I came into the Senate representing a party which was pledged to abolishing the Senate, I did not want to receive a salary from a Senate which had no value. But I became convinced that the Senate had a value as a House of review and as a House representing State rights. We should never see a greater numerical strength of representation in a people's House so that it could deprive the States of an equal or just allocation of funds. I think the Senate has been effective in that direction. Under section 53 of the Constitution if the Senate has the power to reject a money Bill we could justify the exercise of that power if a Budget or an Appropriation Bill were introduced which would give an unequal allocation of funds to one State, to the deprivation of the smaller States. This has not happened on this occasion. The Leader of the Opposition has simply made a statement that the Opposition will withhold supply until the Government resigns. Section 7 of the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to elected for 3 years. I think that section 5 provides that the House of Representatives may be dissolved earlier by the action of the Governor-General. So the House of Representatives can be dissolved by the effluxion of time or because of the power which resides in the Governor-General. Now the Senate takes action which hits at the foundation of our payments, of our budgetary method. The Opposition will give the Senate power to decide that there should be an election of the House of Representatives. It has no power to do this. The Senate does not make a decision about its own dissolution, but it is making a decision on the dissolution of another House. This power was never intended for the Senate. It is a power which should not be exercised by the Senate. It somewhat negates section 7 of the Constitution which provides only 2 reasons for dissolution, namely, the effluxion of time or the exercise of the power of the Governor-General. But the Opposition has reached the stage in its wanderings, in its lust for power and in its desire to get power at any price that it will break all convention no matter what the cost. I think that the Gallup polls cannot make the government forces too happy. The greatest issue involved in any democracy is the preservation of democracy. If a States House stands over the democratic rights of people and if the people cannot have their say in that House, there may be a different reflection of the public's attitude. Honourable senators must remember the position when we had a double dissolution. Bills were brought back to the Senate for a third time. Despite the fact that the Government went to the people and got a majority of votes, the Senate upheld its right above the people and above democracy. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- The Government had been elected only 2 months before. That was not denying democracy. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -They had not only just been elected. The situation was that the Bills were rejected on 2 occasions. The Government then went to the people in relation to particular Bills which had been rejected and it got a majority in order to govern. The people's expression was an endorsement of the Government's Bills. Despite the expression from the population of Australia, honourable senators opposite came into the Senate and again voted against that legislation. Honourable senators opposite uphold themselves as the power and as the Government. This is contrary to public expression. They are no longer interested in democracy. They are interested in Senate power. For that reason we have seen the process today whereby the Opposition must get power at any price. The Government's position is: 'You are not getting power'. There is no justification in the Opposition's rejection of this Bill. {: .speaker-K69} ##### Senator Sim: -- Give them another say. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -The only time we gave the people a say they returned the Government. In defiance of the people's expression to re-elect us for a further 3 years, the Opposition says it is rejecting the people's voice. We have an obligation under our democracy to uphold the voice of the people, and uphold it we will. I have great pleasure in supporting the legislation and the justification of its introduction. It is a machinery Bill and has been introduced in accordance with procedures adopted in previous years. {: #subdebate-37-0-s9 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition -- I speak on this Bill rather than Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) because the Loan Bill 1975, presently before the Senate, is inextricably linked with Appropriation Bill (No. 1). In view of the announcement made by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Fraser)** this afternoon I thought I ought at the earliest possible time in the Senate put down the Opposition's view on the Loan Bill 1975, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76. 1 should like to advert to a few remarks made earlier by the Special Minister of State **(Senator Douglas McClelland).** He made a very interesting speech in which he complained at some length about the time this Bill has been in the Senate. May I just say in reply to **Senator Douglas** McClelland that, some weeks ago, my colleague **Senator Carrick** asked 7 questions. There have been opportunities for Ministers speaking since that date to answer those questions. As yet, answers have not been forthcoming. I have no doubt that the Minister for Minerals and Energy **(Senator Wriedt)** will answer those questions to the best of his ability when he speaks in this debate later. It is the intention of the Opposition to take steps to force this Government to an election for the House of Representatives. I say that now so that there can be no doubt about our position. At the conclusion of my speech I will be moving an amendment. The Opposition will attempt to delay this Bill and Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropri-* ation Bill (No. 2). It will delay them because we have decided that the people must be given a chance to express their will. The only way to force the Government to submit to the people is by this device. The Opposition is not rejecting the Budget. It is not taking action that will cause anyone to suffer. We will pass legislation providing social service and repatriation payments, State grants and any other legislation of a similar nature. We will give that sort of legislation a speedy passage. Let there be no mistake. We are not cutting off the flow of money to the people. We are merely adopting the constitutional method of giving the people a choice. Immediately the Government agrees to hold an election the Opposition will pass the Loan Bill and the Appropriation Bills. There will then be no delay. The Opposition is merely giving the people an opportunity to say whether they wish this incompetent Government to remain in office. This is a decision taken consciously and responsibly by the Opposition. The Opposition has weighed the conflicting principles carefully, but it has decided that it must follow its responsibility to the Australian people. We have decided that an election is in the best interests of the people. Australia today is in a position of crisis and uncertainty- a crisis not caused by the Opposition but caused by the incompetence of the Government, the dishonesty of the Government and the corruption of the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam).** This is a government that lurches not just from crisis to crisis but from scandal to scandal. Nothing is worse than this incredible loans affair. It is an affair which involved an attempt to go behind the Constitution and the Loan Council. It was an attempt to defy the Parliament and an attempt to impose massive debt repayments on future Australians without either their knowledge or their approval. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to claim that the affair has ended because the people involved have been removed. The Prime Minister has hidden behind his Ministers and has refused to take the responsibility himself- a reponsibility clearly placed upon him by virtue of his position as Prime Minister. His Ministers have been made sacrifices on the altar of his ego. Yet still he survives. Not only does he survive, but also he now threatens to defy the Parliament by refusing to go to the electorate. Never has a Prime Minister evinced such cowardly disgraceful behaviour. The loans affair has been well canvassed in the last few months and especially in the last few days. It has shown a government composed of people who have shown themselves to be dishonest, deceitful and corrupt. But the loans affair is only one aspect of this Government's continued farrago of deceit and deception. This Government came to power on the promise of open government. Instead, it has told a continuing saga of untruths. It has tried to conceal its decision on the Baltic States. It denied the truth of the Vietnam cables and it has not told the truth about the loans affair. These are just a few illustrations of this Government's continued refusal to tell the truth. It has not merely not told the truth to the Australian people; it has betrayed them. It has inflicted upon them the greatest unemployment since the depression. This unemployment has been created by the Government's policies and by its incompetence, a situation in which as each day goes by 500 more Australians are thrown out of work. It should not be necessary for the Opposition to take any action in these circumstances. The Government should be so ashamed of itself and so disgraced by its actions that it will resign. It has inflicted the most damaging inflation this country has ever known. It devalued the dollar from its pre-Labor value of 100c to a value of only half of that of 1972. It has so destroyed the economy that its resuscitation, if allowed to decline further, would become almost impossible. The sufferers have been the poor, the weak and the socially deprived- the very people the Labor Party claims to support and represent. Any government of any persuasion, if it had any decency in this situation, would resign. But this Government has not resigned. It has been so obsessed with power for power's sake that it has forgotten how to govern. It has forgotten how to be responsible. It has forgotten how to honour its obligations to the people who elected it. Now, crippled by incompetence and surrounded by the victims of his wrath, this man, this egotist, this well-known world traveller still insists on his divine right to rule. The Parliament should remember this: **Mr Whitlam** is not a president, he is not a dictator and he is not a king. He is a Prime Minister who has duties and obligations to the Parliament and to the people. He has no divine right to rule forever. He is constrained by the Parliament, despite his attempts to defy it. He has lost the confidence of the people and he has lost the confidence of the Parliament. To struggle along propped up by the discipline of the Caucus- a situation which allows the Prime Minister to govern with the support of the minority of the Parliament- is destructive to our parliamentary system and is destructive to Australia. There has been much nonsense talked about by people from the Government and, most latterly, by the Prime Minister himself. He is now in direct conflict with the Government. He is threatening desperate measures. The fact that he even makes the threat shows his contempt for the Parliament and for the electorate. He is contemptuous of the people. It is a sorry state when desperation can drive a man to these lengths. The very fact that he is so determined to cling to power makes it all the more necessary for him to be driven to the polls. It is a time-honoured tradition of Parliament that conditions may be imposed on the granting of money. That is what the Opposition is doing now. It is not an improper condition. Nothing could be more proper than giving the people a right to choose. The Prime Minister can do one of two things. He can defy the Parliament, defy the Constitution and defy the Crown. He can create even more unnecessary instability and chaos and make the crisis and deadlock worse or he can take the proper course and let the people resolve this situation quickly and properly. Every day of delay exposes his fear. The Prime Minister shows his total arrogance and ignorance of the Constitution by the blatant assumption that he has a right to these appropriations. We say that he has not. The Constitution makes it clear that money is granted to the Crown and not to the Prime Minister. **Mr Whilam** has no divine right to receive supply from the Parliament. **Mr Whitlam** ought to remember that he holds the office of Prime Minister at the pleasure of the Crown. It is his obligation to the Crown to secure that supply. If he cannot do so, then the Prime Minister has an obligation to hand in his commission as Prime Minister. He knows that. Yet he still tries to abdicate his duties. The record shows the inconsistency, the hypocrisy and the deceit of this Government. It claims the Senate cannot force it to the people. To make such a claim is not only incorrect but also is unconstitutional. The Senate was given the power to reject a money Bill quite deliberately. This was done when the Constitution was framed to ensure that if a government became so morally and intellectually bankrupt, if it became as disastrous as this Government has become there should be the ultimate check, that is, withholding of money until it agrees to let the people express their will. No academic, lawyer or other such person has seriously disrupted this right. The Government has reached such a state now that the Opposition has a clear duty to force it to the people. The Australian Labor Party in the past made no apology for its actions in this regard. It is remarkable how quickly the Prime Minister forgets his own words. He has forgotten- conveniently forgotten- that on 12 June 1970, when referring to the States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill, he declared his Party would vote against the legislation in both Houses of the Parliament in a bid to force an election. He said: >Any Government which is defeated by the Parliament - It is notable that he used the word 'Parliament', of which the Senate is a part- on a major tax Bill should resign. A little later he declared: >This Bill will be defeated in another place. The Government should resign. **Mr Whitlam** made clear his understanding of the constitutional situation at that time. I ask: Why then does he suddenly reverse his position? Of what is he afraid? Is it because he fears the judgment of the people? I put this proposition to you, **Mr President,** and to my colleagues in the Senate: He wants to defy the judgment of the people. He wants a licence to rule and to rule perpetually. A little later, **Mr Whitlam** made his attitude even clearer. He said on 25 August 1970 that the purpose of the Labor Party was: -to destroy this Budget and to destroy the Government which has sponsored it. He was one of those who voted against the second reading of the Appropriation Bill in the House of Representatives. He was one of those who agreed that the Senate Opposition should do the same. He should remember that on 4 November 1970, 23 Labor senators voted against the third reading of the Appropriation Bill in the Senate. They did so for one reason: They wanted to force the Government to the people. The fact that they lacked the numbers is irrelevant to their intent. The present Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Wriedt)** had none of the qualms he at present expresses about the course the Opposition is taking. He voted against the Appropriation Bills. I suggest to honourable senators opposite that they look at the division lists for that day. The vote of the Leader of the Government in the Senate proves that he was prepared to force the Government to the people by a vote of the Senate. Why does he now reverse his position? If further proof was needed on the matter, one need only to look at the opinions of **Mr Justice** Murphy. He made no secret of his interpretation of the Senate's powers. He evidenced no hypocrisy about the Labor Party's attitude. On 12 May 1967 he said: >There is no tradition, as has been suggested, that the Senate will not use its constitutional powers whenever it considers it necessary or desirable to do so in the public interest. He went on to say: >There are no limitations on the Senate in the use of its constitutional powers except the limits self-imposed by discretion and reason. There is no tradition in the Australian Labor Party that we will not oppose in the Senate any tax or money Bill or what might be described as a financial measure. Our tradition is to fight, whenever and wherever we can, to carry out the principles and policies for which we stand. In the same speech he went on further to state: >If we consider it to be in the public interest that a measure be rejected, who gave us the tight to refrain from doing so under some pretended notion that the Senate cannot reject a tax or money Bill? {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- Who said that? {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -Mr Justice Murphy, then **Senator Murphy.** I think that that opinion may carry a little more weight with honourable senators opposite that the opinion of lawyeracademics. **Senator Murphy's** attitude to the powers of the Senate and the traditions of the Labor Party was clear and consistent, unlike that of the Prime Minister who twists and turns at every opportunity, who says one thing when it suits him and the reverse when it equally suits him. On 18 June 1970, **Senator Murphy- Mr Justice** Murphy now- said: >The Senate is entitled and expected to exercise resolutely but with discretion its powers to refuse its concurrence - {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- What was that bit about discretion? {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -- He said, 'but with discretion '- to any financial measure, including a tax Bill. I am delighted with the interruption because it gives me the opportunity to state that I never quote out of context. He added: >The Australian Labor Party has acted consistently in accordance with the tradition that we will oppose in the Senate any tax or money Bill or other financial measure whenever necessary to carry out our principles and policies. He then incorporated in *Hansard* a list which filled 3 pages of *Hansard* of money Bills his Party had voted against in the Senate not once, not twice but during a period between 1950 and 1970. I say: So much for the Labor Party's traditions. Its tradition has been to try to reject money Bills in the Senate and to try to force governments to the people, but when threatened itself it squeals with anguish. I say: It is typical of the humbug and hypocrisy of this Government. If further proof was necessary, I point to the Victorian experience of 1952 when the Labor Party decided to force the Legislative Assembly to the people. I note that the Prime Minister is trying to avoid subjecting himself to the people by the device of a half Senate election. That will not resolve the current crisis. It is a device and nothing more. A half Senate election cannot resolve the crisis because of the 36 senators who would be elected 30 would not take up their seats until after 1 July 1 976. In any case, the question is not the composition of half the Senate but the feelings of the people about this Government. To attempt to prevent the people exercising this judgment is a denial of democracy. It would be a phoney sham. I quote the comments of Professor Patrick Lane in a letter to the Canberra *Times* this morning. He wrote: do the people want the Senate to spring a legitimate safety-valve- the refusal of Supply- to let the people say what they want? That is what the Opposition is doing, that is, using that constitutionally provided safety valve on behalf of the people. Finally, I put this to the Senate and to the people: The Senate is not refusing supply; it is not rejecting the Budget, but it is demanding an election. The moment the Prime Minister takes the only decent course open to him- the calling of an election in which his Government can be tested at the polls- the flow of money will resume. This Bill and the Appropriation Bills can pass in a few minutes. We will do everything to speed up their passage, once the Prime Minister announces the election date. But I say this quite deliberately: If there is any attempt by the Prime Minister or if there is any attempt by the Government - **(Senator McLaren interjecting)-** {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -- Whatever else I would do I would never eavesdrop and repeat a private conversation, which would be about the lowest thing in which any member of this Parliament could indulge. One could not get any lower than to eavesdrop in the dining room on one's colleagues and repeat the conversation in the Parliament. If the Government is so fearful of the judgment of the voters that it will not allow these Bills to pass, the onus will be upon it. It will stand condemned for its actions. The Government, and the Government alone, will be responsible. We will grant these funds immediately the Prime Minister does what in all decency he should do. If the Prime Minister has any sense of responsibility, any sense of decency, any sense of courage and any sense of honour, he will take the only course left open to him- he will agree to an election at which the people can determine the fate of the Government and the fate of every person sitting in this place. We on this side of the Senate are not fearful of an election. Indeed, we believe that both the Senate and the House of Representatives should be tested in the most democratic way, that is at the ballot box. Opposition senators have no desire to remain in their positions while the members of the House of Representatives have to face the people. Unlike the Prime Minister, we have no wish to be protected from the voters. The Opposition believes that both Houses should go to the people. We challenge the Prime Minister to arrange for that to happen. He has the opportunity because the Parliament is now in a state of total deadlock. It has been deadlocked on 21 Bills so far and it now faces a deadlock on the most important legislation of all- the Appropriation Bills. This deadlock must be resolved. The Constitution provides the proper method for resolving the deadlock between the two Houses, that is, a dissolution under section 57 of both Houses of the Parliament and an election for both. If this deadlock continues it will be the fault of the Prime Minister. It will be his fault because of his fear of the ballot box. This deadlock has been brought about by the incompetence of this Government, led by a Prime Minister who will not apply to himself the standards and sanctions he applies to other Ministers. He refuses to submit to the same code of conduct he demanded from **Mr Connor** and **Dr Cairns. His** failure to apply those standards and sanctions is the only reason why he presently remains in office. If the Labor Party will not remove him the Opposition must in duty bound give the voters an opportunity to do so. If he refuses to give the voters an opportunity, let it be on his head. On behalf of the Opposition, I call upon the Prime Minister to take the only honourable course, that is to resign his commission and allow an election to be held for both Houses. In order to bring that about I move: I commend the amendment to the Senate. {: #subdebate-37-0-s10 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP -- This Bill, which has been before the Senate for some weeks now, is the Loan Bill 1975. The amendment just moved by the Leader of the Opposition, **Senator Withers,** has caused a complete change in the manner in which I intend to reply to this debate. But in view of the length of the period over which this debate has ensued, I want certain things to be written into the *Hansard* record. First, it must be said that this Bill is a machinery Bill. It is a Bill designed to allow the Government to facilitate the normal accounting methods of government. This is not a method that has been introduced by this Government; it is a procedure that was adopted by previous governmentsthat is, Liberal-Country Party governmentsquite legitimately for the purpose of transferring or debiting certain defence appropriations to the Loan Fund. There is nothing new about it. There is nothing that can be called into question as to the procedures which the Government intended to adopt. In the past, our LiberalCountry Party opponents have adopted this very procedure. So let us establish first the point that the procedures which have been adopted or which were to be adopted under this Bill were normal accounting procedures of government. The second principal argument has been the size of the so-called deficit and the claim that in some way this Bill is related to it. Instead of the normal debate taking place following the introduction of this Bill into the Parliament, which one would have expected, and which has been the case in the past, a whole series of questions was asked by the Opposition in which it sought further information. The Government provided the fullest information possible, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this debate. I believe that in the first case 8 detailed questions were asked and that equally detailed answers were given. A second set of 14 questions was then asked and again 14 equally detailed answers were given. The Government made officers of the Treasury available to members of the Opposition to allow them to have fully explained to them exactly the details that had been sought and provided. There was no attempt at any time by the Government to cover up or to deny to the Opposition any of the machinery details of this legislation. {: .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator Devitt: -- Eighteen pages. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -- I have been reminded by **Senator Devitt** that that information totalled 1 8 pages. The provision of such information was unheard of in the past but it was readily provided by this Government when it was sought. So the arguments that have been advanced on so many occasions that the Government was not giving full and proper information to the Parliament can be dismissed as being completely untrue and unwarranted. Despite the giving of all that information and despite the fact that there was no attempt to deny that information to the Parliament another series of questions was asked by **Senator Carrick** on 1 October of this year. In view of the change now in the nature of the debate, **Mr President,** I think that perhaps it would be a waste of the time of the Senate if I were to go through this new material in detail. Therefore I seek leave to have the questions and answers incorporated in *Hansard* so that there is a full and complete record of what information was sought by the Opposition. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- {: .page-start } page 1157 {:#debate-38} ### LOAN BILL 1975 Questions asked by **Senator Carrick** in the Senate on 1 October 1975 Question 1- Will the Minister re-affirm the statement of the Treasurer as recorded on page 419 of the Senate Hansard of 2 September that 'Present plans envisage that only small amounts will be raised overseas in 1975-76. Small refinancing loans to cover maturing debt are planned, together with a borrowing of about $50m for on-lending to the AIDC which is provided for in the Budget '. Answer- Yes. Present plans with regard to overseas borrowings are as stated in the answers to questions provided by the Acting Treasurer. The anticipated overseas borrowing activities of the Government are for small refinancing loans to cover maturing debt and for a borrowing of about $50m for on-lending to the AIDC. In addition, there are expected to be small net borrowings on behalf of the Australian National Airlines Commission and Qantas Airways Limited. These were also mentioned in the answers provided on 2 September by the Acting Treasurer- under the' section dealing with net drawings under credit arrangements. Question 2- Will the Minister affirm that current activities in the money-markets of Europe, purporting to be directed towards the raising of substantial loans, reputedly in units of $ 1 ,000m, for Australia, have no stimulus or support from the Commonwealth Government? Answer- If there are any such activities, they certainly have no stimulus or support whatsoever from the Australian Government. The Australian Government has no intention of borrowing large amounts overseas of the type mentioned at this time. The Government is not aware of the source of the rumours repeated in **Senator Carrick** 's question. Question 3- Is it a fact, as evidenced in answers provided to Estimates Committee D on 1 1 September that salaries shown throughout the Budget estimates are calculated on March 1975 levels, before the National Wage case and making no allowance whatsoever for the 23 per cent salaries rises foreshadowed in the Budget Speech? If not, what basis of calculation was used? Answer- At the outset it should be made clear that the income tax estimates in the Budget were based on an assumed increase in weekly earnings per employed male unit averaging 22 per cent over the economy as a whole. This includes award rates, over-award payments and overtime. It does not follow, however, that award salary rates for Australian Government employees should be assumed to increase by the same amount. That will, of course depend upon determinations made through conciliation and arbitration mechanisms. In this regard it is relevant to note that over the last financial year Public Servants' salary rates increased substantially less than the increase in average weekly earnings in the economy as a whole. Turning to the first part of the question, in accordance with normal long established practice the detailed estimates shown in the Appropriation Bills were based on salary levels ruling at the time the Budget was being finalised. Broadly, these were salary levels ruling about July 1975. The estimates did take into account increases arising from the National Wage Case Decision in May 1975. While the detailed estimates appearing in the Appropriation Bills do not allow for wage and salary increases which may occur subsequent to the preparation of the Budget, it is to be noted that Appropriation Bill No. 1 does provide, in Clause 5, an additional appropriation to cover increases in salaries and wages which become payable in accordance with an award or a determination made during the financial year and which is not taken into account in the detailed estimates. In arriving at the estimate of overall Budget outlays for the financial year, an allowance of $ 1 50m was included to take account of increases in rates of wages and salaries in the Public Service which could reasonably be expected to occur over the course of the financial year (seepage 103 of Statements attached to the Budget Speech). This allowance was calculated on a basis consistent with the wage fixing principles outlined by the Arbitration Commission in its National Wage Case Decision. It would therefore be misleading to suggest that proper account has not been taken in the Budget of possible future Public Service salary and wage increases. Question 4- Is it further a fact that postal and telephone charges in the Budget estimates are calculated on charges prevailing prior to the recent steep increases? Answer- It is true that the estimates of expenditure on postage, telegrams and telephone services included in Appropriation Bill No. 1 were based on the charges operating before the revised levels which were made public on 1 August 1975. Given the advanced state of the Budget preparations at that date, it was neither realistic nor practicable to reopen the relevant expenditure estimates to allow departments to make bids for additional funds in the light of the increases in postal and telephone charges and to have these properly assessed and any changes incorporated in the printed documents by Budget day. As part of its aim of restricting administrative expenditure of departments, the Government decided that increases in expenditures beyond those proposed in the Budget (including increases associated with higher postal and telephone charges) should be limited to truly unavoidable commitments, and that, even in these cases, every effort should be made to achieve offsetting savings elsewhere. Question 5- Are all costs in the Budget estimates calculated on March 1975 prevailing level? If not, on what levels are they costed? Answer- It has been for many years, and still is, the practice of Treasury in seeking from departments estimates of expenditure for consideration by the Government in its preparation of the Budget, to ask the departments to observe certain general principles in preparing their estimates. These principles have been developed in conjunction with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and have been endorsed by that Committee on a number of occasions in its official reports. The Honourable **Senator might** refer to, for example, page 107 of the Committee's 1 18th Report dated 5 June 1970. The relevant Treasury Direction (16/9) specifies as general principles that estimates of expenditure should represent a realistic assessment having regard to the information available to departments at the time of their preparation; estimates for supplies and services should, however, be calculated at current or known prices. Where an item is for a type of recurring expense it is appropriate to budget on the basis of experience. While departments were required to submit estimates in April this does not mean that changes in cost levels which occurred between the time those estimates were prepared and the time the Budget estimates were finalised were ignored. Where appropriate, such changes were taken into account in the processes leading up to final determination of the figures to be included in the Budget documents. As mentioned in the answer to question 3, an allowance was included in the overall Budget estimates for subsequent increases in rates of salaries and wages in the Public Service. An allowance was also included for adjustments for cost escalation in education grants. Prospective cost increases during the financial year were also taken into account in arriving at the Budget estimates of payments to the Health Insurance Fund and advances to the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Commissions. The estimate of financial assistance grants to the States reflected, in accordance with the formula for determination of these grants, an estimate for the increase in average wages to March 1976. In the pensions field, the estimates allowed for the proposed Autumn increases in rates. The aim was to produce estimates which represented a realistic assessment, in the light of information available at the time, of the prospective expenditure outturn for the financial year. Question 6- Does the Budget include adequate allowance for the salaries etc of the projected 2.8 per cent increase in the Commonwealth Public Service? Answer- The financial provisions in the Appropriation Bills were finalised after decisions were taken limiting the growth in full-time staff employed under the Public Service Act to a ceiling increase of 2.8 per cent. The Bills, therefore, do include provisions based on that level of staff increase. Question 7- Will it be necessary, based on the above factors and upon the information in the Treasurer's letter of July 1975 to the Prime Minister foreshadowing under budgeting on Medibank and other charges, to introduce additional Appropriation Bills for very substantial sums, either later this year or early next year, thereby enormously increasing the amount of the foreshadowed deficit? Answer- Taking firstly the suggestion that there has been under-budgeting for the Health Insurance Fund in the Appropriation Bills for 1975-76, the Government's view is that the provision included in the Appropriation Bill for the Health Insurance Fund will be adequate for the financial year. The estimate currently included in the appropriations is the best available and on the basis of current information there is no reason to assume that further supplementation of the appropriations will be required in the additional Appropriation Bills which are normally presented to Parliament during May. Turning to the remainder of the question I think it has been adequately illustrated in answers to questions 3 to 6 that the Budget has attempted to portray as realistic a picture as possible of planned outlays for the financial year. Allowances have been included in the Budget figuring for wage and salary increases and for cost increase elements in other respects. In the ordinary course, any Government would need to submit Additional Appropriations in the Autumn sittings. While these Additional Appropriations will add to estimated expenditure under some items, it may be expected that there will also be savings against other items currently appearing in the Appropriation Bills before Parliament. Given the Government's stated objective of expenditure restraint, departments will be required to seek and effect economies or equivalent savings in other areas in order to meet increases as far as possible within their original Budget allocations. At this stage, it is expected that any increase in total Budget outlays for the financial year as a whole beyond the Budget estimate will not be such as to make their rate of growth significantly different from that envisaged in the Budget. This is not to suggest that there will be no increase in the estimated Budget deficit of $2, 798m. The revenue estimates are particularly sensitive to the assumed increase in average weekly earnings in 1975-76. Statement No. 4 attached to the Budget Speech indicated estimated gross PA YE receipts in 1975-76 were based on an assumed earnings increase of 22 per cent. The statement went on to say that great uncertainty surrounded this forecast and mentioned that there were some 'tentative indications' that the assumed increase could be on the high side. A smaller increase in earnings would reduce PA YE receipts (and increase the deficit) but it would be wrong to argue that the resultant larger deficit made the Budget more inflationary; on the contrary, a slower growth in earnings (and prices) would be a signal that the Government' s antiinflationary policies were working. This point was put succinctly by a previous Government: Should average earnings rise less than assumed, taxation revenue would be less than estimated and the budget would be greater. It would not follow, however, that the Budget objective of maintaining an environment conducive to balanced economic growth would be adversely affected by such a development; on the contrary, such a result would be more likely to serve the broad economic objectives to which budget policy is directed. (Page 40, Statements attached to the Budget Speech, 1 969-70.) Question 8- Was the Minister for Labor and Immigration correct, in his answer to me, when he indicated that no new expenditures or initiatives will be introduced to offset his predicted 400 000 or more unemployed? Answer- The Minister for Labor and Immigration answered the question as to whether the Government intended to rest upon the Budget or intended that additional measures will be taken to relieve unemployment in the following way: The Budget was carefully thought out, and it was not the Government's intention to resile from it after it had been brought down. Yes, we intend to rest upon the Budget. That remains the position. The Budget is designed to help bring about a less inflationary environment, thereby laying the basis for a resurgence in employment opportunities. It is quite premature to be talking about revising the Budget now, before it has been given a chance to influence the economic environment over the coming year. {: #debate-38-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
ALP -Having said those things, I turn to the amendment which has now been placed before us by the Opposition. I was assuming, as I think most people were, that an amendment of this nature possibly would be moved to the Appropriation Bills rather than to this Loan Bill. **Senator Withers** now has decided to put before the Senate this alleged indictment of the Government which I have read and upon which I will comment. However, before doing so I want to refer to some of the comments which he made during the course of his speech a few minutes ago. He said: 'We are not cutting off supply to the people'. That is an utter distortion of what this amendment is all about and of what was decided on by the Opposition today and announced by the Leader of the Opposition, **Mr Fraser.** It is an attempt not to starve the Labor Government of funds but to starve the Australian people, and millions of Australians will be affected by the decision that has been taken by the Opposition. It will mean that large sums of money will be cut off by this decision of the Liberal and National Country Parties, thus affecting large numbers of Australians. It is obvious that they are not interested in and do not care about what effect this will have on the hundreds of thousands- perhaps 2 million or 3 million Australianswho will be affected in their pay packets by the decision taken by the Liberal and National Country Parties. They tell us, of course, that the decision was taken because of the nature of the Government and that this Government ought to be put before the people. That is a separate argument. The fact that they are prepared to do this for the first time since Federation and virtually force not just the Australian Government to its knees but also the Australian people to their knees in order to obtain power 1 8 months after this Government was elected for a 3-year period shows the nature of the people who would seek power m this Parliament today. **Senator Withers** went on to say that there was a position of crisis and uncertainty in the Australian community. Only this afternoon **Mr Fraser,** I believe, was interviewed by the Press and said that he could not do anything about the economy for 3 years. I know that **Mr Fraser** perhaps is not the greatest Leader of the Opposition or of the Liberal Party we have seen. He is obviously a most indecisive man who, for the first time, has been through a test over the past few months since he was elected Leader of the Opposition. Since then he has been staggering around like a blind man trying to make up his mind on what to do but uncertain of the troops who he has behind him and whether they will go to battle with him. This is the nature of the man. Before the election comes about he will be proven to be- I was going to say a big bag of wind but perhaps I should be more charitable- a man of complete indecision when the real crunch comes. However, he knows as well as everybody else that this country is passing through the economic conditions that all other countries, especially the advanced and developed countries, are passing through- inflation, unemployment and economic uncertainty. It was said in this chamber today by one member of the Opposition that no matter which party is in government in the next 3 years it will be a torrid and difficult time for that party. Of course it will, because these are the circumstances under which we have to exist in the world today. There is uncertainty created by **Mr Fraser** 's own incapacity to make a decision. Finally, he has been pushed or forced- perhaps he decided himself- to go ahead and challenge the Government over these Bills. During the course of this debate, we have had reference by **Senator Withers** to this loans affair scandal, as it is called, and we are told of the improper practices. In fact, in the amendment we find the words 'evasion', 'incompetence', 'deceit' and 'duplicity' in respect of the overseas loans scandal. Despite the fact that this Government on so many occasions has challenged the Opposition to come up with the evidence and even though it brought a witness before this Senate and tried to extract from him something to substantiate its arguments, the Opposition could not do it. The Opposition has not been able to do it since and it will not be able to do it. This is the sort of generalisation with which it has carried on to denigrate not only **Mr Rex** Connor but also the activities of the Government in trying to preserve and develop ourselves the resources of this country. That has been the key issue right throughout the whole of this so-called loans scandal, and although some people overseas were under the misguided impression that they had authority to send telexes to Moscow, Zurich and elsewhere when at no time did they have that authority, and although these things have been explained a dozen times, we still see the Opposition trying to maintain that this is an act of duplicity on the part of the Government. The fact is that the loans issue has been distorted and clouded. They were good political tactics employed by the Liberal Party, and they were consistent with its general disinterest in the development of our natural resources and the sorts of policies that it followed for 23 years. Next in the amendment there is the alleged failure by the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** to maintain proper control over the activities of his Ministers. I believe that it was only this afternoon that my colleague **Senator James** McClelland read out the list of ministerial changes under the last Liberal-Country Party Government. What a sad story it was. That government was changing Ministers faster than anything that has happened under this Government. That is a measure of the sort of stability which the Opposition had then and which it would give the Australian people should it have the opportunity again. We heard the old story of the continuing mismanagement of the Australian economy. These are concoctions by the Opposition. In essence it is a mad grab for power, and that is the key to it. The Opposition could never accept after 23 years in government that somebody else could govern, that it had to sit on the Opposition benches and be denied all the things which it had grown up with and accepted as part and parcel of its right. {: .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator Primmer: -- Born to rule. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -The born-to-rule mentality; the divine right of kings. That is the mentality which motivates the Liberal and National Country Parties today in their efforts to bring this Government down by the means they are adopting, no matter how much it hurts the Australian people. That is the essence of this debate. I had hoped that there would be an intelligent debate as it was originally when it was started by **Senator Cotton** on behalf of the Opposition. However, after that it fell away, and it has fallen away this afternoon in particular. On behalf of the Government I indicate that we reject this amendment. It is an amendment which is unwarranted and unjustified. In his comments **Senator Withers** made some unfortunate personal remarks concerning **Mr Whitlam.** He said that **Mr Whitlam** is not a king. That is quite true, he is not a king. I do not think he believes he is. However, I know one thing he is, and that is a fighter. He can fight when he is in a corner, and if we must go to an election over this legislation, let me assure the Opposition that it will see him fight as a leader and he will have a lot of good fighters behind him. Question put: >That the words proposed to be left out **(Senator Wither's** amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O 'Byrne) AYES: 29 NOES: 28 Majority....... 1 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted **(Senator Withers** amendment) be inserted. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O 'Byrne) AYES: 29 NOES: 28 Majority....... 1 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O 'Byrne) AYES: 29 NOES: 28 Majority....... 1 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76 First Reading Debate resumed from 14 October on motion by **Senator Wriedt:** That the Bill be now read a first time. {: #debate-38-s1 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- When the debate on this Bill adjourned last night I had been addressing myself, and hopefully directing the attention of the Senate, to the implications of the report on ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd by the Royal Commission on Petroleum. I had indicated that scarcely had there been a more blatant example of the way in which a Minister of the Crown had closed his eyes in order to benefit a company of which the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party was the director. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: **- Mr President,** I rise on a point of order which I think should have been raised last night in relation to both **Senator Greenwood** and **Senator Georges.** I draw the attention of the Senate to standing order 416, which states: >No **Senator shall** allude to any Debate of the current Session in the House of Representatives, or to any Measure impending therein, unless such allusion be relevant to the matter under discussion. **Mr President,** I draw to your attention the fact that on 7 October there was a discussion in the other place on a matter of public importance: The failure of the Government to take account of doubts expressed by the Secretary and the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions about the findings of the Royal Commission on Petroleum in relation to the contract between Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd and ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd for the supply of crude oil '. Obviously, this question has been discussed in the other House during the current session and an allusion to it now does not relate to the subject matter of the debate. The debate is on the first reading of a money Bill, an Appropriation Bill, and there is no need to allude to anything in the other place to decide whether we should or should not pass the first reading of a money Bill. In all sincerity, **Mr President,** I ask you to rule on the point. {: #debate-38-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I think that the honourable senator who is addressing the Chair, **Senator Greenwood,** should develop his speech bearing in mind the standing order which states that any allusion must be relevant to the matter under discussion. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- I indicated yesterday that on the basis of the evidence before the Royal Commission, of what the Commission itself had found, of what **Mr Souter** had said and in the light of what the outgoing Minister for Minerals and Energy, **Mr Connor,** had stated in answers to questions in the Parliament, there were 2 questions. Firstly, after ACTU-Solo had agreed to pay $5 a barrel to Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd to obtain the crude oil, why were two contract documents prepared by ACTU-Solo and why was the purchase price of $5 split between the 2 documents? Secondly, in the light of his knowledge as revealed by him in his answers in the Parliament, why did the Minister allow the transaction to proceed as if it were consistent with Government policy? I indicated that the Minister in his answers in the Parliament had said certain things; in effect, he said that he had not known that there were 2 documents. I will not reiterate what I outlined yesterday by referring to each answer, but I think that these comments may be made. The Minister's statements revealed a thorough knowledge of the background to the sale of this crude oil. What he stated showed that he knew that there had been contested litigation between APC and another company simply for the right to sell the oil. He knew that in selling the oil at the government approved price of $2.10 a barrel the Allied Petrochemical company was getting no more than it paid for it. In those circumstances, having regard to the costs of litigation, which were very substantial, and the great fight in which it had engaged to secure the right to dispose of the oil, surely he must have been on the alert to know and to understand why this company was prepared to take a loss. As I said last night, that is what was told to him by his departmental advisers because they pointed with suspicion to the whole arrangement. **Mr Connor** said that he had raised that issue verbally with **Mr Souter,** and that of course does not come through in what **Mr Souter** said. **Mr Connor** said that he knew only weeks before that APC had been attempting to sell crude oil at $5 a barrel to every major oil company. In short, he knew, as he himself had said, that every effort was being made to flog off the crude at $5 a barrel. In that state of knowledge, with his suspicion of what would be attempted, it would be natural for the Minister to satisfy himself that no secret deal was being engaged in or that he was not being misinformed. From his answers in the Parliament, obviously he was suspicious, but he prided himself, in his own words, on not being a fool. So the Minister indicated that he had raised the matter with **Mr Souter** and was informed by **Mr Souter** that no consideration in excess of $2. 10 a barrel was being paid. He was emphatic that $2.10 a barrel was to be the sole price paid and that that was to be the final terms of the transaction. Before any documentation was received he, the Minister, had been approached on the matter, and whether this was the only occasion he discussed the matter does not appear from the Minister's own statements. But he said that he had raised the matter verbally with **Mr Souter.** He had specifically checked that this $5 per barrel crude oil of APC which he knew that that company was endeavouring to flog off was the oil which was the subject matter of the ACTU-Solo arrangement. He said that he had insisted that it be an orthodox transaction, that it was not necessary for him to do anything different from what he had done, that he had fully discussed the matter with the ACTU and had received a proper assurance on it. But what stands out is the Minister's lack of inquiry as to what had caused Allied Petrochemicals to change its mind, or if he had had a full discussion as he said with ACTU why he was never aware of the $5 per barrel sale price. If he was discussing this matter with **Mr Souter** or any other director why was he not told of the $5 per barrel? It must be stated that **Mr Souter** has never claimed to have told the Minister anything about this agreement, except the agreement containing the $2.10 per barrel sale price. He has never claimed, contrary to what the Minister said, to have fully discussed the matter with the Minister. Yet the Minister claims to have fully discussed the matter with the ACTU. If the Minister did discuss it the full facts should have come out. If the full facts had come out it would explain why the Minister chose not to obtain any information from Allied Petrochemicals. He did not speak with anyone from Allied Petrochemicals to ensure that no windfall profits had been made. In the light of the answer which he gave in Parliament on 3 September it would be the very first time that he had never inquired of the selling company whether windfall profits were to be made. How then did the Minister, as he admits, come to be so grievously misinformed, and misinformed by a man he knew so well, a friend- **Mr Souter-** and misinformed by a company which had the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, **Mr Hawke,** as a director and by in effect the Executive of the ACTU? How could people with whom he was on close and cordial political terms so blatantly and successfully conceal from him a secret deal, particularly when, if the Minister is to be believed, he was so determined not to allow anything to be put over him? How could a Minister who claimed to be no fool have been so easily fooled? Possibly the explanation is to be found in the evidence which **Mr Souter** gave before the Commission and which consistently he has reiterated after the Commission's findings. What did **Mr Souter** say? He said after the Commission's findings that it was ridiculous to suggest that he had deceived the Government. He said that the Commission's report was a whitewashing. Why? He said that ACTU-Solo had been the scapegoat for the Commission. What did he mean by that? **Mr Souter** 's evidence clearly disclosed that he submitted only one agreement to the Minister and he did so by a letter which must have presupposed some prior knowledge by the Minister of what was happening because the letter simply said: My Dear Minister, Re: Purchase of Indigenous Crude from Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd. Attached hereto is a copy of the Agreement between Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd and ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd for the purchase of 420 213 barrels of indigenous crude now forwarded for your information. Yours sincerely, H. J. SOUTER Can anyone reasonably believe that a letter as singularly uninformative as that letter was sent without some prior knowledge by the Minister of what the whole matter was about? What did **Mr Souter** tell the Commission? He indicated that in May of 1975 the ACTU research staff had acted upon an ACTU Executive decision to examine the possibility of the ACTU joining in the ACTU-Solo venture. This was examined on the basis of Allied Petrochemicals' approach to sell the crude allotment. **Mr Souter** indicated- and this I think is most significant of all- that the ACTU had previously discussed the purchase of crude allotments with the Minister at an earlier date in relation to the independents, and that meant in relation to the other independent oil companies. There was no suggestion at the time when **Mr Souter** gave his answer that there had been any discussion whatsoever with the Minister about the particular purchase from Allied Petrochemicals. This was a statement made by **Mr Souter** in evidence on 2 September and it related to discussions with the Minister in relation to the company known as IOC. It would seem that that took place in early May of 1975. **Mr Souter** was in no doubt as to the position. Page 4285 of the transcript of evidence of the Royal Commission shows that **Mr Souter** was asked the question: >Was there any discussion between you and the Minister between the allocations you have told us about, from then until after the execution of these two agreements on 4th July. **Mr Souter** answered: >No. He was asked. . . {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . do you remember precisely when it was that you had that discussion? He answered: >No, I would have to look it up. It would be early May I think. He was asked: >At that stage had the ACTU commenced any negotiations relative to the purchase of the crude which the APC was entitled to? He answered: >No. But **Mr Souter** revealed this account- as other extracts of the evidence will show- as the one in which the only matter for referral to the Minister was this one agreement which contained the $2.10 per barrel sale price and nothing more. At the time that that agreement was forwarded **Mr Souter** offered nothing more and he was not asked by the Minister for anything more than what was offered. In the light of that, **Mr Souter,** knowing that ACTU-Solo had agreed to pay $5 per barrel, which was much in excess of" what was the Government's policy, only offered one of the 2 documents which had been prepared. Having done that, what did **Mr Souter** say? He said: >I strongly object and deny that any Minister of the Crown has been misled by the ACTU. He also said: >There was no inquiry from the Department to me as to whether there was any other negotiation in relation to it. He said: >There was no secret deal. There was a second agreement in relation to the refined product. The Parties knew of [the second agreement]. The solicitors of both parties knew. Our Executive knew it. It was a commercial document which did not require Government approval. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Did he say that the Executive knew? {: #debate-38-s3 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -He did. This is so significant. For those honourable senators who want to look this matter up I am quoting from page 4273 of the transcript of evidence. **Mr Souter** said: >It was my firm impression in discussions with the Minister that the question of the sale of the crude was at the Government approved price and the commercial contract in relation to the refined product is a matter between the parries. He also said: >If we were of the view that the second agreement was part of the first agreement the Minister would have been informed. He said: >The advice was by our negotiating team, by our research people in consultation with the legal advisers. Again he said: >It was never suggested by me to the Minister that I was enquiring on behalf of a body interested in purchasing the crude oil. I never met the Minister since that date to discuss the petroleum in relation to the IOC or this particular transaction. There is some difference, of course, in that account and the account which the Minister gave to the Parliament, but who is to say where the truth lies? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- You are not confusing the 2 companies, are you? {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- I assure the honourable senator that if he cares to read what I have said if what I have actually stated is not clear to him he will see that there is no possibility of any mistake or confusion as to the 2 companies. At pages 4288-9 of the transcript **Mr Souter** said- and these are his exact words: >Our understanding- we had a firm understanding- was that the second document did not require Government approval and did not require to go to the Government. That was his statement. The commission found that the refusal or the failure to give that second document to the Government amounted to a deceit and a misrepresentation by the Minister. Yet **Mr Souter** is saying that he had a firm understanding that that second document did not require Government approval. How could he have got that understanding? He got that understanding, as I have related, from the discussions which he had with the Minister in relation to the IOC arrangement. Let us look at the communications between **Mr Souter** and **Mr Connor.** I know that what I am doing is going into detail for the purpose of putting it on the record, but it must be done because **Mr Souter** has been vilified as a result of the way in which people have taken up the commission's findings. I have indicated my view of this transaction in what I said yesterday, but it is only by going to the record that one can ascertain who is the person who bears the greatest responsibility in this. I think **Mr Connor** is that person and really ought to have the responsibility truly sheeted home to him. On 2 September **Mr Souter** said that no discussions had taken place between **Mr Connor** and him after the IOC discussions had taken place in early May and on 4 July. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- But there is a second allocation. There are 2 allocations. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -Let me finish, **Senator Georges.** You can speak later. This statement was, of course, inconsistent with what the Minister said to the Parliament on 2 September, namely that he had approached **Mr Souter** before he had received a departmental telex message on 24 June. It was also inconsistent with what the Minister had elaborated in Parliament on 2 September, namely that before he had received any documentation he had been approached and he, the Minister, had specifically raised the point that it was the same crude as APC was trying to flog off. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- What about IOC now? You have the 2 companies mixed. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -Let me finish, **Senator Georges.** You can answer in due course. The implications of the inconsistent accounts must have occasioned concern. On 4 September, 2 days afterwards, counsel appearing for the Australian Government put to **Mr Souter** that notwithstanding an earlier answer by **Mr Souter** he had in fact discussed the APC sale to ACTUSolo by telephone with the Minister. To that question **Mr Souter** answered affirmatively. But look at the way in which the question was put and the answer came. It was said: >What I stated was that there was discussion in relation to the prospect of purchase of APC crude and the Minister's response was, and I agreed, that it would be at the Government approved price for the crude. The question was asked: >The Minister specifically raised the question and you say you agreed that would be the price? That is a typical lawyer's leading question. The answer given was 'yes'. The fact that the responses of **Mr Souter** on 4 September were different from the answers and the clear impression given on 2 September are not adverted to either by counsel or by the commission in its report. The conclusion, however, is inescapable that **Mr Souter** was asked the second set of questions with the purpose, confirmed in the result, of corroborating the version of events given by **Mr Connor** in the Parliament. There are many other matters to which one could refer but I appreciate that time has its limitations on what I can say on this day. **Mr Souter** indicated, for example, that in what he called the IOC discussions he had stated that he had a firm impression in his discussions with the Minister that the question of the sale of the crude was at the Government-approved price and that a commercial contract in relation to the refined product is a matter between the parties. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- There were 2 companies and 2 allocations of crude. You are talking about IOC and APC. To which company and which allocation are you referring? {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -As I said earlier to **Senator Georges,** let him look at the record. The discussions about the IOC company had taken place in early May. **Mr Souter** in his evidence to the commission had said that between those discussions and a date in July, after the ACTU-Solo business had been fixed up, no discussions took place between him and the Minister. The Minister said something to the contrary in Parliament, namely that there had been discussions. As I have just related, counsel appearing for the Government put this to **Mr Souter** before the commission: 'You did have a discussion by telephone, didn't you?' and **Mr Souter,** inconsistent with what he had said earlier, replied: 'Yes'. If **Senator Georges** desires to put a different version from that then he will have the opportunity to do so, if he chooses, when he speaks at a later stage. The crucial aspect of all that **Mr Souter** said related to what he described as the understanding' he had had as as a result of his discussions- that is, the discussions in relation to IOC- with the Minister. It was his understanding, he said, that the agreement in relation to the crude was in line with government policy. Obviously as a result of this prior knowledge or understanding of the IOC matters and of what flowed from his discussions with the Minister on the matter, he said, as appears at page 4356 of the transcript: >It was perfectly proper to have the transaction recorded in an agreement to purchase crude at $2. 10 per barrel and a second agreement for a profit-sharing arrangement of the type we have here. It must be remembered, of course, that that profit-sharing arrangement was a farce. It was not a profit-sharing arrangement at all and the commission found that it was not. It was simply a device which some people had concocted in order apparently to deceive the Minister. But, as I said yesterday, I think it was the Minister who misled **Mr Souter,** rather than it being the other way round. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- That is not fair. I do not think **Mr Souter** misled anybody, or that the Minister did. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -Well, the conclusions which I offer to the Senate are these: The conclusions of the commission on the evidence before it ought not to be challenged. Its conclusions on that evidence appear to be well supported, but if further evidence or material is brought into the arena, which is what I think I have been able to do, then there are other conclusions which are open and which ought to be made. In the first place, it appears highly probable that **Mr Souter** derived what he calls his understanding from the Minister that what he was doing in relation to the Allied Petrochemical sale to ACTU-Solo would meet the Minister's requirements. There appears to be no reason, except some such prior understanding, which would lead to such an unlikely and unrewarding chain of events, precipitated by **Mr Souter,** actually taking place. Why should they? What actually happened seems to be that **Mr Connor** and **Mr Souter** discussed ways and means by which the Government's policy of an approved Government price could be circumvented, and **Mr Souter** attempted to give effect to it. **Mr Connor** was aware of what was being attempted and did nothing to obtain information which could embarrass him if departmental investigation should subsequently occur. Why otherwise did **Mr Connor** not take up the very clear suggestion and advantage of holding an inquiry which his departmental officers suggested to him? Why indeed has not the Minister been prepared to table the departmental files in this Senate? They have been asked for twice. They have not yet been presented. Secondly, there appears good reason for supposing that the division of the contractual arrangement to pay $5 per barrel into 2 parts, or the division of the consideration- it should be remembered that the Commission said that no explanation was forthcoming in that regard- was prompted by the same understanding which **Mr Souter** derived from **Mr Connor.** The break-up of the consideration was a deceit to avoid a fixed price requirement. As the commission subsequently found, the claimed reasons for it were quite insubstantial. But it can be supposed that it was never thought that this break-up of the price would ever be looked at and, accordingly, the device was adopted. Who was to believe or to suspect that it would all come to light before the royal commission? If these assumptions are correct, the involvement of the Minister may be presumed. Certainly, he ought to have submitted himself to the type of royal commission scrutiny and cross-examination to which the hapless **Mr Souter** was subjected. A third matter for comment relates to the fact that the ACTU-Solo company obtained and exercised an option under which the sum of $5 per barrel was to be paid to APC for the allocation of 420 000-odd barrels of oil. In such circumstances it is difficult to see how any subsequent agreement that the crude was being purchased for only $2.10 per barrel could be sustained. Yet **Mr Souter** persisted in his view that the sale or purchase price by the ACTU-Solo company was only $2. 10 per barrel. It is true that at various places in the course of his evidence **Mr Souter** states that he had not been involved in the earlier option and purchase arrangement. But this appears to strain credibility if it means that he was never aware of the fact of a $5 per barrel purchase. If it be true, the facts were concealed from **Mr Souter.** If this be true, the further question arises: By whom and for what purpose? If it be not true, the clear conclusion ought to be that it was for the purpose of deceiving the Minister. As the deceit is so rudimentary in its character, it is hard to believe that any Minister who wanted so earnestly to avoid being imposed upon or misled could have been taken in. **Mr Connor** was not that sort of Minister. I believe that while the findings of the Commission remain unchallenged and while **Mr Connor** stands disclosed by his own conduct as a man who either lied to the Parliament or who engaged in such a pattern of misrepresentation and concealment that it amounts to the same thing, there is a need for justice to be done. The matter should be looked at again and the facts should come out. I believe that what will come out is that this was simply the device of a corrupt government, of a corrupt Minister to benefit a company of which the President of the Australian Labor Party was a director. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: **- Mr President,** I raise a point of order. In the few minutes that I have I seek to have the withdrawal of the words 'corrupt Minister' which have been used by **Senator Greenwood** against **Mr Connor.** They are not justified They are unparliamentary. On occasions I have been reminded of that and I have had to withdraw minor words which I have used against members of another place. **Mr President,** I ask that you seek the withdrawal of those words 'corrupt Minister' which **Senator Greenwood** used. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: **-Mr President,** I do not want to create problems. The point I want to make can be well sustained. I said I believed that this is what the evidence would show. I do believe that. I trust that **Senator Georges** will regard the making of an allegation based on evidence as fairly within Senate propriety. I believe that on the evidence that is what would be shown. That would mean that one person who is at present regarded as the main villain in the piece would at least be exonerated from that totality of blame. {: #debate-38-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- On the point of order, the word 'corrupt' is accepted as being unparliamentary language. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the word 'corrupt'. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- I made the allegation that he was a corrupt Minister on the evidence. Whether the evidence is sustained is really the point at issue. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- There has been a request that you should withdraw it. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- I did it in terms which I suggested to **Senator Georges** would make the position I was arguing more clear. I understood that he had accepted that position. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- No. On that point of order I do not accept that - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! I have given a ruling. 1 have asked **Senator Greenwood** whether he will withdraw the word 'corrupt'. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: **-Mr President,** I wonder, before we take this matter further, whether I might have your ruling so that I can consider my position. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- 1 have ruled that the word corrupt' when referring to a Minister of the Crown is an unparliamentary word. A request has been made by **Senator Georges** for its withdrawal. I am asking you to withdraw. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: **-Mr President,** I move: I will put it in writing. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: **- Mr President,** I would like to get the original words used by **Senator Greenwood** from *Hansard* because I do not think that he quoted the words correctly the second time. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The motion has been delivered to me in writing. *Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8p.m.* {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: **- Senator Greenwood's** time has expired. Is the motion seconded? {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- I had finished, **Mr President.** {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: -- I second the motion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- That matter stands over until tomorrow. {: #debate-38-s5 .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland -- In addressing myself to the Appropriation Bills (No. 1 ) and (No. 2), I should like to say that in view of the announcement made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** much of the merit has gone out of this debate. But in view of the examinations of the Senate Estimates Committees I should like to place some comments on the record so that they will be there for future reference. Each year the Senate Estimates Committees obtain from the departments an explanation of every item of expenditure contained in Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2). When the Estimates are being examined the departmental officers are asked searching questions. The items of expenditure come under close scrutiny. The proposed expenditures are dealt with division by division, subdivision by subdivision, and item by item if that is found to be necessary. I believe that it has been generally accepted that the answers to questions have been of quality. When answers to questions were not forthcoming at the time, promises that answers would be given in writing have always been honoured, so much so that the reports of the various Estimates Committees were subsequently presented to the Senate and adopted without question. But what do we find has happened this year? This year we experienced lengthy, tedious and monotonous questions repeated over and over again by Opposition senators. They made a farce of the Estimates Committees' examinations. I think searching questions could be justified if the information being sought from the departments related to amounts to be spent in respect of which it was considered that insufficient care had been taken in accounting for public funds, if the principle of appropriating money had not been followed, if the questions related to an unexplained disparity in the estimates of this year compared with the estimates in previous years, or if questions were asked because vague or unconvincing explanations were given. If these were the reasons for the questioning, I believe it would have been a most acceptable course to all concerned. That surely would justify the questioning and it would be the undeniable right of any senator to ask questions. This practice has been followed in previous years when examining the proposed expenditure of departments and if it had been followed on this occasion it would have been most acceptable. On this occasion departmental officers- this is the point I am emphasising- were asked: >Does the increase in the appropriation for salary and postal and telephone charges include the increases that have taken place since 1 July up to the time that the Appropriation Bills were printed? What is the amount of these increases? Surely this must be the last straw in the Senate Estimates Committees examination procedures. It discloses an ignorance by Opposition senators of accounting procedures. If they knew the procedures they would not have asked those questions in the first place. One wonders why Opposition senators pursued this line of questioning. They have claimed that the expenditures and the deficit in the Budget were false because the documents did not show these increases. What tommyrot. What humbug and what hypocrisy. It must be that honourable senators opposite do not know what they are talking about to make a claim that the deficit and the expenditure documents are phoney and have been jockeyed up because they did not show the increases in salary, postal or telephone charges that have come to light since 1 July-after the preparation of the appropriation documents. What a strange submission to make. I can recall that after Opposition senators asked these questions they hurriedly made notes and calculated that these increases would amount to millions of dollars. They then claimed that they had something on the Government, something which was reprehensible. They claimed that the deficit was incorrect and that the expenditure documents were false. Such a claim makes the examination of the Estimates a farce. I cannot stress that too strongly. It reduces the parliamentary procedures to a mockery. In fact, the performance of Opposition senators in this area was despicable and shameful. It makes the proceedings of this Parliament deplorable. The principles for examination of the Estimates this year are the same principles that have been adopted since Federation and the same principles which were in existence when the Opposition was in Government. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- You must be a shocking chairman. {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAULIFFE: -- Last night I told you, **Senator Marriott,** that if there was an aristocracy of oafs and fools you would be an emperor. The principles to which I have referred have been accepted by the Department of the Treasury, the Auditor-General and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts since Federation. The same principles were in existence for the 23 years during which the Opposition senators were in government. It is specifically laid down that the closing date for the original Estimates- or as they are more commonly known today Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2)- is 30 April. That date is also the date of preparation of the Appropriation Bill documents. I say this for the edification of **Senator Baume** particularly and **Senator Carrick,** who are on record as having made statements which are in conflict with these principles, that Treasury Direction 16.9 sets out the principles to be followed. It is important that these principles should appear in the record so that some of the false claims of Opposition senators can be answered and so that I can educate those opposite who are not aware of the existence of this direction. For the benefit of the record I should like to refer honourable senators to the *Parliamentary Handbook on Commonwealth Financial Affairs* which states under which subdivisions amounts included in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) are normally shown. Under the heading of 'Annual Estimates of Expenditure', it states: >The annual estimates of expenditure which have been endorsed by the Government form the bases for preparation of the Appropriation Bills and the Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure. > >Amounts included in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) are normally shown under the following sub-divisions. > >'Salaries and Payments in the Nature of Salary'. > >'Administrative Expenses'. > >'Other Services', or such other appropriate heading approved by the Treasury- this sub-division is designed to provide for payments which will arise from a department's responsibilities but which are distinct from its administrative expenses, e.g., contributions to semi- governmental and international bodies . . . > >Amounts to be included in the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) are normally sought under the following headings: > >Capital Works and Services', which, as a general rule include: Acquisition of Sites and Buildings. Building and Works. Plant and Equipment. Advances and Loans. Payments To or For the States' . . . Other Services', for requirements in pursuance of new policies of Government not authorised by special legislation and for which provision has not previously been made. Now we come to the most important point of my contribution, the one that gives the lie direct and exposes the Opposition senators for what they are in their humbugging during questioning conducted by the Senate Estimates Committees. The following principles are laid down by the Treasury and by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and accepted by the Auditor-General and the Public Service Board. It is in accordance with these principles that all estimates are prepared, The following general principles are observed by departments when preparing estimates. Rather than go through the whole procedure, I will address my remarks to the questions that came under most consideration. They were questions in regard to increased postal and telephone charges and the estimating of salaries and wages. The document states: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Estimates for all items of expenditure must represent a realistic assessment of the sum that is expected to be spent having regard to the information available to the department at the time of preparation. Estimates for supplies and services are based upon current or known costs and provision is not made for possible rises in costs. Where an item is for a type of recurring expense, e.g., office services or travelling and subsistence, it is appropriate to budget on the basis of experience. 1. Estimates must not include amounts for proposals which are so far from firm that it is not possible to form any real estimate of what payments, if any, will be made in the financial year. The document goes on to deal with wages. I think that this is important for the ears of Opposition senators. It states: >The salary provision for permanent officers (except First Division officers) and temporary employees (Item 01) is the total estimated cash payment for the year on the factors then known. > >Funds are included to meet the estimated full year cost of staff actually employed at 1 July plus the cost of employing further staff needed to fill approved positions which may be vacant at 1 July, subject, of course, to any staff ceiling that is imposed by the Government from time to time. Probably this paragraph is more important. It /states: >No provision is permittted for future salary or wage increases- the estimates must be made on the rates of pay as known on I July. If the Public Service Arbitrator or other competent authority awards an increase in rates of pay subsequent to that date, the Treasurer funds the increased cost from the Advance to the Treasurer pending the inclusion of the amounts in the Appropriation Bill (No. 3). If the increased rates are not known by the time that Bill is introduced the Advance to the Treasurer provides the necessary appropriation cover and the expenditure is reported to Parliament after the close of the financial year in the 'Statement of Heads of Expenditure of amounts charged thereto pursuant to S.36A of the Audit Act 1 90 1 - 1 969 '. Surely it is crystal clear to the Opposition senators that if they had taken the time off to study the Treasury regulations, the procedures of the Public Accounts Committee and the requirements of the Auditor-General and the Public Service Board they would not have entered into that exercise of futility that they did throughout the Senate Estimates Committees' examinations, trying to create the impression that the Government jockeyed up the documents, that the expenditure documents were false and that the deficit of $2,798m outlined in the Budget papers was also false. I feel that if honourable senators opposite will take time off to read the financial documents they will see for themselves how they have endeavoured to mislead the Senate by making these false accusations. Of course, in the Treasury regulations provision is made for new liabilities incurred after the closing dates of Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2) which some people call the original Estimates. As I said earlier, these are regarded as charges to the Advance to the Treasurer pending additional Estimates, usually Appropriation Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4), which usually close in March, in the latter half of the financial year. It is in this period that the increases in salaries and the increases in postal and telephone charges are examined by the Estimates Committees in the Senate. They are not examined in their consideration of the Estimates of Appropriation Bills (No. 1 ) and (No. 2) as the uneducated and unknowing Opposition senators were endeavouring to do last week. They should have reserved their examinations, had they known what they were talking about, until the consideration of the Estimates and Appropriation Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4), or whatever numbers they may be, by the Senate. There is also a provision- this is the principle that seemed to escape the attention of honourable senators opposite- for appropriation Acts to cover emergency expenditure. For instance, they could result from the Darwin cyclone or the Derwent Bridge disaster which last year were dealt with under Appropriation Bills (No. 3 ) and (No. 4). Having said that, it explodes the hypocrisy of the Opposition during the Estimates examinations. I recall the bewilderment at that time on the faces of the Opposition senators when it was explained to them by departmental officers that questions they were asking were more or less out of order and had no relevance to the Estimates that were before them for examination - {: .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack: -- Why did they answer the questions, then? {: #debate-38-s6 .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator MCAULIFFE: -- They wanted to be courteous. But honourable senators opposite did not do their own reputation any good as senators in the eyes of the departmental officers because they knew what they were about. The position was explained to honourable senators. **Mr President,** I wish that you could have seen the look of bewilderment on the faces of Opposition senators when it was explained to them that the appropriations prepared in April and examined in October did not include salary increases and service increased costs granted after 1 July. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: -- Which committee was that, Senator? {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAULIFFE: -- If anyone thumbs through the *Hansard* record of the Senate Estimates Committee he will see that it is clearly evident that honourable senators opposite did not know what they were about. Possibly the honourable senator who interjects was the worst offender. Instead of getting his coaching from **Senator Carrick** I think that the honourable senator wants to look to someone better equipped in the accounting procedures. The honourable senator should try to get some advice from **Senator Cotton, Senator Guilfoyle** or **Senator Wright.** They were the only honourable senators who did not make the same unpardonable mistake that the honourable senator made by exposing to the departmental officers that he did not know what he was talking about. So when we were examining these Estimates- as I said, there was that look of bewilderment on the faces of Opposition senators- the thought struck me that the time might be opportune to consider recommendations that were made in the Eighteenth Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. That Committee reported to the Parliament on 1 1 November 1954 along these lines. It is a recommendation that might be worthy of Opposition support. It deals with the presentation of the Estimates to Parliament before the beginning of the financial year. Incidentally, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts at that time was chaired by the distinguished Professor Bland. The recommendations are these: >The Estimates of expenditure should be presented to the Parliament in time to permit it to complete its consideration of them before the beginning of the financial year. > >The further question of when the Budget should be presented to the Parliament was considered having regard to the divergent budgetary practices followed by overseas countries, and the views of witnesses. All Members agree that the Budget should be presented earlier than at present. Some Members believe that it would be to the public advantage if the Budget (including the Estimates of revenue) were brought down, together with the Estimates of expenditure, during the first part of May ... in time to allow of their approval by the Parliament before the beginning of the financial year. Others, believing that it would not be possible to collect all the data essential for estimating the Revenue with the necessary degree of accuracy, if the Budget were presented before the beginning of the financial year, would be content with the British practice where the Budget is presented during the first week of the new financial year . . . Further on in the Committee's proposals the following comment appears: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . the Departmental estimates would be in the hands of the Treasury by IS March and the Estimates of expenditure would be presented to the Parliament in early May. That would eliminate all the confusion that has been caused among Opposition senators because they could then consider the Estimates that were before them as they would cover the period in which they were taken. The report continues: >The legislation, other than the Appropriation Bills and dealing with expenditure, could be adopted during MayJuneJuly. The Parliament customarily meets in May and June, but in the past, the necessity for frequent July meetings has not arisen. The only reason that I can ascertain why it has not met in July is the winter conditions in Canberra, but with the modern facilities that are now available in Parliament House, the winter conditions should no longer be an excuse for members of Parliament from either House not assembling in Canberra during the month of July. Let me summarise the position. In the first place there were false claims by the Opposition senators that the expenditure documentsAppropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2)- were false because they did not contain provision for increases in salaries and increases in postal and telephone charges. Of course they did not include them because they are not supposed to include them. Those increased charges are appropriated for later on in the Advance to the Treasurer or in the Additional Estimates. The only people who did not know that they were not included in these Estimates were some Opposition senators. I turn to the second point that I have made. I think I have outlined to honourable senators the salient points in the Treasury Direction which governs and lays down the principles for estimating, that is, Treasury Direction 16.9. It lays down the principles as to how to deal with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2), the Advance to the Treasurer and the Additional Estimates. I suggest that certain honourable senators on the other side of the chamber, who will for the moment remain nameless, should get themselves a copy of Treasury Direction 16.9 from the Library and study it so that they will be prepared when we get around to examining the next lot of Estimates. I believe that there is a lot of merit in the recommendations advanced in its eighteenth report by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, under the chairmanship of Professor Bland. That report was introduced in 1954 but was not considered by the Treasury or anyone in the Parliament until 1968, when Treasury officials advised that it was not for the Treasury to take any action to amend the timing of the presentation of the Estimates or the Budget Papers. That was a matter of policy and of ministerial direction. But between the years 1954 and 1968- one could take it right through until 1972- when the present Opposition formed the Government of this country it did nothing in the way of considering the implementation of the recommendations contained in that report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. Having said that, I want to say only one or two more things before I sit down. I cannot help thinking of the danger inherent in the new tactics being adopted by the Opposition, its attitude, its strategy and the way in which it has debated the Supply Bills that have come before this chamber. The Opposition has given the same treatment to the Loan Bill, which was before this chamber today and which has been before this chamber periodically for over 3 months. There has been a change of strategy in relation to it and it is now finally going to be opposed. In fact, one could cite the Opposition's treatment of and behaviour towards the handling of any money Bill in this place. **Senator Carrick,** particularly in his last speech on the Loan Bill, has criticised this Government as being phoney, as jockeying and forging the expenditure papers and as being misleading in its statements in the Budget Papers. He based his argument on a wrong method of estimating. I have shown to the chamber this evening that the correct procedures are contained in Treasury Direction 16/9 and that they are not as thought by **Senator Carrick.** I believe that it is incumbent upon him some time before this Parliament rises to correct the record and to explain to the House that he was under a wrong impression when he misled the Senate and charged this Government with falsifying financial documents. A very good support for him at the time was **Senator Baume.** As I said earlier, I know where **Senator Baume** is getting his coaching from. He should take a tip and change ground and get some coaching from **Senator Guilfoyle, Senator Cotton** or **Senator Wright.** They know more about accounting procedures than **Senator** Carrick does. The only claim to fame of which I am aware of **Senator Carrick** is that he was the State Secretary of the Liberal Party of Australia in New South Wales and was so for many years. On the death of the late Prime Minister Harold Holt the heads of the Liberal Party looked to New South Wales for a successor but they could not find one because during the period in which **Senator Carrick** had hold of the reins in New South Wales he surrounded himself with old men like **Mr Bury, Mr Turner, Sir John** Cramer and **Mr McMahon.** As a consequence the Liberal Party's officials had to look to another State for young, industrious men who may have been able to carry out the duties of Leader of the Party. That is the contribution that the man whom **Senator Baume** is allowing to advise him made to the Liberal Party during the period when he was the State Secretary. If he had allowed young Liberals to come on behind him the Liberal Party may now have had a Leader from that State. I appeal to **Senator Carrick** and to **Senator Baume** to do the right thing and the honourable thing in this place and stand up and admit to the Senate that they were wrong in the procedures that they were following in the examination of the Estimates, that they had not done their homework, that they were in error and that they will not make the same mistake again. Before I conclude I want to say that it would be a bad day for this country if extreme views similar to those that have been expressed on one side of the Parliament today were to be followed by similar extreme views being expressed on the other side, and we had to look forward to a succession of what can only be described as revolutionary and counter-revolutionary atmospheres. I think that one of the greatest reproaches that can be offered of the Opposition is to say that it has brought us within measurable distance of that unfortunate state of affairs and I think that the Opposition owes it to the country to think over the matter. {: #debate-38-s7 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- Tonight I am taking advantage of the motion for the first reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) to bring to the notice of the Senate some important matters. I can cast aside without anything but a passing reference what **Senator McAuliffe** said, except to say in reference to my colleague **Senator Carrick** that never has a more intelligent, purposeful and knowledgeable person come into this chamber as a senator. On the Appropriation Bill the Whitlam Government is facing a challenge that has been made not by the Senate but by the people to go to the people and be judged. I want to bring to the notice of the Senate 2 matters each of which I would suggest warrants the immediate resignation of the Whitlam Government and the holding of an election, which is the right of the people. We have witnessed this week the enforced resignation of **Mr Connor,** the Minister for Minerals and Energy. He was for some little time Deputy Prime Minister. That was preceded by the enforced resignation of **Dr Cairns** in June. He at one time was **Mr Whitlam** 's Deputy Prime Minister. The basis upon which each of those Ministers has been forced to resign under the compulsive effect of a majority of Caucus has been that they have not disclosed the whole truth to either their leader or Parliament, and we have the extraordinary disciple of the principle of responsible government, none other than E. G. Whitlam, Q.C., who said in the Parliament this week: 'I misled the Parliament because my Minister misled me'. The very essence of Cabinet government is that when there is a situation of that sort there is a corporate responsibility on the part of the Ministry, and especially the head, to take responsibility. **Mr Whitlam** presided over an Executive Council meeting at the Lodge on 13 December, and we have the Executive Council minute in which it is recorded that he, along with **Dr Cairns,** the then **Senator Murphy** and **Mr Connor,** agreed that **Mr Connor** should be authorised to borrow on behalf of the Australian Government US$4,000m and to sign any of the documents necessary to record that borrowing. There had been drawn up since October documents which documented that loan showing that it was for a term of 20 years. We have it on the authority of **Mr Connor** that there was presented to that meeting a list of the capital works that the loan would finance when arranged on behalf of Australia. There was a total of 1 1 capital works- a pipeline, a submarine pipeline and a petro-chemical plant at Dampier for $750m, to indicate a few- and the cost of those 1 1 capital works aggregated $3, 850m. **Mr Whitlam** presided over that Executive Council meeting for a loan of that magnitude for a period of 20 years to finance capital works. In that document of the Executive Council, 3 times it is stated that that loan was for temporary purposes. The only purpose of stating that loan to be a loan for temporary purposes was to give a facade of legality because if a loan is for temporary purposes under our Constitution and the Financial Agreement it is not necessary to have the approval of the Loan Council. So **Mr Whitlam** and his 3 colleagues, each one of whom now has left his company, then vouched in the official documents that that was a loan for temporary purposes. When this matter was debated on 19 July by **Mr R.** J. Ellicott, Q.C., the honourable member for Wentworth and formerly SolicitorGeneral, said that that amounted to an unconstitutional act and that it was illegal. He could not conceive that men who put their signatures to that transaction with that false badge of deceit were honest men. He said: 'I believe it was an illegal and unconstitutional act'. That has been recorded in *Hansard* since 9 July. **Senator Greenwood** in this place on 16 July referred expressly to the criminality of the transaction and he, a Queen's Counsel at the Melbourne Bar, pledged his reputation to the view that the transaction represented an illegal conspiracy to evade the Constitution. **Mr Malcolm** Fraser, the Leader of the Opposition, in explaining his accusation against **Mr Whitlam,** said that the matter was an illegal conspiracy, and he produced the professional opinion of **Mr William** Deane, Q.C., a leading constitutional lawyer of the Sydney Bar, which said: >It is clear that if the proposed borrowings had not been borrowings for temporary purposes they would have been in breach of the Financial Agreement and illegal. The point about this is that here yesterday after the making of all those serious charges and allegations of criminal conduct on the part of those 4 Ministers, three of whom have gone, all dismissed by **Mr Whitlam,** he being the sole survivor, **Mr Whitlam** had the effrontery to say to the Australian public: >At no time has there been any allegation of improper conduct . . . of illegal or corrupt conduct. In the face of what I have put, if it depended only upon the opinion of the 3 leading Queen's Counsel whom I have mentioned, surely it shames into insignificance, mendacity and falsehood that we had the Prime Minister trying to bluff it out yesterday that at no time has there been any allegation of illegal or improper conduct. This gentleman, who will try to cling to office despite the constitutional challenge that the Senate makes to him to go to the people, came to light this morning and equipped himself with the letter of **Mr R.** G. Menzies written 40 years ago. After I made a speech in the Senate on 1 7 July, the effect of which I have just summarised, calling together Queen's Counsel opinion averring that the meeting of Ministers of 13 December amounted to a criminal conspiracy of fundamental import, I received a telegram, which I am authorised to publicise, containing the opinion currently of **Sir Robert** Menzies. Allowing my modesty to omit the preface, he referred to my speech as one which hit the bullseye. Then we have a Prime Minister so gauche or gullible as to think he could get away with a public statement yesterday, in which he said that arising out of the overseas loans matter there had been no allegations of improper conduct or illegal conduct. That transaction that **Mr Whitlam** presided over then was far more heinous and criminal than anything that occurred with Nixon in connection with Watergate. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I rise to order. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: -- You are very sensitive. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Yes, I am sensitive, and I am getting more sensitive as the days go by. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)-** **Senator Georges,** you will address the Chair on a point of order. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I should not be interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- You will address the Chair. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- What **Senator Wright** has said - The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- What is your point of order? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: **- Senator Wright** has cast the aspersion of criminality against members of the House of Representatives. Under the Standing Orders of this place, that is not permitted. If there is criminality in what has been done, that criminality should have been tested in a court. It has not been tested in a court. It should not be alleged in this place. I ask that **Senator Wright** withdraw those words. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- I wish to speak to the point of order. I may be of assistance. Standing Order 41 8 is the one on which I assume **Senator Georges** is basing his complaint. It refers to specific words, not general expressions or a general theme, which I understood was his claim. My submission is that until he can specify particular words the point of order ought not to be sustained. If he should specify words, the question is whether free speech in this place, on sound and substantial evidence, is to be denied. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- In all the time that I have been a senator no point of order has been upheld when the word used was aimed at a group, a party or a government. A point of order is upheld only if an offensive word is used against a member of the Senate or of another place. I do not uphold the point of order. I call **Senator Wright.** {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: **- Mr Acting Deputy President** - The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I do not uphold your point of order. Would you resume your seat? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I would hesitate to move dissent from your ruling, as was done earlier today, but I will bide my time. Thank you, **Mr Acting Deputy President.** {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- The next matter to which I wish to go in the time that is allotted to me is a matter of equal import and equal culpability so far as the Government is concerned. This of itself would ordinarily bring a government into disgrace. I refer to the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd deal. **Mr Connor** was the Minister for Minerals and Energy administering the so-called oil distribution scheme in the Commonwealth. That entitled certain allocatees to the produce of the Australian oil wells. ACTU-Solo was entitled to an allocation of 420 000 barrels of oil at the very low price, which was the Government approved price, of $2.10 a barrel. That was a very great concession to anybody entitled to the allocation because imported crude was priced at anything between $7 and $9 a barrel. Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd had fought in the High Court for this allotment. Early in May it hawked the allocation around the oil companies and offered to all the major oil companies this allotment of crude- 420 000 barrels at $5 a barrel. Amoco Australia Pty Ltd, British Petroleum Australia Ltd, Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd, Esso Australia Ltd, Golden Fleece Petroleum, and Mobil Oil Australia Ltdall the multi-nationals, the large oil companiesusing their general knowledge of the trade wrote back saying: 'The Government will not permit us to buy your crude at anything above $2. 10 a barrel'. The offer was made on 7 May, and the replies were coming in within the next fortnight. On 16 May the vendor company gave an option to Solo Discount Petroleum Pty Ltd to buy that oil at $5 a barrel. That option was exercised 8 days later, Solo Discount buying at $5 a barrel. In the meantime, **Mr Hawke** and the Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive had established an ACTU company to go into business. You can bet your life that the real asset that it wanted to exploit at that time was this lot of crude oil, 420 000 barrels, if the company could get it. The company could only get it with formality if it got the Minister's consent that the producer should deliver it. So having set up a company, having an option of $5 a barrel, what did these geniuses do? Their research team, headed by **Mr Keltie,** who was not called at the inquiry, got to work and instructed solicitors to produce 2 agreements. One related to buying the oil at $2. 10 a barrel. In actual fact the words used in one agreement were: >The price shall be the price approved by the Government. The other agreement expressed itself to be an agreement, supplementary to the first agreement, whereby the price was being divided between the 2 agreements, and the balance of the price would be paid, one half to the ACTU and one half to the vendor company, so that the excess price over and above the $2.10 was to be split between the vendor, a multi-national, and ACTU-Solo. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- What is the ACTU doing in collaboration with a multi-national? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -Dividing the spoils-a cool $ 1.25m each. The odd thing is that this so surprised the trade that even this Government was impelled to set up a royal commission. The royal commission inquired into this deal and was told that there were 2 agreements. The first agreement only was sent to the Minister by his old friend, **Mr Souter,** under a letter described as private and confidential. The agreement was sent for his information, and **Mr Connor** was able to reply: >Your transaction is unexceptionable. **Mr Souter** of the ACTU gave evidence before the royal commissioner, and at page 4279 was specifically asked to say what he had said to the Minister. He told the royal commissioner that the Minister told him that he wanted to be advised only of the sale price; if there were any collateral commercial agreement that was a matter for the parties. **Mr Souter** swore that in relation to his transaction the Minister said that if there was a price in excess of $2.10, if the product had been not sold for the Government approval price, and then the refining arrangement in relation to the naphtha was the subject of a commercial operation, that was a matter between the parties. **Mr Souter** swore that **Mr Connor** told him that any other arrangement between the owner of the crude and the purchaser of the crude in relation to the refinement of that product was a commercial transaction with the owner of the refined product and that commercial transaction need not be mentioned. Counsel put to him: What that seems to mean is that once a purchaser had purchased, he could make such arrangements as he liked about financing? **Mr Souter** said yes. There are 2 matters that point to absolute lack of integrity and misconduct on the part of the Minister. He was being given a specific warning that if there was anything to say in reply to the evidence and if he remained silent the ordinary conclusions would be drawn. Yet the Minister never gave evidence to refute that, and whether or not that is true or whether **Mr Connor** can refute it remains unanswered. The overwhelming inference is that **Mr Connor** was the originator of the advice to **Mr Souter** whereby a collateral commercial transaction in relation to the refinement of the crude after purchase could be suppressed and therefore operate as a deceitful exploitation of the Government's commercial policy for the distribution of this low priced crude. The other person who is involved in this matter is the raucous advocate for the Labor Party, the President of the Labor Party, **Mr Hawke.** I point out that during the 8 days when the Australian Council of Trade Unions had the option for this oil agreement, between 16 May and 23 May, that is when ACTU-Solo was constructed. **Mr Hawke** was then in Australia, and it is past the credulity even of any member of this Government that **Mr Hawke** was not the mainspring of the profit motive that would exploit these illegal profits by creating a company to take advantage of the option. **Mr Souter** himself said that the division of the price into 2 agreements, one to be shown to the Minister and one to be kept secret, was known to the solicitors and to the parties, and that the ACTU Executive knew it. At many places in the report of the royal commissioner he pointed out that all the directors of the ACTUSolo carry a responsibility. What for? He is explicit. The Commissioner said that all the directors of ACTU-Solo bear responsibility. What for? For the deliberate deception of the Minister. The Commission knows that Messrs Souter and Wieland were the 2 directors mostly concerned in the arrangement and that **Mr Hawke** was absent during most of the period of the transaction. No finding is made in respect of **Mr Hawke.** He too was given deliberate notice that if he wished to refute any of the evidence he could come forward. The commissioner carefully noted that he made no finding either in exculpation or for involving **Mr Hawke** in criminality, but he did say that all the directors of ACTU-Solo bear responsibility for the deliberate deception. Now, that scandal is outrageous. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I rise on a point of order, **Mr Acting Deputy President.** My point of order under standing order 4 1 8 relates to the use of the word 'criminality' by **Senator Wright** when he has no justification for its use. He is using it in a way that is prejudicial not only to the former Minister in another place but also to people who are not able to defend themselves. The word criminal ' should not be used. It is not justified. It is not part of the Commission's findings. What **Senator Wright** is doing, and you ought to at least bring him to order, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** is questioning the integrity of the royal commission. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- He is not. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- You are. You have been doing it from the moment you got to your feet. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)-** Order! I will not stand argument between honourable senators when an honourable senator is taking a point of order. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I am making point of order and I will continue to make the point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- And I will pull you up if I want to pull you up. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- You have that right if you want to use it, and I have the same right that **Senator Greenwood** exercised earlier. The point I am making is that **Senator Wright** is using the word ' criminal ' and he is using it in the context of defaming the reputation of members of the House of Representatives, in particular one member of the House of Representatives, **Mr Connor. Senator Wright** went beyond that point. He brought into question the reputation of the Royal Commission, and as a member of the legal profession he should know better. He went further and used the word 'criminality', when it was not justified, against a person outside this place who is not able to defend himself. For that reason I seek your ruling, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** and your protection for those people who were so named. **Senator Wright** ought to be brought to order. He ought not to be allowed to continue in this way. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Sir Magnus Cormack: -- May I address myself to the point of order raised by **Senator Georges,** with your permission, **Mr Acting Deputy** President? The facts are that **Senator Wright** is using properly the device of a money Bill to speak to any subject that relates to the management of government in this country, during the debate on the first reading of the Bill. **Senator Wright** has quoted from the report of the royal commissioner. He has drawn together the threads of this matter. He has indicated in the most clear and cogent way that there exists a quality of criminality that may be involved, namely, a conspiracy, and therefore he is entitled to make that charge. It is therefore the duty of **Senator Georges** subsequently to rebut **Senator Wright** if he cares to do so. I suggest that **Senator Georges** might bear in mind in this context the well known aphorism on offensive words and personal reflections: 'The political arena is not one into which sensitive souls should venture.' If he is feeling sensitive about it, it is no place for **Senator Georges.** {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- May I speak further to the point of order? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have heard you on the point of order. You will remain seated. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- May I speak further to the point of order? There has been new material introduced. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Resume your seat. I do not uphold the point of order because at the time that **Senator Wright** was speaking and **Senator Georges** took up this point of order, **Senator Wright** was alluding clearly only to people other than members of Parliament. Standing order 418, on which **Senator Georges** took the point of order, does not cover anyone other than members of Parliament in this place or the other place. The honourable senator's time has expired. Motion ( by **Senator Greenwood)** proposed: >That **Senator Wright's** time be extended by 5 minutes. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I oppose that. I oppose it for the purpose - {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- You are entitled to oppose it. {: #debate-38-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The question is that the honourable senator's time be extended by 5 minutes. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- And **Senator Georges** is opposing the motion. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I oppose that motion because **Senator Wright** has had sufficient time to put his case. He has to - {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: **- Mr President** - {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Am I to be permitted to speak? Opposition senators- No. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The motion for the extension of time cannot be debated. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I accept your ruling. Question put: >That the motion **(Senator Greenwood's)** be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O "Byrne) AYES: 29 NOES: 26 Majority....... 3 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by **Senator Withers)** put: >That **Senator Wright** be given an extension of time for 3 minutes. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O 'Byrne) AYES: 28 NOES: 26 Majority....... 2 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. >The Commission finds that the directors of ACTU-Solo other than **Mr Hawke,** initiated and carried through a course of conduct designed to mislead and deceive the Minister ... As to **Mr Hawke,** the Commission makes no finding. The Commission made that declaration of no finding either in exculpation or that **Mr Hawke** was involved in misbehaviour after the Commission had recited the only positive evidence which **Mr Souter** had given as to **Mr Hawke** 's non-involvement. The Commission did not make a finding that **Mr Hawke** was not involved. Just before that the Commission had stated: >If such persons chose to remain silent they could only expect the ordinary and natural consequences. Neither of the other directors of ACTU-Solo, **Mr R.** J. L. Hawke or **Mr E.** C. Whiteford gave evidence before the Commission. I draw the natural and ordinary consequence that while **Mr Hawke** remains silent it is simply beyond the bounds of credulity to think that his company engaged in this transaction when he was not consulted. When he produces all the telexes, as **Mr Connor** has, I hope that **Mr Whitlam,** if he is still struggling for survival, will see fit to dismiss **Mr Hawke.** {: #debate-38-s9 .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL:
Leader of the Liberal Movement · South Australia -- I just want to say a few words about the culmination of this rather tedious competition of search for power in the Australian Parliament. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Oh, the honourable senator is not in it, of course. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -Senator Wright objects to that. I listened with some interest to **Senator Wright.** I hope that he was not offended because I did not vote for the motion to extend his speaking time. In normal times I would have done so, but I did not think that the subject matter of his address really warranted my shifting across the chamber. I agree with **Senator Wright** in that there are some aspects of the petroleum deal which I do not like. Possibly I share some of his criticisms. There is only one factor about the advocacy of **Senator Wright.** I noticed that recently, with a vehemence, he publicly justified his position on rejecting supply by saying that the Australian Labor Party would have done it in previous circumstances. He justified his position by using the Labor Party's standards for that purpose. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- When did I say that? {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -- I will produce the evidence of that for **Senator Wright** tomorrow in the Senate. His Leader, on his behalf, did the same thing today in the Senate. We find, on the one hand, that **Senator Wright** will use the Labor Party's standards to justify his own breaking of convention and yet, on the other hand, he will use those standards to vilify the Labor Party. That illustrates the paucity of **Senator Wright's** approach to this matter. There are some humorous sides to this event which is taking place. Tonight on one of the television channels I saw an interview with **Mr Anthony** who said with gravity, without actually smiling, that if the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** did not hold an election he would be breaking normal conventions. As I have said, at least there is some humour in the situation when **Mr Anthony** could say that without smiling and admitting the position of which he was speaking. Perhaps in a State which has produced a governor who has become a politician - {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- In Queensland. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -- In Queensland. **Mr Anthony's** Party is strongest in Queensland. Today Her Majesty's representative aligned himself with one section of the community against another section. This is what the action of **Senator Wright** in this chamber and of his Leader, **Mr Fraser,** has brought Australia to within the first day of this most divisive action which anyone can take in this Parliament. When we need, above all in Australia, a unifying consensus of thought we have a political leader who will snatch power and divide the country irrevocably in so doing. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- What did the honourable senator do in his State- the great Messiah! {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -This division is not made in a very pleasant fashion, because every time that **Senator Young** walks across this floor he takes a dead man's vote with him in his pocket. Today this Opposition, which aspires to lead this country with the great principles about which it prates, won a vote in the Senate and was able to have its will to move an amendment to a loan Bill which is the lifeblood of many Australians. The Bill was defeated in that fashion only by the vote of a dead man which the Opposition has, contrary to the convention of this country. The Premier of Queensland would not replace the late **Senator Milliner** by a member from his own Party. The fact that that replacement, in **Senator Field,** is not here does not remove the fact that the absence of that vote to the Party which should have it means that it cannot prevent the Opposition from doing what it did today. This is quite disgraceful. I must say that there is an area of responsibility, no doubt, for all of us. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- Thirty votes negatives the Senate. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Hall** must be heard in silence. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -Senator Young is very vocal. I believe he has never wavered in his stance, unlike **Senator Jessop.** I remember that after **Senator Bunton** and I had clearly stated our position which was that we would not support the rejection of Supply, **Senator Jessop** rushed into print in Saturday's *Advertiser,* to say that he too would not reject Supply. Yet, of course, a few hours later he retracted, or a retraction was made on his behalf, whatever the case happens to be. At least, he watered down the earlier statement which he made. **Senator Young** has never been in that position because he represents the small establishment class in Adelaide. That is an area of operation which I know very well, and which I regret has disgraced the name of liberalism in my State in the past. I am ashamed to know that it is now disgracing the name of liberalism on the Federal scene. It is all very fine for **Senator Young** and for his Leader to talk of principles. It was interesting to note that at the Press Conference of the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** today he was asked a question which went something like this: 'This is the second time in 2 years that you have rejected money Bills in the Senate to force another election. What would the people of Australia think? Would they think this is another attempt by the coalition for a grab for power?' The Leader of the Opposition replied: 'I suggest that you read this morning's newspapers'. Of course, what this man of principle neglected to tell that conference was that yesterday he rang the newspaper proprietors around Australia and asked them to write what they wrote this morning. I may say that there are some men of principle among the Liberal Party whom I admire for the stand that they have taken. I am sorry that they have been so subjugated by the steamroller of the Party that they have been unable to vote according to their conscience. I will not name them individually and so embarrass them. We know that they are there. One day in the future they will show up in a much more important way among Australian Liberals. The point is that they should know that their Leader has talked to them this morning through the nation's Press by ringing the Press proprietors yesterday and asking them to do it in their own names and not in his. That is the way in which this morning's Press was handled. It is a remarkable combination of events which brought **Mr Khemlani** to Australia on the very day that he is needed to convert people to a certain view. It is, of course, a remarkable coincidence that the Press reported in this way this morning. As I said earlier, I am surprised that the Liberal Party- a party which should represent a classless society, which should want to set up a classless society and which I had thought cared for every person- should so seriously divide this community. The Opposition action is, of course, tactically wrong. The Leader of the Opposition is taking the worst of all paths to power, one which I can tell him from some experience and observation in South Australia, will lead to his undoing. There is no way that a party can filch power from a populace which can vote every 3 years and which, on some occasions, is forced to vote at more frequent intervals. Whilst there is no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition would win an election now - {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- There is a doubt. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -There is no doubt. I must say that my political position is such that I want to see the Labor Government defeated. I want to see it defeated in the Lower House, but not by breaking convention in this House. The action taken by the Opposition is, of course, tactically wrong as I have said. As one other Australianan important Australian- has said, the decision will come back to haunt the Opposition. The rejection of those Bills is wrong in principle. That cannot be argued. In fact, **Mr Fraser** himself, when he first took office as Leader of the Liberal Party in Australia, said that he believed that a government should serve its full term of office. I suppose we all have some responsibility in this. Every member of the Liberal Party - {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: -- With a caveat, senator. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -- Yes, we have some fine print. Perhaps he sells insurance also. As I have stated, I suppose a lot of people have responsibility in this matter, including every member of the Liberal Party who voted for **Mr Malcolm** Fraser. I must say publicly that from my small platform I urged them to do so. I believe that the previous Leader of the Opposition was reducing the effect of the Liberal cause by threatening an election every fortnight. It was refreshing to have a new Leader of the Opposition who took a stance on principle which was recognised as such by the media and by the people of Australia. Therefore, I find it personally disappointing that in my small area I have been let down in this fashion. It is wrong in principle and it will come to haunt us on our side of politics in the future. For whom do senators here speak today? Who do they speak for? Do they speak for those who are concerned about inflation? Will the quick advent of a Fraser government reduce the rate of inflation in Australia? Is any honourable senator willing to say that? Government supporters- No. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -AU honourable senators in this place know that there are extemely hard times ahead. In considering the aspects of the budgetary policies of both parties, I certainly favour the Liberal side. But let us be realistic. Any impetus to the business community must involve it in an increase in profits. No honourable senator would say that there is any way to put industry back on its feet other than to raise the profit level of many companies in this community which are suffering greatly today. At the same time, the Opposition says that it will abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal which, rather strangely, has been found an essential tool in moderating wage increases in Australia. Of course, put the two together with the natural reflation which will come with that action and we will have inflation which will top 20 per cent. I put that on the record for Opposition senators to look back at if they are successful in their plans. There is not the slightest doubt that the $ 1,000m which is to be cut off government expenditure by the Opposition parties will dramatically increase unemployment in Australia. There is no doubt about that. Deliberate action by the Opposition will raise the percentage of unemployment in Australia by many points. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- What percentage, senator? {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: -- I would not hazard a guess at this stage. I do say that it will be a substantial rise. The warnings are, of course, with us now. In this morning's Adelaide *Advertiser* under the heading: 'Budget hit us, says builder', it is stated: >There has been a dramatic drop in construction work since the Federal Budget, according to a national contractors' authority. A shortage of work in the industry was evident in the declining number of contracts. It went on to predict chaos in that industry. Of course, every builder and every company that may be jubilant about the stock exchanges today and every one of those companies which is relying on government contracts must understand that their work will be dramatically decreased when **Mr Fraser** takes office. For whom do the Opposition senators speak? They have not told us. I suspect, of course, that in their impatience they speak for their own lust for power, which is so evident in the public statements which cannot be given as the reasons they have acted in this way. The result of an election is something that none of us can forecast. We understand that certain States will not respond to a call for a half Senate election. They will fracture the Federation which we have developed over 75 years. They will not collaborate with the Australian Government to have a normal half Senate election if it is called. Indeed, it is the normal time to have a half Senate election. The States will not collaborate in establishing what the new Senate should be. I believe if that comes about it is of far greater significance and it will have a far greater impact on the factors which underpin our society than the defeat of the Budget itself. Certain States have not yet refused to respond to the call for a half Senate election and we are not faced with that problem at the moment. The full gravity of the matter has not been considered. But the very fact that any Premier or a number of Premiers would take such a course of action would indeed gravely injure Australia. The action of Opposition senators here today has brought about that distinct possibility. On behalf of my own Party I can only say that if the Opposition is successful we look forward to an increase in numbers. I do not find that thought unpleasant. I have no doubt that there are useful things that members of the Liberal Movement can do in this Senate. The conscience of individual Opposition senators in this place has, of course, been subverted by their own Party. The Government is quite justified in having a half Senate election. The Government controls the Lower House. It does not have any problem in passing the Budget through that House but it has trouble getting its Budget through this House. This Government is quite justified in finding out who controls this House and who should control this House. By having a half Senate election, it is seeking that answer. I do not want to say much more. I should like to mention some of the reasons that the Opposition has adopted this attitude. We are dealing with 3 Bills- the Loan Bill and the 2 Appropriation Bills. I suppose it is proper for any honourable senator on this side of the House who does not agree with the action taken today to state that he does not agree with this action. It is, indeed, an unprincipled action. As I have said earlier, the Opposition has chosen a sleazy road to office. Its action is totally unprincipled. What is more, it has suppressed those honourable senators on this side of the House who have a conscience. It has caused them to vote against their conscience. That is the antithesis of Liberalism. If one reads the definition of Liberalism in any Liberal handout book in Australia one will find that it gives supreme authority to the individual member of Parliament under the Liberal preselection system. It indicates that he should be responsible solely to his electorate. In this case, there are good and noble members of this Senate who are not responsible to their electorates for this decision but are responsible to the decision taken by the Federal Council of the Liberal Party. It is something which I deplore on our side of politics. I am used to the Labor Party using dictatorial powers within its own structure. It has been a great disappointment to come to the Senate and find that the Liberal Party of Australia is even better at caucasing and demanding the compliance of its members who may have some conscience on these matters. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- What about directions given to local members not to attend joint meetings? {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator STEELE HALL: **-Obviously, Senator Young** is worried about his position. He is worried about his Party in our State. May I say that he has every reason to be worried because at the last State election I think that there was about 7 or 8 per cent difference between us in the vote. Given the rate of increase in votes for our party at each election I expect that **Senator Young's** party will some day be in the minority position in that State. In any case, we are arguing really about how this Government will change. The questions of when and of how have not yet been settled. We are dealing with the general area of how it will change. I can say only that the Liberal Party has greatly diminished its future by its action today. I urge the Liberals of good will in Australia to look to the future beyond this action and to try to develop a more attractive and more fundamental liberalism than represents them here today. {: #debate-38-s10 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator BUTTON:
Victoria -- It is always one of the attractive qualities of **Senator Hall's** speeches that he finds it surprising that conservatives should be so short-sighted about the future consequences of actions which they take. I thought that history would have shown that this has always been so. I am pleased in a sense that **Senator Hall** still takes that charitable view of the role of conservative parties in Australian politics and in politics generally. Tonight we are debating the Appropriation Bill, the purposes of which are to allow the government expenditure for the achievement of its objects. That Bill is to be rejected. Of course, the debate, in that the knowledge that the Bill is to be rejected, becomes a charade when one considers the contents of the Bill. There was a time when the Senate was regarded as a sort of sheltered workshop of Australian politics, a place in which people like **Senator Wright** enjoyed a comfortable life. Today it enjoys a notoriety and a sense of drama which is totally unjustified by either the action which it has taken, its functions or the collective wisdom which this chamber enjoys. The Senate tonight demeans the institution of parliamentary democracy. As Trotsky once put it, it will reduce Parliament to the dustbin of history. It could not happen anywhere else in the sort of parliamentary democracy which we sometimes purport to admire. It could not happen in the United Kingdom. It could not happen in Great Britain. It could not happen in New Zealand. Of course, it could happen in Portugal or Spain, but it could not happen in any of the other countries which I have mentioned. Much play has been made tonight of the fact that the Constitution does not prohibit the refusal of supply or the refusal of a Budget. But I would have thought that that was an elementary point, accepted on both sides of the Senate. All that the Constitution does is prohibit the Senate from amending moneys Bills. The attitude of the Opposition is simply this: We can do anything we like which is not prohibited by the Constitution. That is an epitaph for a political trollop. It is not a statement which dignifies a chamber such as the Australian Senate. The action of the Senate tonight is unique in the history of this Parliament. On 20 occasions since Federation an Opposition party has had a majority in the Senate but for the first time this action has been taken although, of course, it was threatened some 18 months ago. The Liberal Party platform, in dealing with the role and function of members of Parliament, says that they should possess an understanding of the parliamentary system and a respect for its traditions and functions. I repeat that it states that members of Parliament should have a respect for its traditions and functions. We are not talking about the fine print of the Constitution in this debate. We are talking about respect for the traditions and functions of Parliament. Those are the words in the Liberal Party platform. But it is that respect for the traditions and functions of Parliament which has been challenged tonight. That is what is involved in this issue. It involves the future of parliamentary democracy in Australia. There has been a lot of personal soul searching amongst honourable senators in this Parliament about their attitude to this question. Happily, as **Senator Hall** pointed out, the personal soul searching has all ended in capitulation. Let me as a Labor senator- as **Senator Wright** frequently reminds me, relatively new in this chamber, without the benefit of his vast years of irrelevant experience on this question- remind **Senator Wright** of how I see the position as a senator who has been here for 18 months. What are the conditions of a Labor government in Australia? After 23 years in Opposition we were elected as a government in 1972. Eighteen months later we were forced to an election. We were forced to an election prior to which **Senator Withers,** the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, said: >We embarked upon a course some 12 months ago- I am not trying to be provocative- to bring about a House of Representatives election. This has now been achieved. Four months after the Labor Government was elected in Australia, a plan was embarked upon to bring about a House of Representatives election by the use of Opposition numbers in the Senate. That was an action described by the godfather of the Liberal Party as a denial of popular democracy. Only 4 months after the election that course was embarked upon in what has been described and has gone down in history as a grab for power. The country was disrupted for 3 months by that attempt. The Labor Party won the election. Eighteen months later we are forced into the same position again. We are forced into that position by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** who came to power as a man of principle over a man who was not regarded as being a man of principle. Within a few months the man of principle, who said that this should not happen, was saying that this should happen in certain circumstances which he would decide. He decided. Last weekend at the Liberal Party federal conference he was supported by the retiring president of the Liberal Party about what those circumstances were. What were the circumstances? **Mr Southey,** the retiring president of the Liberal Party, said that the circumstances should be these: >A grave risk for the rule of law or a lowering of accepted standards of public conduct. These were the criteria which **Mr Southey** enunciated for the unprecedented step which the Senate is about to take. Nobody in these debates pointed to the grave risks to the rule of law. Nobody in these debates has pointed to accepted standards of public conduct being lowered to a point which would justify an action of this kind. Who makes these decisions? **Mr Southey** and **Mr Malcolm** Fraser make them. Who else helps them in making those decisions? They are the alternative men of a proposed alternative government- **Senator Greenwood, Mr Lynch, Mr Anthony, Mr Sinclair** and **Mr Chipp.** They are the men of the Vietnam war, the men who led this country in to the greatest political deception of our history which cost Australian lives and millions of dollars. It was the greatest deception in Australian political history. They are the men of the McMahon Government under which lies to the Parliament were excused on the basis of lapse of memory. There was no question of resignation then. The Prime Minister simply had a lapse of memory. They were the men of the Government to which **Mr Howson** belonged. He misled the Parliament over the VIP aircraft but did not bother to resign. It was the Government of **Mr Lynch** who misled the Parliament over water torture in Vietnam. He did not bother to resign. Rather, he excused himself by blaming it on public servants and saying that he would look into the matter. He said afterwards, 'I deny these allegations', and he stated that there was no truth in them and no evidence to support them. He claimed that the reason for his denial was because the incident was not known to him at the time. There was no question of **Mr Lynch** 's resigning. These are the men who made the decision about what should happen here tonight. These are the pure men of Australian politics who made the decision. Opposite us sit the men who are to carry it out. We have had a lot of talk and pious cant about there being no prohibition in the Constitution to their carrying it out; but they are seeking tonight to reject a popularly elected government, and the Senate is not a popularly elected House, whatever they might try to say about that. There are 10 senators here from each State. They have been elected by proportional representation. It is not a representative House. The senators in this chamber from New South Wales represent 10 times as many people as **Senator Wright,** who makes ten times as much noise as the senators from New South Wales. That is true; the senators from New South Wales represent ten times as many people. Not only is there that vast discrepancy in the concept of popular democracy in this House but also there are other people who are here under false colours. There is a senator sitting in this chamber tonight who was elected as an independent and who has become the greatest political transvestite in history. Six months after being elected as an independent he suddenly became a Liberal again and told us the other night that he was always a Liberal at heart. There are 2 senators here who were not elected at all. One of them got to the Senate by a couple of telephone calls. It is these people who seek to interfere with the right of a government to fulfil and carry out the 3-year term for which it was elected. Again the country is to be disrupted by this sort of grab for power. These are the conditions under which a Labor Party is expected to govern in Australia. These are the conditions imposed by men whose conduct is no better but who rely hopefully on the lapse of memory of the people of Australia. Quite frankly, I have asked myself as a member of the Labor Party what is my role as a senator in this House. If, as a result of the effort which is being made tonight, I were to become a member of the Opposition would my role then be to attempt to dignify a parliamentary system for which the great majority in this community have increasingly less respect? Would it be to come here year after year and give opposition to the Government and perhaps some day attain government again, with the sure knowledge that the rules now provide that that government can be thrown out the moment the gallup polls say so if there happens to be, fortuitously, a Liberal majority in the Senate? Those are the rules of parliamentary democracy in Australia as they will apply from now on. Those are the new rules that every Australian has to realise. Frankly I do not believe that this is the future role of the Senate and I would like to be able to say so in my own Party. I would like to be able to go into the councils of my own Party and say: 'The Senate should never reject Supply. A Labor Party majority in the Senate should never do that', but if I were to do that now after the rules had been changed I would be told: 'That is not the game any more, son. You have only been here for 1 8 months. It is a new game now. You are naive.' That is what I would be told because these are the rules that have been laid down tonight. I say quite sincerely that with this move tonight the country is embarking upon an unprecedented period of political instability and that period of political instability can only be laid at the door of the Opposition in the Senate. One day another opposition will control the Senate-again, and again we will embark upon a period of instability. How this step can possibly be put in the same basket as **Senator Wright's** vague mumblings, suggestions and innuendo about some skulduggery in relation to ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd, and what the relevance of that is to a question of this sort of magnitude, I fail to see. I am quite frankly concerned about the future of the institution of Parliament, I am concerned about the Constitution, which lays down the framework of government in Australia, and I am concerned about the importance of the tradition and function of the Parliament. I see nothing very encouraging, and I have seen nothing very encouraging since I have been here, to lead me to believe that there is a very long period of survival for that institution. What I have seen tonight adds nothing to that. Let me refer very briefly to some of the things that this Government has done which relate to the matters about which I have been talking. Early in the life of this Government the step was taken of enlarging the electorate in Australia, of enlarging the possibility of participation in political life by giving the vote to 1 8-year-old people. That was opposed by the Opposition, but the Government did it. Later in the life of this Parliament we sought to give the right to vote in referendums to citizens of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. That was opposed by the Opposition. When people of Australia who live in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory come to vote for senators for their Territories they would do well to remember that because on one side of politics there is a Party which is pledged to deny them the vote that every other Australian has. Later we took steps to give the Territories representation in the Senate. That legislation was opposed. In spite of the opposition of honourable senators on the other side of the House that legislation was finally passed at the Joint Sitting and became law. Honourable senators opposite were not content with that. It was then challenged in the High Court of Australia. When the High Court declared that legislation valid only last week the first thing that the High Court received was a tirade of abuse from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. That tirade of abuse was delivered because at no stage will the Opposition accept the verdict which arose from the decision of the Australian people in May 1974, which arose from the decision of the Joint Sitting and which finally developed into a judgment of the High Court. It is still not acceptable although it is a valid law. We have witnessed the extraordinary situation of a man who purports to be the shadow Attorney-General of this country delivering an ex gratia attack on judges of the High Court because he does not like their decision. Only last week did we talk about the institution of parliamentary democracy, its importance and the enlargement of the opportunities for Australian people to take part in political life when we debated the question of the redistribution of electorates. We debated whether Australians by and large should have equal voting rights and whether the vote of a man in the city should have as much value as the vote of a man who lives in the country. We had a debate in which it was revealed, and not denied, that the vote of a man living in a city electorate in Melbourne is worth half the value of the vote of a man living in a country electorate like Murray in the State of Victoria. We drew attention to the fact that the problems of health, taxation, strikes and all the subjects that we debate in this hothouse in Canberra are as important to the man living in the city as they are to any other Australian, but the Liberal Party and the Country Party in this Senate rejected that legislation. They rejected that legislation not on the basis of any principle, because of all the speakers who spoke from the Opposition side of the chamber not one stood up and said that the redistribution was unfair. They all stood up and said: 'Look, in the 1930s the Labor Party did this in Queensland, and in the 1940s the Labor Party did this in New South Wales, and the Liberal Party might have done it in South Australia', as if that was relevant to the sort of question of principle about which people concerned with the survival of parliamentary democracy in Australia ought to be bothered. So that legislation also was rejected. But it was rejected not on the basis of any question of principle but on the sort of basis of expediency that characterises the Opposition's attitude here tonight. I say now, as I said in those debates, that if parliamentary democracy is to survive in this country it must not only be seen to work but also must be fair and be seen to be fair. That is not so at the present moment. Finally let me say this: The Opposition is seeking once again to reject this Government and to assume the reins of government itself. It-does so by the medium of rejecting a budget which independent commentators by and large in Australia have accepted with approval, which is more than can be said for the Opposition's proposals put forward in answer to that Budget. There is no commentator, and I exclude **Senator Baume** from them because it is not a description which dignifies him, who has suggested that the Opposition's budgetary proposals were better than the ones put forward by the Government. The Opposition is in a position where it has half-baked, unprepared proposals in a number of policy areas, and the most classic example which has been unveiled like a blushing bride is its new industrial policy which, of course, is vital to the economic stability of this country. We are told that the Opposition, if elected to government, would introduce at a cost of about $ 1,000m tax indexation straight away in response to the call of trade unions which have persistently sought wage indexation and tax indexation. Does the Opposition seriously believe that in the turmoil which will follow its action tonight wage indexation, which has been one of the most vital and, I believe, successful planks in this Government's economic policy, will survive a change of Government in this country? Does it seriously believe that that will happen? Does it seriously believe that the old tested and failed remedies of putting unionists in gaol when that industrial policy fails will succeed in 1975 when it did not succeed in 1968? Does it really seriously believe any of these things? There is nothing in the amendment to the Loan Bill which was moved by **Senator Withers** which suggested for a moment that the Oppositionthe men of 1971 coming back, or at least seeking to come back, into the situation of 1975 or 1976- has any appreciation of the solution to the issues which a country undergoing rapid change as this country is or has the answers to our problems. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: -- Try honesty for a start. {: .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator BUTTON: **- Senator Baume** says 'try honesty for a start'. I put it to him earlier, but of course he was not in the chamber, that he makes a bad start in regard to honesty with **Mr Lynch,** for example, having regard to his record, and he is the alternative Treasurer, I understand, if the Opposition succeeds. As I was pointing out, there is nothing in the Opposition's policies which suggests that the Opposition has any capacity to grapple with the sort of situation which is facing Australia today. Thus we find **Senator Withers** in the amendment which he moved tonight talking about the policies of the Government which have created inflation and unemployment not experienced for 40 years. Of course, that is true. However, a lot of things are happening in Australia today which have not been experienced for 40 years, and not once in the Opposition's criticism of the unemployment situation in Australia have I heard anyone attempt to analyse the problem or suggest a solution to that problem. The unemployment which we have today is vastly different from the unemployment which we had under a Liberal Government in 1971 or 1972. Indeed, it may be here to stay as a structural problem in Australian society but none of these solutions is anything but glib. I warn the Opposition that it is no longer possible in a rapidly changing society such as this to go back to the good old days when a Liberal Prime Minister could put the lid on Australian society and keep it in the Portugal and Spain league for 25 years before letting it out. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- You are talking so much rubbish. {: .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator BUTTON: -I know that **Senator Cotton** comes from that era, but we cannot go back to those days any more because in the post industrial society which we are now entering those options are no longer open to a government. The real tragedy which is most important in this debate is not the sorts of propositions or the people which an alternative government puts forward but the fact that we enter with this decision of the Senate a period of unprecedented political instability with a parliamentary system which no longer has any rules, a parliamentary system in growing crisis and in growing disrepute because the ball game of politics will be changed if this amendment of the Opposition is carried tonight or tomorrow. We will enter a period of unprecedented circumstances with a parliamentary system which may have served us well in the past but which can no longer serve us with the sorts of rules which are being put forward here by the Opposition tonight. I commend the Appropriation Bill to the Senate. {: #debate-38-s11 .speaker-K3N} ##### Senator BUNTON:
New South Wales -- I join in this debate not in a heated fashion but with a sense of conviction. I feel privileged to follow **Senator Steele** Hall and **Senator Button** in their condemnation of today's episode, the culmination of an unfortunate witch hunt. I heard 2 remarkable statements today, one tonight and the other this afternoon. Tonight we heard from **Senator Wright** that this is a challenge which the people must judge. A similar challenge took place in 1974 and the government of the day was not found wanting. The people judged the government of the day and returned it. It is a shocking state of affairs to think that we have a parliamentary society today which allows the will of the people expressed at a triennial election to be flouted in this way. It is an unfortunate set of circumstances which could be perpetrated only in the party political field. I said that I was pleased to follow **Senator Hall** and **Senator Button.** I would like to say that if ever an opportunity was given to the Liberal Movement to throw its wares around it has been given by the action of the Opposition today. **Senator Steele** Hall was quick to gain mileage from it, and it will pay a handsome dividend- make no error about that. I have no party affiliation and so I speak as one on the outside looking in, as it were. The statement made today - {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator Jessop: -- Do you speak for all the people of New South Wales? {: .speaker-K3N} ##### Senator BUNTON: -- I am a worthy representative of the people of New South Wales. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator Jessop: -- Do they all agree with what you say? {: .speaker-K3N} ##### Senator BUNTON: -- Whether they agree or not does not matter to me, but I think they do. I am very proud of my contribution in this Senate, and the people of New South Wales are proud of it, too. I do not want to say these things but when there is an interjection which is objectionable I am inclined to give an answer such as this. The statement this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Malcolm Fraser),** that the Opposition is not rejecting the Budget, is very hard to understand. He said: 'We are not rejecting the Budget but unless the Government is prepared to have a double dissolution it will not get Supply'. In other words he says in relation to the Appropriation Bill which is before the Senate and which is a component of the Budget: 'There is nothing wrong with this Budget, but we are not prepared to accept it unless the Government is prepared to give into our will '. It is a dirty will. That is precisely what is happening. What a shocking state of affairs it is for the Leader of the Opposition to say: 'This is a very good Budget, but we are not prepared to accept it'. That is precisely what has been said. It will be accepted if an election is held in the meantime. So it is a remarkable state of affairs and something in respect of which I am very sorry indeed that the Parliament of this country has been treated in such a way. Mistakes have been made by the Government in the handling of the affairs of the country. I think the loans affair did the Government little credit, but the price of the indiscretion has been paid. When all is said and done, the loans discussion was only in the negotiation stage. I have yet to see a government that has not made mistakes and made many mistakes. I have yet to see a government which is not prepared to indulge in all the intrigue in the world to meet its own cause. I am pleased that I am an Independent and can speak with an Independent voice. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- That is your standard. {: .speaker-K3N} ##### Senator BUNTON: -- I will not take any notice of interjections. I would like to say that I entered the Senate as an Independent. Despite what has been said in this House I was appointed in strict conformity with the Constitution. I am now fully convinced- I will be leaving soon- that the Party political systems leaves much to be desired. I am fully convinced that the abuse of Party politics is posing a threat to parliamentary democracy. Australia has been a prosperous country of contented people subscribing to the democratic system which demands freedom, protection of the rights of people, understanding and a national mutual love of people. It is a system that is opposed to the system of tyranny and oppression practised in the totalitarian states. Parliament should set a lead by maintaining a stable government. The actions of today do not give stable government. Not only has a constitutional crisis arisen, but the decision plays into the hands of subversive elements. Make no error about the disabilities that can be suffered there. I think Parliament will forever rue today's decision. This whole issue has been clouded by the loans affair. The acceptance or rejection of the Budget is something on which it is very difficult to draw a line. We have seen the many statements by the Leader of the Opposition in which he said the Budget would be accepted provided nothing reprehensible turned up in the meantime. The Opposition has not been able to find anything reprehensible as far as the Budget is concerned. I oppose the rejection of Supply on 2 main grounds. The first ground will surprise the Opposition. I accept the Budget as a responsible budget, a budget which could not be presented with the thinking of the Opposition in accordance with the comments of" its Leader on that Budget. Secondly, it would be a serious departure from established constitutional practice if we refuse Supply. Let us analyse the main components of the Budget. This will give us an idea of how responsible the Government has been in connection with this Budget. First and foremost, the Government has a double mandate, a mandate of the people, that the Opposition is preparing to throw aside. It has provided a general social welfare program over a wide field, including Medibank which has been a very costly experiment. The Government has had a most unenviable task. Each and everyone of us will disagree with certain of the priorities which have been given in this Budget. When we examine the Appropriation Bills and we see where the funds are being distributed in various sections we are possibly inclined to think: 'I would sooner see an increased amount in one department and a decreased amount in another'. The fact remains that it was an honest approach made in very difficult times. I do not think the Government is to be blamed for all the disabilities which we are suffering today. We know full well the high rate of inflation which is prevailing. We know the unemployment position, and that is a state of affairs which I think will be with us for some time. In connection with unemployment we must take into account that automation in industry is increasing daily. We must remember that industry today has to provide employment for husband and wife in many instances. The position in this new society is entirely different from what it was in the old society. I maintain that the Government has been fully aware of the position in this connection. There has been no restraint on wages, on the cost of living or on the fees of professional people. The Government is not responsible for that. Parliament is not responsible for that. That is brought about by arbitration. Unfortunately, arbitration does not appear to have taken a vital component into account. That vital component is the productivity of the land. The primary producer has been hard hit, but that is not the fault of the Government. This Government has endeavoured to do the right thing in connection with the disabilities being suffered by the people on the land. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- That is a lot of rubbish. You tell me one thing it has done. It took away the petrol subsidy and increased postal and telephone charges. {: .speaker-K3N} ##### Senator BUNTON: -- It maintained the floor price for wool. At present we are on the wave of an upsurge in connection with the cattle industry. We find that these things come in cycles. We have had unemployment handouts. We have had a Regional Employment Development scheme introduced to bring about a relief in unemployment. But at the same time we have had an increase in inflation. It has been a very difficult time. We have seen the Minister for Labor and Immigration **(Senator James McClelland)** playing a vital part in connection with wage indexation. No member on either side of the House could have made the impact where it had to be made that **Senator James** McClelland has made. I think this Parliament will be ever grateful to him for the part that he has played in this connection. With all due respect to the member of the other side who may take his place, he will find the task a very difficult one. I would like to think he could handle it as well as **Senator James** McClelland. I think where credit is due it should be given. This matter has been handled in a courageous fashion and in a statesmanlike manner. So make no error about what is happening in that field. We have heard a great deal about the Estimates. The Government determines policy, the Ministers implement it and their advisers attend to its practical application. During the sittings of the Estimates Committee of which I was a member I was very impressed with the businesslike way in which the officers of the Government handled these matters. In the implementation of government policies by the Ministers and their practical application by the staff of the Parliament there is a very happy state of affairs. Much has been said about a dishonest Budget and dishonest Estimates. **Senator McAuliffe** handled that matter tonight very completely and there is no need for me to recapitulate. But the fact remains that it is evident that at every turn members of the Opposition have continued their witch hunt in an endeavour to find something dishonest, something that is wrong. They have not succeeded and today they clutched at the last straw to bring about the present unhappy state of affairs. It is necessary to have an active and strong Opposition as part of the party political system, but it is essential that that Opposition should be a fair Opposition. It was claimed, I think by **Senator Webster,** that in the 3 years of the life of the present Government the wellbeing of people in all sections of the community has been badly done by. I strongly question that statement. The vast majority of people have never been better off. It is remarkable that as soon as a Labor Government is elected a section of the business community says: 'It is time for us to button up'. That is precisely what happened before. It is amazing that when talk of a double dissolution began the share market began to rise. There is no justification for that. It is just a case of misplaced confidence. At the time of the election of this Government there was a misplaced lack of confidence; on this occasion there is a misplaced confidence. Immediately the Labor Government was presented with economic difficulties I played my part in assisting the economy. There is a public company in Albury- the only public company there- which employs 400 people at the present time. It is paying a dividend of 13.5 per cent and is thinking very seriously about making a one in five bonus issue of shares. I prevailed on that company to expand. We were just on the verge of having to accept a takeover bid. We fought off the takeover and expanded and we have done remarkably well. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- With how much money from the Federal Government? {: .speaker-K3N} ##### Senator BUNTON: -- I have been asked how much money came from the Federal Government. We received not one cent because it is an established industry and the Federal Government does not make funds available for established industries. The Government gives funds to perhaps-ers, to people who come along on the scene and who are perhaps not successful. Last year I prevailed on the Albury City Council to commence a $4m project to build a new administrative block. The economy was bad and someone had to give it a lift, and individuals and councils should see to it that that lift is given. Whatever you do, do not run away with the idea that successful business organisations can exist only when a Liberal-Country Party government is in power. I do not want to boost unduly the merits of the Labor Party. I am a non-party representative and I am proud of it. 1 could have been a member of Parliament in either camp 40 years ago, but I detest party politics and I have seen the reason for that detestation justified today. We have arrived at a very nasty state of affairs. I should like to ask the Opposition how it proposes to cure inflation and unemployment. It has not been prepared yet to say so. It has condemned the present Government for the inflation and unemployment that exists, but it does not know how to cure it. Since I have been in the Senate 106 Bills have been passed and seven have been rejected. Some of 106 Bills that have been passed have made provision for the appointment of authorities, corporations, boards and commissions, bringing about an increase in the Public Service, and that has to be paid for. Is it any wonder that in this changed society, with the Government entering into all of the functions which it has, we have this sort of deficit. We must have that deficit, and there is nothing wrong with it. Australia is a growing country, and when the Government provides all the amenities which have been provided, naturally they have to be paid for. It is interesting to note in relation to comments which have been made by members of the Opposition in condemnation of the Government for not having arrested inflation and unemployment that **Mr Wran,** the Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Parliament, challenged the Premier to an election on the very ground on which the Federal Opposition is challenging the Government. It is just a trick of the trade. I do not intend to delay the Senate any longer. Suffice to say that the main function of government today is to bring capital and labour to a realisation that they are dependent on each other to create an economy which will permit us to get a full share of the export market. I think that the Government has pursued that course. Many authorities have been outspoken against a decision such as the one that was taken today, and I propose to quote only one of them, one whom I admired greatly as a statesman. I refer of course to **Sir Robert** Menzies. Writing in the Sydney *Daily Telegraph* on 11 March 1968 **Sir Robert** Menzies stated: >In the end result, the Senate has a full power of rejecting any Bill but argues that the exercise of the power would create an impossible situation and would make popular government unworkable. He re-stated the principle that whoever commands a majority in the House forms a government and has the right, with his colleagues, to govern. It follows from this principle that it would be a falsification of democracy if on any matter of government policy approved by the House of Representatives, possibly by a large majority, the Senate representing the States and not the people could reverse the decision. Today's decision will create a grave disquiet, and I would like to think that it is not too late for negotiations. Let us be guided by the experience of other countries, the history of which is strewn with the wreckage of institutions that failed to acknowledge basic fundamentals. There is so much at stake that the question merited an individual rather than a party vote. I should like to have thought that every person in this chamber voted in accordance with his unfettered thinking, as **Senator Steele** Hall, the Leader of the Liberal Movement- I gave him a plug, tooand I as an Independent voted on this matter. Finally might I just confirm what I said concerning the witch hunt by quoting from a leading article which appeared in the *Sydney Morning Herald* on Thursday, 1 1 September. The article stated: > **Mr Malcolm** Fraser is certainly entitled, if not indeed obliged, to question the Government on its finances. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that he and his deputy should quiz the Prime Minister in Parliament yesterday about a letter from the Treasurer in July suggesting that additional funds might be needed for Medibank and the RED scheme. What is surprising, however, are the suggestions- at least some of which have been inspired by people close to **Mr Fraser-** that this funds shortage supplied the grounds and the vehicle for an early election. **Senator Button** referred to the time that this witch hunt started. I did not know until tonight of the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in contacting the Press. But it is remarkable how the Press has changed its attitude within recent weeks. It will not be at all surprising- in fact I think it will be a probability- that the Press will again change its attitude. The Press builds these things up then cuts them down. But quite a deal of water will pass under the bridge between now and the day of an election. We will possibly find there will be a change of heart on the part of the Press generally. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I call **Senator Wood.** {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- I think of nickel fields whenever he stands up, when he took from little old ladies. {: #debate-38-s12 .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD:
Queensland -The Whip of the Labor Party, like another senator, goes to bed thinking about nickel fields. Would he like me to tell the story of how his colleague got it? The secretary of the President, when he was the Whip, asked about the purchase of shares which she could have sold at a profit but did not. That is the story. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- But you got out and left them for dead. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -No I did not. And 1 will challenge **Senator Poyser** on that. I will take him on in public on it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- I have listened to some very interesting and amusing debate this evening. I heard a very amusing speech from **Senator Hall.** {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- You went around flogging shares in this place to little girls in the offices. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -I did nothing of the kind. **Mr President,** that is a reflection on myself. It is not true. I ask **Senator Poyser** to withdraw that statement. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- Of course I withdraw it. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Do not withdraw, because it is right. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- It is not true. As I said, I listened with amused interest to some of the arguments put forward by **Senator Hall.** He trotted out the very much used argument that the matter of convention stands and that this Senate should not have done what it did tonight. The position is- it is simple as can be- that the Constitution is what this Senate is based upon. The people who wrote the Constitution spent a long time in working out how they would create the Parliament in the federal sphere. {: .speaker-2H4} ##### Senator Steele Hall: -- It helps you if one of your opponents die. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -A11 right **Senator Hall.** I will be there. I just want to talk about it. I want to say this: The Constitution gives this Senate the right. Let me recall to Government senators and also to **Senator Hall** and **Senator Bunton** that **Senator Murphy** who was Leader of the Labor Government in this chamber fought strenuously to knock over certain financial legislation that came into this chamber and said very clearly that the Senate had this right- an absolute right. What is more, **Mr Whitlam** supported that contention. I want to add that it is nonsense to say that because this was done today it is likely to happen every year, and so on. The responsibility - {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- You explain why you voted on a dead man today. You used a dead man to win. You explain that. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: **-Mr President,** I take that as a provocation. It is something which should be withdrawn. I have never used a dead man for anything. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- Well, you did today. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- I did nothing of the sort. **Mr President,** I was accused by **Senator Poyser** of using a dead man. I ask for a withdrawal of that. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! I ask **Senator Wood** to disregard interjections and address the Chair. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- Yes, but I do not go around using dead men. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- You cannot stand on high principle. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- Do you not want to hear an argument? Apparently Labor senators do not believe in free speech. I have been in this chamber for a long time. When do I interrupt honourable senators opposite? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Well, you are not here to. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- I do not interrupt. The argument that is being used about the Senate not having this right is nonsense. The fact that **Senator Murphy** used this power to knock over a money Bill, which cost the then Government $70m in loss of revenue - {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: **- Mr President,** I think it can be said - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! Is the honourable senator taking a point of order? {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- I am speaking on a point of order or whatever you like to call it. But I think it can be said that the speakers on what purports to be the Government side of the chamber were heard fairly and in silence. **Senator Hall** and **Senator Bunton** were also heard in silence. It is fair that **Senator Wood** should be given a hearing. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I wish to speak on that point of order, if it is a point of order that has been raised. **Senator Cotton** raised the point of order that the senator is entitled to be heard in silence- if he is not provocative. I might say that **Senator Wood** has been provocative because he is - {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- Holier than thou. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Yes, he has been selfrighteous. My point of order is based upon the point of order that **Senator Cotton** has raised. It is quite possible that my point of order has as much substance as the point of order that **Senator Cotton** has raised. If he has raised an idle point of order perhaps my point of order is equally idle and perhaps I ought to - {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Perhaps you ought to sit down. **Senator Georges-** Yes, perhaps I ought to sit down. Nonetheless, I do not think it is right that **Senator Cotton** should raise this point of order because what he is endeavouring to do is in some way cast aspersions upon Government senators who are interjecting. They have a right to interject. I think that the Senate has from time to time given the freedom of interjection upon a senator who - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! I think that I can rule on this point of order. It has been the practice in the Senate to allow a certain amount of thrust and parry in debate. But a senator must not be interrupted. I shall ask honourable senators to observe that custom and not interrupt a speaker. I call **Senator Wood.** {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -Thank you, **Mr President.** I was speaking about the statement made by **Senator Hall** that the Senate must not do this and do that. The position is that the Constitution gives us that right. As I said, **Senator Murphy,** when Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, said exactly the same thing and **Mr Whitlam** backed up those arguments. Why the shift? Why the change in view? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- You went to water. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- No, because there was a change of government - {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- You went to water, **Senator. Sit** down. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- I have never gone to water. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- I rise on a point of order. I say that **Senator Wood** from the time he started speaking approximately 10 minutes ago has been subjected to a barrage of interruption by interjection and, I submit, by what **Senator Georges** said, irrelevant points of order. I support the points which were made by **Senator Cotton** that **Senator Wood** on the Opposition side ought to be allowed to speak and ought not to be subjected to intimidation by Government senators completely interrupting him. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- Defeated dingoes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! I uphold the point of order. {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAuliffe: -- Oh, **Mr President,** a remark - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Are you raising a point of order? {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAuliffe: -- Yes. A remark that just come from **Senator Marriott** is repulsive to me and to other honourable senators on this side of the chamber. He referred to us as defeated dingoes. I ask for a withdrawal of that remark and I ask him too whether he would like to repeat that remark to me outside the chamber. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I did no hear the remark. **Senator Marriott** was not addressing the Chair. {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAuliffe: -- I can assure you, **Mr President,** that *Hansard* would have recorded it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! I make an appeal to the Senate to come to order. It is highly disorderly for honourable senators to interject. I cannot be responsible for a crossfire across the chamber. I cannot be responsible for hearing everything that goes on. You are all mature people. I have called on **Senator Wood** to address the Chair. I ask him not to be provocative and not to listen to interjections but to continue with his speech and address the Chair. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -Thank you, **Mr President.** I do not think anybody could say that I have been provocative because I have not been able to get started with my speech to any extent. Before I was interrupted I was referring to statements made by **Senator Hall.** He made the great statement in this chamber that the Opposition did the wrong thing in opposing legislation today. I said before that, in conformity with what the former Leader of the Labor Opposition said- he was supported by **Mr Whitlam-** the Senate has the right to do what it did, and for honourable senators opposite to talk in this way is just nonsense. It is a cover-up. It is something which has been built up by the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** over a period of weeks because he has been so panic-stricken at the possibility of losing the Prime Ministership of this country. **Senator Hall** knows, as I know and everybody else knows, that this matter, was brought to a culmination by the disclosure- of breaches by a Minister who has since virtually been dismissed because he did not tell the truth. As a consequence of this loan situation it was felt that the Parliament had arrived at a point of crisis and that something, should be done about the matter. As a consequence, the Opposition today threw out the piece of legislation involved. As to suggestions that the overseas loans matter is not a serious one, it is rather interesting that **Senator Hall** should come to the rescue of the Government today on this matter, because when this matter of the loans was before this chamber on 16 July, you will recall, **Mr President,** that **Senator Hall** made a very startling speech, from which I will read a quotation, which rather indicates that although tonight he does not think it matters, on 16 July he thought it a matter of such consequence that he made this statement: >This is an evolving situation. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- Tell us what you said too. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- I was not here. I was absent as part of a delegation. **Mr Speaker** knew why I was away. He was the leader of the delegation and I was the deputy leader. This is what **Senator Hall** said. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- You said you knew the whole story. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: **- Senator McLaren** is always interjecting. **Senator Hall,** the man who now stands up for this Government, said on 16 July, regarding the loans question which is now so very prominent in the minds of members of this Parliament and the people of this country: >This is an evolving situation. The Parliament has been tried and the Ministry has not answered. This is the second major attempt to obtain information which so far has not been available. If the Government is able to frustrate this move, something else will happen. If I were in the Opposition 's position I would adjourn the Senate until 1 January next and let the people decide - That means by vote- in the meantime. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick: -- Who said that? {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -This is **Senator Hall's** statement. He went on to say: >Something will have to be done to find out just where the Government is culpable or where it is blameless, because it will not say. The Opposition's position is, of course, somewhat difficult. As I have said,it cannot let the matter rest here. It will be the Government's responsibility- I have no doubt that it will be the Government's responsibility- if the Opposition is forced into further action to obtain the information that it desires. {: .speaker-3E4} ##### Senator Martin: -- I wonder why he changed his mind. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- It is a complete somersault of mind, when one realises that that is the statement that **Senator Hall** made on 16 July. I think it is reasonable to say that a lot of information still has to be produced in relation to this matter. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- But you told us that you knew the whole story. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -Yes, I know a lot of it. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- Why do you not tell us? {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -Let me tell you. If the honourable senator wants it, I will tell him something for his own good. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- Why did you not come and tell us when the inquiry was on? {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- I rise on a point of order, **Mr President.** I submit that interjectors ought to be called to order. With respect, it is your function to call to order people on the Government side who are denying an Opposition senator the right to speak. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Speaking on the point of order, I suggest that the manner in which **Senator Greenwood** has taken his point of order is a reflection on you, **Sir, in** your capacity as President of the Senate, and that **Senator Greenwood** should be called upon to withdraw his remarks because they are a reflection on the Chair. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I must say that **Senator Greenwood** has been unfair to me twice today and I would rather see more respect shown for the Chair. It does not matter what **Senator Greenwood** thinks of me personally. I occupy in this Senate a position from which I am trying to uphold and maintain the dignity of this chamber. I want the Chair to be respected. Any further interjections will be dealt with according to the Standing Orders. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -There is no doubt that there is a desire not to allow me to speak. It has been suggested that I might be able to tell the Senate something which may be of interest to it. First of all, let me deal with **Mr Khemlani.** He was a man who was traduced before the public through people in this Parlament and so on. He has come to this country and he has made certain statements. It has now been proved that what he said was correct and that the Minister concerned was telling lies. He has since been - **Senator Georges-** I rise on a point of order, **Mr President.** According to standing order 418, with which I am now familiar, the honourable senator has reflected upon a member of the House of Representatives by saying that he has been telling lies. Let me make it perfectly clear to you, **Mr President.** I am raising a point of order; I am not interjecting. My point of order is that **Senator Wood** ought to be required to withdraw that statement which was to the effect that the exMinister, **Mr Connor,** was telling lies. It seems to me extraordinary that **Senator Wood** who, for quite a deal of time has been in a position, shall we say, of question- and it has not been raised in this House- in relation to a company called Nickelfields. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Georges'** point of order is that something that **Senator Wood** has said contravenes the Standing Orders. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I am indicating the gravity-- {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- Why does not **Senator Georges** say that outside? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I will say it wherever I like. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- You say it outside. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: **- Senator Wood** is saying that a Minister - {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- You are just trying to waste his time. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I am not wasting his time at all. I am merely objecting to the hypocrisy and the self-righteousness of **Senator Wood** who has at this moment indicated that an ex-Minister of the Crown has been guilty of telling lies when he himself is in a position of doubt. I say that he ought to be asked to withdraw that statement that a Minister has been telling lies. In other words, he has said that a person, **Mr Connor,** in the other place, the House of Representatives, has been telling lies and I ask him to withdraw that statement. If he does not withdraw it we shall take the necessary action against **Senator Wood** to reveal in this place his shortcomings. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! I do not think I need to remind the Senate that it has been a long standing custom here that other honourable senators and other members of this Parliament and of other parliaments must not be accused of telling lies or untruths or deliberate untruths. It is an unparliamentary expression. Many occupants of this Chair before me have ruled, when an accusation has been made that another member has been telling untruths or lies and when a request is made for a withdrawal, that that withdrawal should be made. As the Presiding Officer 1 have been asked to have a withdrawal from you, **Senator Wood.** {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: **- Mr President,** if you desire a withdrawal I will withdraw. I will use the words: 'He was guilty of misleading the Prime Minister'. There seems to be a furious desire to stop me from speaking. But let me say quickly that **Mr Khemlani** has come to this country. It has been proved that his statements so far have been correct. In this afternoon's newspapers - {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Who printed that? {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- The honourable senator asked me to make sure that there was not an election before a certain time so that he would be in Parliament long enough to get his pension. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- No. Gee - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I ask for a withdrawal. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I ask for a withdrawal. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- It is true. I am telling you, it is true. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- What is your point of order, **Senator Georges?** {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- What a fantastic allegation that **Senator Wood** has made. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: **- Mr President,** this is out of order. **Senator Georges** has a right to make a personal explanation later but not now in order to interrupt debate. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I understand that **Senator Georges** rose on a point of order. **Senator Georges,** if you are not rising a point of order you cannot interrupt. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I am not intending, on the remark which has been made, to waste time. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Georges,** you cannot interrupt another honourable senator's speech unless you are rising on a point of order. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Surely - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: **- Senator Georges,** what is your point of order? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- My point of order relates to the extraordinary allegations which **Senator Wood** has made that I would endeavour to seek by some means- this is a serious allegation which he makes- his assistance to prevent an election so that I may qualify for a pension. I reckon that is grossly offensive. It is not true. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -It is true. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Then, senator, prove it. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: **- Mr President,** I raise a point of order. This is not a point of order; it is a personal explanation. **Senator Georges** should not be allowed to interrupt the speech of **Senator Wood.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! I am waiting for **Senator Georges** to conclude. Then I will rule that it is a matter for a personal explanation. If he has been misrepresented he will have to make that personal explanation after **Senator Wood** has completed his speech. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- If it is necessary - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Georges,** this is a matter for a personal explanation. You must make your personal explanation at the conclusion of **Senator Wood** 's speech. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I accept what you say, **Mr President.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I call **Senator Wood.** {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: **- Mr President,** I am not prepared to embarrass you in any way or to question your ruling. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- It is not a question of that. {: .speaker-3E4} ##### Senator Martin: -- Sit down. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Well, let me say - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I intend to sit down. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Georges,** please resume your seat. I call **Senator Wood.** {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- As I was saying, **Mr Khemlani** has come to this country and made certain statements. So far he has been proved correct. In this afternoon's newspaper - {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- No that is a lie. **Mr President,** how can you permit this honourable senator to make such a statement? It is a lie and it ought not to be permitted. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: **- Senator Georges,** please resume your seat. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- This afternoon - {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- I rise on a point of order. **Senator Georges'** words should be withdrawn. It has been said earlier of **Senator Wood** that he was not to use the word 'lie' of a member of Parliament. **Senator Georges** has now used that word many times of **Senator Wood. Mr President,** I submit that consistency requires that **Senator Georges** should be required to withdraw. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I ruled that way before. I uphold the standing order which precludes an honourable senator from calling another honourable senator a liar. I ask **Senator Georges** to withdraw. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Then - {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Do not make a speech about it. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: **- Senator Webster** ought not to - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! There will be no qualifications, please. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: **- Senator Webster** ought not to - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: **- Mr President,** at least allow me to accede to your request. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: **- Mr President,** I wish to accede to your request. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Well, please accede to it, **Senator.** {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: **- Mr President,** I raise a point of order. There is a standing order - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Marriott,** please resume your seat. **Senator Georges,** will you please withdraw the word ' lie '? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: **- Mr President,** I am endeavouring to accede to your request - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Please do so without qualification. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- . . . and that is to withdraw what I have said concerning **Senator Wood.** I will take up the matter at a later stage. I withdraw the statement which was that **Senator Wood** lied. But in withdrawing that statement - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- There will be no qualification. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- ... I do not want any interruption from **Senator Webster.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Wood,** please resume your speech. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- I do not know why honourable senators are trying to stop me from speaking. But that is quite apparent. As I have said, this afternoon **Mr Khemlani,** who so far has been proved to be correct, has made an offer that he is prepared to come before the Senate or before a commission to detail much more information which he has. He has also said that he is prepared to disclose all the papers, which indicates that he has some authority about his statement. I think that we might well have him before the Senate or before a select committee of the Senate to deal with this matter. As my time is running short- unless I am given an extension- I have something to say to **Senator McLaren** who was so keen in wanting to have more information. I believe that there is a lot to be found out about the matter. If **Senator McLaren** wants to know I can tell him that I know that a **Mr Dan** Thompson, a director of Minerals Centres, told me he has certain documents in connection with this loan raising- his company was involved in the negotiations- showing that certain Ministers and a public servant are involved, and that if this were revealed they would rather blow the thing sky high in a more impressive way than has been the case at the present time. So if the Senate wants to have further investigations let us have **Mr Khemlani** present. Let us have **Mr Dan** Thompson here. {: .speaker-K3A} ##### Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP **- Mr President,** I raise a point of order. I regret interrupting **Senator Wood,** and I say this quite sincerely. 1 think that the debate, to say the least, has been acrimonious. I rely on standing order 418 which states: >No **Senator shall** use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. I raise this point of order not to try to contest what **Senator Wood** has said but because it seems to me that, in the best interests of the Senate, it would be better if we were to direct our remarks in an objective and impersonal way to the subject matter which is before the Chair. I am not unmindful of what has happened during the afternoon because I have been in my office listening to the debate. But that is another question. **Mr President,** I think that you have to draw the line at some point. In my view the comments which have been made and which cause me to take this point of order are sufficient- I am sure that **Senator Wood** will concede this on reflection. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- The honourable senator will get us to 1 1 o'clock. {: .speaker-K3A} ##### Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP -- No. The motives imputed by **Senator Webster** by way of interjection - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Brown,** please do not answer interjections. {: .speaker-K3A} ##### Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP **- Mr President,** I am sorry, but I think I should, if you would not mind. I did not appreciate that interjection. I did not appreciate that remark because I am genuinely and seriously concerned about the conduct of the Senate and of the standing and status of the Senate in the eyes of the Australian community. That is no reflection on you, **Mr President,** because I have the greatest respect for you. I am sure that if **Senator Wood** is prepared to reflect on this matter he will realise that if we continue to abuse one another in the Senate and disregard the Standing Orders we will reduce ourselves to the rabble which people take some satisfaction in saying the Senate is. I still happen to believe- notwithstanding what I believe in respect of this Senate- that unless you can replace the institution that we have for the time being it should not be denigrated in the way it has been denigrated this afternoon. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! I think you have made your point of order, **Senator Brown.** I would like to rule on it. Standing order 422 states: >No **Senator shall** interrupt another **Senator whilst** speaking . . . I call **Senator Wood.** {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- In fairness to **Senator Brown** I just want to say that I recognise him as one of the - Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 1192 {:#debate-39} ### ADJOURNMENT {: #debate-39-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### 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 affirmative. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- I want to ask you, **Mr President,** when do I make my personal explanation? Do I make it now or do I make it tomorrow? Will I get an opportunity to answer the vicious charges made by **Senator Wood?** Will I have that opportunity? Senate adjourned at 11 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1193 {:#debate-40} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-40-0} #### International News: Wire Services (Question No. 585) {: #subdebate-40-0-s0 .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator Gietzelt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the number of wire services monitoring international news which is available to subscribers in Australia. 1. Would the Minister indicate the countries of origin, and where relevant, the companies controlling such services and those which are actually subscribed to by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. 2. Can censorship occur on the monitoring of such news to the public by such countries or companies controlling the wire services and by the companies or co-operatives subscribing to them. {: #subdebate-40-0-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Minister for the Media has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Three. Australian Associated Press (which carries a selection of news mainly from Reuter, the Associated Press of America, United Press International, Agence France Presse, Press Association, the New York Times News Service, and the London Times), United Press International and Agence France Presse. The last two offer their service direct to Australian subscribers, as well as selections from it being available through Australian Associated Press. 1. Australian Associated Press is a co-operative owned by a number of Australian metropolitan newspaper companies. Reuter, which is the agency most frequently quoted by Australian Associated Press, is also a news co-operative, owned by United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand newspapers, and operated under a deed of trust. United Press International is owned by a company incorporated in the United States. Agence France Presse is French owned. The ABC subscribes to AAP and UP! services. 2. Agencies make their own selection of news, and the order in which stories are filed. They serve clients in virtually all countries of the world of all shades of opinion and so attempt the widest possible cover. They are factual and do not push any editorial line. Each of the agencies mentioned is based in a country with a free press tradition. Subscribers to the wire services in turn make their selection of what they want. There is always more wordage available than can be used. The professional task of any organisation subscribing to the agency services is to select what serves the objective of the subscriber organisation. {:#subdebate-40-1} #### Wilcannia Aboriginal Mission (Question No. 598) {: #subdebate-40-1-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many Aboriginal residents of the Wilcannia Aboriginal Mission were made homeless and dispossessed, as a result of floods in February 1974. 1. What steps did the State and Australian Government take through their respective Departments, instrumentalities, agencies and authorities after notice of the flood threat was received. 2. Did the State or Australian Governments at any time before, during or after the flood in February 1974 assist in, or contribute in any way to (a) move or assist Aboriginal people to move from the Wilcannia Mission area to the Wilcannia Mallee area; (b) supply transport, food, tents, clothing and emergency services; (c) supply and install water traps, ablution, washing and other sanitary facilities, garbage facilities; (d) health services; (e) temporary and/or permanent accommodation; and (0 any other form of assistance. {: #subdebate-40-1-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Between 200 and 250 people comprising some thirtyfive families. 1. The New South Wales State Government through the New South Wales State emergency services made general local preparations for the flood including advising people to stock up on food and to be prepared to move to higher ground if they lived in flood affected areas. 2. -- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The Central Darling Shire Council offered the use of a truck to help people move and a couple of families used the council truck. Most families moved themselves or were moved by friends. 1. b) Normal welfare food relief has always been available. Twenty-four tents were supplied by the Army to the New South Wales State emergency services and Central Darling Shire Council distributed these at the time of the February 1 974 flood to families who moved from the mission area to the mallee area. A further two dozen were supplied by the New South Wales Department of Youth, Ethnic and Community Affairs on 7 February 1 975. 2. In December 1970 an ablution block with laundry, showers, baths and toilets was placed on the mission area for use by the people living along the river by the New South Wales Directorate of Aboriginal Welfare using Australian Government funds. For the mallee area, the New South Wales Directorate of Aboriginal Welfare has used funds allocated from the Australian Government to pay the Central Darling Shire Council to provide: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. five taps, two on 25 October 1973 and three more since the February 1974 flood; 1. ablution block with two showers for men, two for women, two wash tubs and two washing machines, built in about April 1974, hot water added in December 1974, two new washing machines in February 1 975 and improved drainage in July 1 975; 2. four serviced pan toilets in December 1 974; and 3. twenty serviced garbage bins in December 1 974. In addition, Central Darling Shire Council, as agent for State emergency services, provided two pan toilets and two cold showers on the mallee area at the time of the February 1974 flood. The New South Wales Aboriginal Lands Trust, using Australian Government funds, placed two shower blocks, each with four showers and hot and cold water, on the mallee area in January 1975. {: type="a" start="d"} 0. The New South Wales Health Commission provides hospital care at Wilcannia Hospital with visits by a doctor three times a week plus emergency provision. An Aboriginal health worker has been employed since early 1973 and a nursing sister working specifically on Aboriginal health from 1970 until January 1974, when the position became vacant and again since mid 1974. These two people are employed with Australian Government funds. During the period November 1974 to February 1975, the New South Wales Health Commission, using Australian Government funds, provided a free supply of fresh fruit and vegetables to Wilcannia Aborigines. 1. Temporary accommodation as in (b) above. The Aborigines Welfare Board built fourteen small houses on the Aboriginal Reserve (Mission) in 1953, to which were added laundry/bathrooms, electricity and other improvements in 1970. Four of these houses have been destroyed by fire since 1966. Eight houses were constructed in 1970, one in 1971, one m 1972, three in 1975 (and six more are now at tender) in Wilcannia Town by the Housing Commission of New South Wales with funds provided by the Australian Government. {: type="a" start="f"} 0. Other assistance provided since the February floods includes: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. Housing Society establishment grants totalling $54,800 have been paid to the Bakandji Housing Company to develop a housing proposal for permanent housing of all Aboriginal families in Wilcannia. 1. A grant was recently approved for funds up to a maximum of $76,000 for emergency temporary housing on the mallee area of the town until a permanent housing project is commenced. {:#subdebate-40-2} #### Aboriginal Housing (Question No. 672) {: #subdebate-40-2-s0 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Of money appropriated for expenditure on Aboriginal housing in the years 1973-74 and 1974-75, how much remained unexpended at the end of the year in each State. 1. What was the cause of under expenditure. 2. What is the assessed unfulfilled need for Aboriginal housing in each State at the present time. {: #subdebate-40-2-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: {: type="a" start="1"} 0. l ) Moneys unexpended on Aboriginal housing by each State housing authority as at 30 June in each of the following financial years were: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. ) The reasons for under expenditure were: Queensland (1973-74). Contracts for the majority of the moneys had been let or were in the process of being let and settlements were pending. New South Wales ( 1974-75). Contracts for the majority of the moneys had been let or were in the process of being let and settlements were pending. I have written to the New South Wales Minister for Housing and Co-operative Societies with a view to reducing the holding of Australian Government moneys by the State at any one time and the State operating on an alternative programming basis to ensure annual programs are completed in the year in which funds are allocated. Victoria (1973-74). Contracts for the majority of the moneys have been let or were in the process of being let and settlements were pending. 1974-75. The carry over of funds is being considered by officers of the Housing Commission of Victoria and my Department in order that a more effective programming basis may be determined. South Australia ( 1973-74). Under expenditure was due to a then current shortage of housing resources particularly labour and building materials. Western Australia (1973-74). The State Housing Commission was unable to let contracts at reasonable prices; thus the building program was not completed. Due to the large carry over of funds no further moneys were allocated in 1974-75. I understand this difficulty has now been overcome. Tasmania ( 1 973-74). Tender not finalised. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The assessed unfulfilled need for Aboriginal housing in each State is not known at the present time. An assessment was made by W. D. Scott & Company Pty. Limited, Management Consultants, in 1973 but its estimates are now largely out of date. A further assessment is being made by my Department which should be completed early in 1 976. {:#subdebate-40-3} #### Community Information Offices (Question No. 702) {: #subdebate-40-3-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many individual offices for community information and help like taxation, legal aid, *et cetera* has the Government established since December 1972 in (a) Launceston, (b) Hobart, and (c) other places in Tasmania. 1. What were the initial costs of establishing each office. 2. What are the annual running costs of maintaining such offices. 3. What prevented the Government from housing these offices together in one building in each centre. {: #subdebate-40-3-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (D- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. One. Legal Aid Office 1. Five. (1) Department of the Media (Australian Liaison Officer); (2) Publication and Inquiry Centre; (3) Careers Reference Centre; (4) Legal Atd Office; (5) Department of Aboriginal Affairs. 2. Burnie- (1) Legal Aid Office; Queenstown- Social Security. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Setting up costs- Launceston- Nil (partitioning pan of rent) Hobart-(l) Nil; (2) $20,030; (3) Nil; (4) Unknown (no estimate yet); (5) Nil Burnie-$2,250 Queenstown- Nil. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Includes rental, cleaning, light and power. Launceston- $7,977 Hobart-(l) $6,624; (2) $10,400; (3) $7,570; (4) $21,900; (5)$2,143 Burnie-$4,154 Queenstown-$4,070. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Offices were established in separate buildings because insufficient space was available in any one building. The costs mentioned in (2) and (3) above are those which are the responsibility of the Department of Urban and Regional Development. {:#subdebate-40-4} #### Student Organisations (Question No. 857) {: #subdebate-40-4-s0 .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator Jessop: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Does the Minister recall his answer to Question No. 544 asked by **Senator Jessop** concerning student organisations in which he said: ' I am not in a position to provide the honourable senator with the information sought in question (2),(3),(5)and(6)'. 1. Why is the Minister not in a position to answer questions (2) and (3) which said: '(2) What appeal mechanisms are available to students who do not wish to join university student associations, and (3) What specific appeal mechanisms are available at each university to such students'. 2. Recognising that universities, except the Australian National University, are creations of the Crown through the States and that the Commonwealth's role is financial, what Acts of the States and in particular which sections of those Acts relate to the compulsory collection of fees by universities for student organisations for every university in Australia, excluding the Australian National University. {: #subdebate-40-4-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Minister for Education has provided me with the following answer: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to (3) In answer to Question No. 544 asked by **Senator Jessop,** I pointed out to the honourable senator that universities in the States are creations of the Crown through the Slates. Although the Australian Government has assumed full financial responsibility for universities it does not, and indeed could not, exercise any constitutional authority over them whatsoever. Successive Australian Governments have endorsed the principle of university autonomy and the right of universities to manage their own internal affairs. I do not have the information requested by the honourable senator and in view of the Government's policy, I do not believe that the work involved in collecting this information would be justified. {:#subdebate-40-5} #### Release of Government Documents (Question No. 858) {: #subdebate-40-5-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. Did the Labor Government's authority on 'Open Government' (the publication Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia by J. J. Spigelman) say: 'There should be a parliamentary committee with the power to call for the production of any document, to assess independently whether a government classification of that document is justified, and if necessary to order its classification '. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Did the book say: 'The Opposition should appoint the majority of members on such a Committee'. 1. Did the Prime Minister say in 1974: 'I am, of course, aware of the book . . . and I did most of the research for the book'. 2. In view of his joint authorship of the book or at the very least, his major research role, has the Prime Minister taken any steps to see that such a committee is established; if not, when does the Prime Minister intend to do so. 3. 5 ) Does the Prime Minister still intend, as he did when he worked in a research capacity for **Mr Spigelman** in the preparation of the book, that there should be a majority of Opposition members on such a committee; if not, why not. {: #subdebate-40-5-s1 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt:
ALP -- The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The words quoted come from **Mr Spigelman** 's book Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia (Angus and Robertson, 1972). 1. On 5 December 1974 I stated 'I am of course aware of the book . . . The author is now my Principal Private Secretary and I did most of the research for the book'. (House of Representatives Hansard, page 4763). Even the most humourless senator would see the point that **Mr Spigelman** drew most of his information from answers I was given in Hansard, for there are hundreds of references to them on pages 187-194 of the book. He stated (at page 18) **Mr Whitlam** has for the first time made effective use of the question on notice'. 2. and (5) Neither the author nor I have ever implied that his views were necessarily mine or the Government's. For the law on the classification of government documents I refer the honourable senator to parliamentary paper number 168 of 1972 prepared by the former Attorney-General and Solicitor-General (now the Opposition spokesman on legal affairs and the Liberal Member of Parliament for Wentworth respectively) and recently endorsed in the majority report of the Senate Committee of Privileges *(Hansard,* 7 October 1975, page 946). {:#subdebate-40-6} #### Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Unpublished Documents (Question No. 870) {: #subdebate-40-6-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice: >What are the titles of the reports, papers or documents produced by or for the Government since December 1972 in the areas of the Minister's responsibility which have not been publicly released. {: #subdebate-40-6-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourble senator to the Prime Minister's reply to Question No. 885, *Hansard2* October 1975, page 930. {:#subdebate-40-7} #### Department of Urban and Regional Development: Unpublished Documents (Question No. 872) {: #subdebate-40-7-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice: >What are the titles of the reports, papers or documents produced by or for the Government since December 1972 in the areas of the Minister's responsibility which have not been publicly released. {: #subdebate-40-7-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: 1 refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister's reply to Question No. 885 on 2 October 1975, *Hansard,* page 930. {:#subdebate-40-8} #### Department of Manufacturing Industry: Unpublished Documents (Question No. 875) {: #subdebate-40-8-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice: >What are the titles of the reports, papers or documents produced by or for the Government since December 1 972 in the areas of the Minister's responsibility which have not been publicly released. {: #subdebate-40-8-s1 .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Minister for Manufacturing Industry has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator's attention to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Parliamentary Question No. 885, *Hansard,* page 930, of 2 October 1975. Aviation Industry {: #subdebate-40-8-s2 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop:
ALP **- Senator Laucke** asked a question without notice in the Senate on 1 1 September concerning air navigation charges and the current situation in the general aviation industry. **Senator Laucke** also asked whether I had read the report sent to me by the Cessna Flying Club Inc., of South Australia, concerning the Government's cost recovery policy, and also seeking advice as to the present basis used for arriving at the proportion of total costs attributable to regular public transport operations and general aviation operations. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >Following receipt of the report from the Cessna Flying Club Inc., of South Australia, concerning the present situation in the general aviation industry and the impact of the Government's cost recovery program, the Minister for Transport arranged for officers of his Department to discuss the matters raised in the report with members of the club. > >As a result of those discussions the president of the club wrote to the Minister thanking him for arranging for the discussions to take place and acknowledging that the material contained in the report was not altogether factual. I am enclosing a copy of the president 's letter for your information. > >On the question of the allocation of costs between the regular public transport operators and the general aviation operators, the Department of Transport is presently engaged in a study to determine an equitable apportionment of costs between the sectors of the aviation industry. The Minister is unable to say at this stage when the study will be completed.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19751015_senate_29_s66/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant