Senate
23 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 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1415

PETITIONS

Appropriation Bills

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following pet ition from 68 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled the Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, in the matter of the approval by the Senate of Bills for Supply to the Australian Government, certain decisions and declared intentions of Senators of the parties of the Opposition in Parliament are placing in jeopardy the welfare and basic human rights of those citizens who are aged or disabled and thereby dependent upon pensions payable by the Australian Government.

Your petitioners are impelled by these facts to call upon all Honourable Senators to forthwith determine as a matter ofurgency that approval of the Bills for Supply be no longer delayed in order that the Government shall continue to adequately provide for the welfare rights of Australian citizens.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Appropriation Bills

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 1 8 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled the Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, in the matter of the approval by the Senate of Bills for Supply to the Australian Government, certain decisions and declared intentions of Senators of the parties of the Opposition in Parliament are placing in jeopardy the welfare and basic human rights of those citizens who are aged or disabled and thereby dependent upon pensions payable by the Australian Government.

Your petitioners are impelled by these facts to call upon all Honourable Senators to forthwith determine as a matter of urgency that approval of the Bills for Supply be no longer delayed in order that the Government shall continue to adequately provide for the welfare rights of Australian citizens.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pensions

Senator GIETZELT:

– I present the following petition from 103 citizens of Australia:

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

That the decisions of the Australian Government-

To depart from its 1972 election promise that basic pensions would be related to average weekly earnings and never be allowed to fall below 25 per cent thereof, and

To increase postage costs and the costs of installation and annual rental of telephones, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

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

That pensions be related to average earnings as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1972 policy speech, and

That no charge be made for installation or rental on the telephones of those pensioners entitled to a P.M.S. card.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Fraser Island

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

-I present the following petition from 53 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, and

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Fraser Island

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 141 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, and

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 1416

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1416

QUESTION

REMARKS BY MINISTER

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does not the Government accept that changes in government in this country occur through orderly constitutional processes and elections conducted by secret ballot in conditions of freedom of speech and freedom of association? Will he acknowledge that the ultimate resolution of this country’s difficulties and any ultimate differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives must be through the ballot box and that this is what the Opposition has been constantly urging? Therefore will the Government either require the Minister for Social Security to repudiate his remarks upon the likelihood of Irish-style violence in Australia which could be interpreted by many as an actual incitement to such violence or will the Government repudiate the Minister?

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

– I can assure Senator Greenwood that there will be no repudiation of the Minister for Social Security, Senator Wheeldon, who would be one of the most able Ministers this Government has and one of the best Ministers for Social Security this country has ever had. There was no incitement on his part to violence in the streets. He has made the same comment as I have made. He does not want to see that happen resulting from the efforts of and the procedures being adopted by the Opposition. Of course there will be hardship in the Australian community as a result of what the Opposition has done, but we do not want to see these things get to the stage where people are incited to take other channels which are open to them. I am sure the great majority of Australians do not want to see that either. I think this is the substances of the comments which he made.

As to the question of resolving these matters by the ballot box, I hoped that Senator Greenwood would have adopted a genuinely democratic attitude on the question of electoral redistribution when this Government was trying to bring in legislation which would create genuine democracy in the ballot box in this country. Instead, the entrenched weighting of votes under the present system, which very much suits the National Country Party at the expense of all the urban dwellers of Australia and, I might say, at the expense even of Liberal supporters in the urban areas of Australia, was retained by the Opposition. The real course to be followed in this situation is for the Government to be allowed to exercise the mandate to hold office for 3 years which, as has been said so many times, it was given last year.

page 1416

QUESTION

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask a question of the Minister for Labor and Immigration in his capacity as Minister in charge of Regional Employment Development scheme grants. Is he aware that following payment of the initial 25 per cent of RED scheme grants to allow projects to commence, further costs are met on the basis of periodic reimbursement of expenses which have first been met from the resources of the organisation concerned? Is he further aware that many such organisations being beneficiaries under RED scheme approvals have quite limited financial resources and could be in financial difficulty within a couple of weeks? For instance, where, say, 12 men are employed it involves a weekly expenditure in the vicinity of $2,000. He can imagine that small organisations could not go for very long paying amounts of that kind. To make the position quite clear to organisations involved, will he outline the financial position regarding reimbursement of funds expended by these organisations on RED scheme projects in view of the present financial crisis arising from failure to pass the Appropriation Bills?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-There is no money left to pay claims which are coming in for projects in progress. Project sponsors, such as local government authorities, are being told that such projects cannot continue unless they can be financed out of the sponsors’ own funds.

page 1416

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. When can the Senate expect to see the further documents which the Government intends to table relating to the overseas loans affair? Is a selection of documents taking place in his Department? Is it intended that the full documentation of the loans affair will not be made available to the Australian public? Has he given an instruction to any public servant in his Department or outside that certain documents relating to the loans affair are to be destroyed?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Until the last part of Senator Webster’s question I was prepared to answer it in the normal way. He cannot help but get down into the gutter every now and again. I suppose we must accept that. I just reject the last part of the question. I would not even attempt to comment on it. I will only restate what I have said over the last 2 or 3 days- that the Government is reconsidering these other documents. I indicated to Senator Carrick yesterday I would inquire as to that position. I did so and I am advised that these documents are still under consideration by the Government. I can add only that an announcement will be made by the Prime Minister at the earliest opportunity.

page 1417

QUESTION

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration and is supplementary to a question asked yesterday by my colleague Senator McLaren. Is it a fact that Mr Lynch, currently the temporary Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in the other place, twice misled or gave false information to the Parliament and the people during the period his Party was in Government? Can the Minister detail the occasions?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not easy to remember any achievements of Mr Lynch, but a couple of his performances do linger in the memory. He had barely got his commission -

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. It is quite apparent -

Senator Devitt:

– This is a supplementary point of order.

Senator Greenwood:

– That just proves the point that the Government does not want anything to be said which might contradict its tidy view of affairs.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! What is your point of order?

Senator Greenwood:

– My point of order is that it is apparent from what was said yesterday and from what has been said today that members of the Government are asking personal questions about the conduct of previous Ministers under the guise -

Senator Wheeldon:

– You would not dream of doing that, would you? You would never reflect on former Senator Murphy, would you?

Senator Greenwood:

– It is quite obvious that members of the Government do not want the truth to come out. The truth. is that it is not a matter of public affairs in respect of which questions without notice may be asked for a senator to ask a Minister: ‘Did a Minister in a previous government make misleading statements to the Parliament? Would you please say what they were?’ That is not related to any specific matter; it is not related to any issue. It is simply an invitationand I suspect an invitation preconceived- to enable a Minister to engage in personal abuse. My submission is that it is contrary to the practice of the Senate and not within the Standing Orders under which questions without notice may be asked about public affairs.

The PRESIDENT:

– I cannot be expected to pre-empt an answer that is to be given by a Minister. I have not yet heard the Minister’s answer to the question. He is entitled now to answer the question.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-He barely received his first commission- that is the egregious Mr Lynch- when he was found to be misleading the House about the subject of bastardisation at Duntroon Military College. He was forced to eat his words and admit that he had misled the Parliament. However, that did not cure him of this practice because shortly afterwards he denied a report about a soldier named O’Neill–

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise on a point of order. I repeat my preceding point of order, Mr President, because it is now apparent from the Minister’s answer that he is simply relating history, and in a particularly abusive way. I submit that that is not in accordance with the practice of the Senate. Secondly, I say that to accuse a Minister of engaging in a practice of misleading is, under standing order 4 1 8, to impute improper motives and to be offensive against a member of another House. To impute a practice is different from indicating an instance.

The PRESIDENT:

– The standing order provides that no senator shall use offensive words against either House or any member -of such House. I must say that the standard of criticism of other members has reached a point where I think we should take stock of ourselves and be a little more discreet in the way we refer to one another. I should like Senator, McClelland to complete the answer to the question.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The second example of Mr Lynch misleading the Parliament was when he denied a report that a soldier named O’Neill had been chained in a gun pit in Vietnam. Once again he had to admit to his error. Whether it was due to carelessness about facts or a careless attitude towards the truth I would not care to say.

page 1418

QUESTION

TORRES STRAIT ISLANDS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is he aware that the Joint Committee on Public Accounts invited the Premier of Queensland, the Honourable Joh Bjelke-Petersen, to forward to it a copy of his official Press release and a submission supporting his statement on the subject of alleged mismanagement and wastage of public moneys by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the Torres Strait area? Is he aware also that the Premier forwarded a copy of his Press release but refused to tender a written submission to the Committee supporting his statement? So that we can hear both sides of the argument, can the Minister tell the Senate whether the Islanders have discussed the Premier’s charges? If so, can the Minister tell us what the Islanders themselves said about the controversy ignited by the Premier’s allegations?

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

– I was unaware that such an invitation had been extended to the Premier of Queensland by the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. At the time the Press release of Mr Bjelke-Petersen was made, I said that to my knowledge the information contained in it was not accurate. There are 3 divisions in the Torres Strait Islands. The eastern islands of the Torres Strait had a joint council meeting to reply to the allegations of Mr Bjelke-Petersen. Mr George Mye, the President of the eastern group forwarded a letter to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, signed by him and 17 councillors. They pointed out that much of the information contained in the Premier’s statement was not correct, that he was confused and that practically all he said was incorrect. Mr Bjelke-Petersen ‘s statement that no houses had been built on Darnley Island was incorrect. He had visited that area for the first time in 7 years. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I table the reply of the councillors to the allegations of Mr BjelkePetersen so that it will be available to any honourable senator who desires to see it.

page 1418

APPROPRIATION BILLS

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to statements by Government Ministers that if the Budget Bills are not passed certain Government activities will cease. I ask the Minister: Is it not a fact that a government without money granted by Parliament cannot govern? Is not that simple fact the basis of the practical requirement that a government without Supply, that is without money granted by Parliament, must resign and go to the people?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Of course it does not mean that a government cannot govern if the Appropriation Bills are not passed. The fact is that certain areas of Government and certain areas of expenditure will be affected. That position has been made quite clear. The Government is in the process of making a full appraisal of the effects that this will have. We have heard this morning some instances of what would happen if the present position of the Opposition remained unchanged. To suggest that the Government is incapable of governing because of the non-passage of the Appropriation Bills just is not in accordance with reality. The Government is quite able to continue governing, despite the hardship that will be created for so many people in the community as a result of the Opposition’s attitude.

page 1418

QUESTION

CLOSURE OF SMALL BUSINESSES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Has his attention been drawn to reports of the growing number of bankruptcies among small businesses in Australia? Can the Minister confirm that the number of close-downs of small businesses in Australia is estimated at between 58 000 and 60 000 each year? Does the Minister agree that such a trend constitutes a threat to the economy as well as to the style and quality of Australian life? If so, when can we expect a Government response to the serious needs imposed by this situation?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is a well known fact of the economy that most small businesses- a very high proportion of them- eventually go bankrupt or go out of business. Only a small proportion of what is generally classed as small businesses survive over the years. The present situation is only marginally different from that which would obtain under normal economic conditions. There is no evidence to suggest that there is any abnormality about the closing of small businesses at the present time. It has been a continuing trend throughout our economy for many years for the bulk of small businesses to find themselves in very great difficulties after a short time.

page 1418

QUESTION

COST OF CAR TRANSPORT

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer to the answer supplied to my question No. 796 by the Minister yesterday. I was referred to a list of the costs of car transport for Ministers, Opposition office holders and former office holders for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 which was set out in the House of Representatives Hansard of 1 October. 1 ask the Minister: Does this not show that the cost of providing the new Leader of the Opposition with car transport from 21 March 1975 to 30 June 1975 has been $12,777? Does this not mean that on a 7-day week basis the Leader of the Opposition, who claims to stand for a reduction in Government spending, is costing the taxpayers in car expenses $ 1 30 a day, a rate which is higher than that of any Minister of the Crown? Will the Minister assure the Senate that in the event of a continuing constitutional and financial crisis, caused by the Senate refusing supply, action will be taken to reduce excesses of” this” nature by the Leader of the Opposition who is known to be financially well endowed?

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

-As I recall them, the figures quoted by Senator Gietzelt are correct. I do not have them in front of me. I have been talking to the Minister for Administrative Services about the whole effect of the situation through which we are going. I am assured by the Minister that the actions of the Liberal-National Country Party Opposition could necessitate further reductions in the facilities available, including those available to the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition office holders.

page 1419

QUESTION

AUSTRALIANS IN BEIRUT

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is any action being taken to ensure the safety of the lives of Australian Government employees in Beirut? Has consideration been given to withdrawing the officers and their families to a safe area?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I shall give a few words on the background. We regret very much the fighting which recently reached another peak in Beirut. We realise that the trouble is an internal affair for Lebanon. We hope that an arrangement may soon be reached between the conflicting parties which will restore peace and allow Lebanon to continue to play its useful independent role in the Middle East. The fighting in Beirut has made it very difficult for the Australian Embassy to deal with the consular inquiries which it has received about the welfare of Australians in Lebanon. These inquiries will be answered just as soon as circumstances permit the Embassy to make contact with the people involved. Australians are still advised not to travel to Beirut except on necessary business. That is the general background.

In relation to the specific matters raised by Senator Marriott, I point out that about 10 days ago we were very worried about the situation in Beirut. We got our Embassy to confer with Great Britain, the United States and Canada- all of us have nationals there- to try to co-ordinate and to keep in touch with one another’s thinking. We have authorised the Ambassador to evacuate our people where he thinks fit, should this be necessary. Generally this means that women and children go first and then there is a cutting down of the Embassy staff until the very last moment. I have been criticised at times in relation to some of the Embassies I have evacuated. I take the stand that when a place gets completely out of control and when an Embassy cannot carry out its normal functions such as news gathering, and when it cannot put the point of view of the Government of the home country, it should be evacuated. In those circumstances I believe it is not right to endanger the life and limb of Australians working of necessity for us there. The situation seems to have quietened down a little bit since we had those talks about 10 days ago. But the arrangements remain. The Ambassador will be able to use his own discretion and also, will be able to keep in touch with the 3 other countries I have mentioned.

page 1419

QUESTION

RAIL STANDARDISATION

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Transport indicate when it is expected that the standardisation of the railway line from Adelaide to Port Pirie will be completed? Can the Minister also say how much will be spent on this project this financial year? What effect will there be on the project if the Appropriation Bills are not passed?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The expected completion date is five or six years hence. Of course, how much can be expended this financial year depends on the passage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) which provides $5 1.9m for Australian National Railways capital works. As this project is a very important one for South Australia, obviously everybody is expecting that we will be able to get the Appropriation Bill passed to allow the work to continue.

page 1419

APPROPRIATION BILLS

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Why did the Prime Minister in 1974, at just a threat from the Senate to stop supply, rush to a double dissolution election, yet under almost identical circumstances this time, with the actual delaying of Supply, the Prime Minister finds the excuse of a very great constitutional question to prevent his going to an election on this occasion? Is it not a fact that the reason for the difference in opinion is that in 1974 the Prime Minister felt that the Government had a chance of re-election but that on this occasion he feels that the Government will be decimated if he goes to the country? Further, is it not a fact that despite the claims about the great return of the Government at the double dissolution election, the Government was returned in the House of Representatives with a reduced overall majority, and with very small majorities in some electorates, and that in this Senate, which was elected by the same electors, the Government did not secure a majority?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– We heard the same sort of talk early in 1974, and we know how that result came out. The answer to the first part of Senator Wood’s question is simply that the Prime Minister like any other Prime Minister will exercise his own judgment in the circumstances.

page 1420

QUESTION

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Special Minister of State as the Minister responsible to the Government for the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Did the Acting Commonwealth Statistician announce last week that he would be releasing at 1 1 a.m. today details of the consumer price index for the September quarter of 1975? If this is true, is the Minister in a position to give some information to the Senate about the Statistician’s figures?

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

– I received a note from the Statistician this morning in relation to the consumer price index for the September quarter. The bulletin, together with the monthly food group bulletin, will be handed to the Press Gallery in Canberra at 10.45 a.m. today for publication at or after 1 1 a.m. For the 6 State capital cities the consumer price index showed an increase of 0.8 per cent from the June quarter 1975 to the September quarter 1975. Decreases in the health services section of the index associated with the introduction of Medibank for medical services in all cities and for hospital services in all cities except Sydney and Brisbane have had a marked effect on the total index for this quarter. Price changes for these services have continued to be measured on the basis of estimated net prices as payable by householders. The price falls on medical and hospital services substantially offset, and in some cities more than offset, increases in most other sections of the index. For the weighted average of the 6 State capital cities the increase for all sections, other than medical and hospital services, was 2.9 per cent.

The index has shown an increase of 12.1 per cent between the September quarter of 1 974 and the September quarter of 1975. Movements in the index are shown and described in greater detail in paragraphs 14 and 1 5 and in the table of sub-group index numbers on page 9 of the bulletin. It should be noted that the effects of various tax measures introduced in the August 1975 Budget will not be reflected in the index until the December quarter 1975. These include the increase in duty on beer, potable spirits and cigarettes and tobacco, and an increase in the petroleum levy. Price changes associated with the introduction of the hospital section of Medibank in Sydney and Brisbane will also be reflected in the December quarter 1975 index.

page 1420

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy: Do the records of the Minister’s Department on overseas loans disclose that the Government decided to disguise the massive commission and brokerage fees, including those to Mr Khemlani, in substantially higher interest rates in order to avoid the necessity of seeking an appropriation through the Parliament to pay Mr Khemlani direct? Since the basic details of the Executive Council decision and the terms of the proposed loans of that time must be within the current knowledge of the Minister, does he deny that such a deception was planned? Does not this proposed arrangement, recently confirmed by Mr Khemlani in Australia and not denied by the Government, prove that the Prime Minister gravely deceived the Australian Parliament in saying that not a penny was proposed to be due to Mr Khemlani?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I ask that the question be placed on notice.

page 1420

QUESTION

EXPENDITURE IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. Has it been necessary to effect economies and impose restraints in the Australian Capital Territory because of the danger of funds becoming unavailable to pay for essential services? If so, is there anything that can be done to reduce hardships as much as possible for the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The failure of the Opposition to pass the Appropriations Bills imposes very serious problems on the Australian Capital

Territory. In order to conserve the funds the Minister for the Capital Territory has organised, in co-operation with the Department of the Capital Territory and his other Ministers, a constant review of those activities in relation to which expenditure can be controlled, such as transport, cleaning, information and community services, consumption of petrol and such things. The main issue, of course, is related to the payment of salaries to all the public servants who live in the Australian Capital Territory. A serious state of uncertainty and concern is rapidly emerging, as everyone can see from the resolutions passed by the Public Service organisations. We feel that those people will really remember for a long time what the Opposition is doing.

page 1421

QUESTION

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

-Is the Special Minister of State able to supply further information with regard to the September quarter movements in the consumer price index, which were the basis of his answer to a previous question? The information which he gave earlier is unclear to me in that he said that the weighted average is a 2.9 per cent movement. I seek clarification as to what effect on the consumer price index the health services and medical costs component has had. Is the Minister able to give information as to what would have been the movement in the consumer price index if the health services and medical costs component had not been taken into account in the manner which he has outlined?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDAccording to the Statistician, the movement in medical and hospital services was taken into account, and that explains the reason for the increase of 0.8 per cent from the June quarter of 1975 to the September quarter of 1975. If that movement had not been taken into account, as it has been taken into account, then, as the Statistician said, the increase in the weighted average for the 6 State capital cities would have been 2.9 per cent. Because those things were taken into account, as they always are taken into account, on this occasion the increase is 0.8 per cent. I have not had time to study in detail the bulletin which has been given to me; I have been provided with those details only.

page 1421

QUESTION

LOSS OF HELICOPTER

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence been drawn to the loss of a Royal Australian Navy Sea King helicopter near Jervis Bay earlier this week? Are efforts being made to recover the helicopter and will such efforts be successful? Has the Minister any information to give the Senate as to the cause of the accident?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The information that I have received is that it is believed that the reason for the ditching of the aircraft on Tuesday was the total loss of transmission oil pressure. At the present time efforts are being made to recover the aircraft so that the crash can be thoroughly investigated. All 4 crew members were rescued without injury by another Sea King helicopter that was flying in company with the ditched aircraft. Two ships, the HMAS Derwent and a minehunter, HMAS Snipe are in the area. It is hoped to locate the aircraft soon although the depth of the water is 35 fathoms. It is intended that when the aircraft is located the 2 vessels that I have mentioned will lift the aircraft. Divers will accompany the operation.

page 1421

PETROLEUM AND MINERALS AUTHORITY BILL

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Does the Government intend to reintroduce the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill? If so, when is it likely to do so?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The answer to the honourable senator’s question is yes, and I would hope within two or three weeks- possibly less than that.

page 1421

QUESTION

POSTAL AND TELEPHONE CHARGES

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the PostmasterGeneral seen an editorial in yesterday’s West Australian which alleges that increases in postal and telephone charges bear more heavily on country residents? Is the allegation correct or does the record show that postal and telephone expenditure per capita in the cities is higher than in the country, thereby showing that the West Australian is maintaining its normal standard of editorial bigotry and error?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I have seen the figures that have been taken out now on the matter and they indicate a trend in the direction that Senator Walsh suggests. I think that it would be better if I produced the report on Tuesday and tabled it in the Senate.

page 1421

APPROPRIATION BILLS

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– As the Leader of the Government in the Senate has now acknowledged that the Senate has in the past rejected money Bills, will he advise the Prime Minister of this truth and ask the Prime Minister to stop misleading the Parliament and the people?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I have nothing to add to the numerous answers I have given to very similar questions. I think that it is just a waste of the time of the Senate.

page 1422

QUESTION

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I draw the Minister’s attention to the recent Heathrow Airport tests involving decibel readings of Concorde aircraft take-offs and landings. How do these readings square up with the readings taken during the Australian tests? Do major Australian airports permit a higher degree of aircraft engine noise than their British counterparts?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– Yes, I saw the report. Also, Senator Mulvihill directed my attention to it and asked whether I could get some information from the 2 Ministers involved. I think everybody knows that the Australian Department of Transport conducted noise level tests during the recent trials of the Concorde aircraft in Australia. My colleague, the Minister for Transport, expects that the results of these tests will be published at the end of the month. Of course, the responsibility rests with the British Aircraft Corporation to provide a comprehensive environmental impact statement. This will be considered by our Department of Environment. I understand that the Heathrow tests are a source of concern to Mr Berinson, the Minister for Environment, and that he expects that the impact statement will cover results of both the Australian and the British noise level tests.

page 1422

QUESTION

RED SCHEME

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows similar questions that have been asked concerning the Regional Employment Development scheme. I have received many inquiries following the Minister’s reply concerning the phasing out of this scheme from local government authorities and other organisations in rural and industrial areas of South Australia. Is the Minister aware that the Premier of South Australia has asked the Prime Minister to reconsider the decision to discount this scheme? Has the Prime Minister or the Treasurer replied to the Premier? If so, is the Minister able to give any details concerning this reply?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-No, I am not aware of the communication from the South Australian Premier. I will need to refer the question to either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer to see what the position is.

page 1422

QUESTION

BEEF PRODUCTION

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture seen recent Press reports on beef production which show an increase for the September quarter this year of some 140 000 tonnes over production for the same quarter of last year? Does this indicate that export markets are re-opening for this commodity and leading to increased prices for beef at district sales?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– No, I have not seen those figures, but they are not surprising because there has been a quite dramatic increase in the number of cattle in Australia and naturally the output of beef will continue to increase whilst the number of beef cattle increases. But it does seem that the cattle population is peaking at a time when the market is rising. As Senator Primmer correctly points out, the better market prospects of which I gave some information to the Senate yesterday would suggest that producers almost certainly are bringing more of their cattle onto the market in anticipation of the improving market conditions.

page 1422

QUESTION

FREQUENCY MODULATION RADIO STATIONS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Media: Is it not a fact that the Minister for the Media intends to issue more frequency modulation and AM radio licences very shortly? If this is so, is this not the Government’s method of trying to use the airwaves on its terms before the decision on the legality or otherwise of some of these licences is made public? Is it also a fact that some of these new FM licences will be issued to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and are not included in the previously announced 28 new AM and FM ABC stations authorised by the Government? If it is a fact, is this not the Government’s way of saturating the FM channels and the market for FM broadcasting so excluding the opportunity for commercial radio to have FM licences which is in line with the Australian Labor Party policy announced at the Terrigal conference?

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

– I am informed by my colleague, the PostmasterGeneral, that the Minister for the Media, Dr Cass, provided Senator Young, in his capacity as Opposition spokesman on the media, with a report that Dr Cass had received from a working party he had established to report to him on the establishment of public broadcasting stations. Senator Young has an advantage over me in that he has seen the report and I have not.

Senator Young:

– 1 am not dealing with the report. I am dealing with the issue shortly of new licences.

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

– I am assuming that the matters referred to by Senator Young are dealt with in that report. Apart from that, I do not know of any Government decision taken as yet to extend the range of additional frequency modulation stations. The matter certainly has not come to Cabinet and is beyond my comprehension at this stage. All I can suggest is that the honourable senator place the question on the notice paper.

page 1423

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF POLICE AND CUSTOMS

Senator MELZER:

-Can the Minister for Police and Customs please advise the Senate as to the continuity of his Department’s computer service, bearing in mind that the Minister recently advised the Senate that his departmental funds would expire on 27 November unless the Appropriation Bills were passed prior to that date? Could the Minister also advise what effects there would be if the Department of Police and Customs computer system ceased to operate?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I think my previous answer was to the effect that money for salaries would expire on 27 November. As I stated in that answer, there had been much tightening up in other expenditure long before the present situation existed. The computer has been one of the most effective improvements in the Department in handling the movement of cargo and passengers in Australia. If it becomes impossible to use the computer- I think its use is somewhat reduced at the present time- it will put us back to the manual examination of all documents of passengers arriving and departing at international airports and on ships. That would cause a considerable delay in a procedure which has been speeded up by the use of the computer.

The manual clearance of cargo and the administration of import quotas will cause congestion at both wharves and airports. Those for whom we provide a service with the computer, such as the Industries Assistance Commission, the Prices Justification Tribunal and the Department of Overseas Trade, will have to suffer the consequences if that happens. We hope that this is one of the things that will not be necessary. The new system that we are putting on the computer will be in jeopardy or will have to be suspended. So serious hardship will be caused at this stage if the computer is not used. There is also the fact that the employment of a large amount of additional manpower will be necessary to do the work that the computer does now, but that will not be possible in the present financial position. That would mean untold delays at airports and wharves.

page 1423

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Did the Supply Bills that were passed in the Senate several months ago provide for sufficient Supply to allow Government services to continue to 30 November? Did they also include a record amount of $240m for emergency needs in the Advance to the Treasurer? If inflation is ‘controlled’, why does the Government now claim that Supply will run out in the first week of November?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I would not attempt to rationalise the arguments in that question. It is true that the amount of $2 40m was nominated as the Advance to the Treasurer. The inflation rate, as we have learned this morning, has come down very dramatically. I would need to refer the question to the Treasurer in order to obtain a studied answer to it.

page 1423

QUESTION

MALAYSIAN PRIME MINISTER

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the considerable publicity given to the student demonstrations against Tun Abdul Razak, can the Minister tell the Senate what is the Government’s attitude to those demonstrations?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– We were glad to welcome to Australian such a distinguished regional and Commonwealth statesman as Tun Abdul Razak. What on the whole was a very successful visit was marred on occasions by unruly demonstrations that were conducted by a small but vocal minority of students. The Government deplores those demonstrations.

page 1423

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

-Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs agree that public information about the confused position in East Timor and the source of the present conflict there is inadequate. What, if anything, is the Government doing to inform the public as to the present situation? Is the Government relieved at the lack of information as it enables it to avoid making or expressing any firm judgments? Notwithstanding this paucity of information, is it not still patently clear that the Indonesian authorities are using this cloak of obscurity to hide their militant support for defeated UDT and Apodeti groups, thus causing further deaths and distress in East Timor and the postponement of any settlement?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I regret that Senator Missen has put in that we were relieved not to have information on this situation. The sort of information that we are getting is, unfortunately, being exaggerated on one side and played down on the other. So it is very hard to accept at face value a lot of the evidence that we are getting. It is now well over 12 months since I first started talking to Dr Mario Soares at the United Nations. The situation has gone through a lot of stages. There have been some very unfortunate stages in which I think a lot of the parties have acted very unwisely. If cool could have been maintained and the original Portuguese idea had been followed of first setting up a constituent assembly, moving into a parliamentary situation and then abiding by what the Timorese people said, and if that could have been allowed to work without interference, I think that would have been the sensible course. In the meantime the Portuguese situation has deteriorated at home. So we have a very difficult situation. At the moment we still have hopes of getting these people to talks although maybe those hopes have faded because of the present situation.

Australia has never been a party principal in the dispute and we have made that clear. I do not think anybody argues with that situation. While there are some hopes of getting talks going, I certainly do not want to be another one exacerbating the situation in Portuguese Timor. I think Senator Missen would agree with me. On the information we have the position is that some Fretilin envoys have left and are travelling through parts of Africa before going to Lisbon. The last information I have is that the Indonesians are prepared to enter into talks with them and with the Democratic Union of TimorUDT. I understand that it has not been clarified whether Apodeti will talk or not.

It is a very difficult and a very sad situation. We are all upset, and nobody more than I, over the disappearance of Australians. When you are in the box seat these things are just not nice to have to deal with. However, while there is any chance at all of talks, as slim as those chances might be and as pessimistic as one might feel in one’s heart about what might come out of those talks, I do not believe that it is the job of Australia sitting on the sidelines to exacerbate the situation in any way. That is as we see it. It is a situation which is changing from day to day and in many ways it is a very sad situation. If there is anything we can do to help we will do it.

We have tried consistently for 12 months to get these people to talks in order to work out the problems with all parties present. We have been trying to get Indonesia ‘s interest in the situation. Whilst the chance of talks is there we should not do anything to ruin it.

page 1424

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I preface it by referring to 2 matters that appeared in yesterday’s Australian. The first is in the leading article which states that Medibank could cost as much as $2 ,000m this financial year. A separate article in the same publication is headed ‘More claims, lower costs’ and advises that between July and September the medical costs of Medibank were lower than estimated. To clarify the matter, can the Minister advise what the correct position is?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-The sort of problem which Senator Keeffe has is something which frequently afflicts readers of the Australian when they find articles which contradict each other on different pages. The statements about the costs of Medibank exceeding what was anticipated are completely untrue. They are arguments which are being put forward not only by the Murdoch Press but also by members of the Opposition. However, the facts contradict what they say and, contrary to their claims, medical benefits under Medibank are costing far less than the estimates which were made in the 1975-76 Budget. The estimated accumulated expenditure from 1 July 1975 to the end of September 1976 was $106m. The actual accumulated expenditure for the same period was $84m which is $22 m or nearly one-quarter less than was estimated. The number of claims under Medibank is more than the Government planned for, but despite there being more claims than we thought there would be the cost has been considerably less than we thought it would be- only about three-quarters of our estimate. This gives the lie to both the Murdoch Press and our opponents in this Parliament.

page 1424

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Last week I asked the Minister whether he recalled a statement by Mr Karidis when he was before the Senate that Mr Khemlani still might be able to raise a loan for the Australian Government. As this was said 2 months after Mr Connor’s authority to raise the loan had been withdrawn, will the Minister agree that this suggests that Mr Khemlani was still negotiating with at least one Australian Minister, which has since been confirmed by Mr Khemlani ‘s telexes and Mr Connor’s sacking? Did the Government or the Prime Minister investigate the matter?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I ask that the question be placed on notice.

page 1425

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, follows his answer to the previous question on Timor in which he showed his concern for the situation there. What efforts have been made in the past 48 hours to establish the fate of the Australian television news teams which were in East Timor? Specifically, through what channels in his Department is he making inquiries? Has an official of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta arrived in Timor?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Senator Sheil may have missed the answer to this yesterday. An official of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta left Jakarta on the evening of 2 1 October for Bali en route to Indonesian Timor. He was to have travelled from Bali to Kupang on 22 October. He has been asked to seek the assistance of the Governor of Indonesian Timor in making contact with the UDT leader, Lopez da Cruz. Mr da Cruz was of course the UDT official reported in the Indonesian Press as having confirmed the sighting of the bodies of four male Europeans in Balibo following capture of that town by UDT/ Apodeti forces. The embassy official is Mr Richard Johnston, Third Secretary at the embassy. He has spent one year at the post as a consular officer, travelling widely in Indonesia, and is at present a member of the Embassy’s Political Section. He speaks Indonesian fluently.

page 1425

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation seen a letter to the editor in the West Austraiian of 22 October from an executive director of a large retailing company about his unsatisfactory experiences with insurance companies? Can the Minister say whether the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation would, as Mr Rosenthal puts it, ‘offer some active competition to existing insurance companies’?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yes, I have seen the letter which appeared in yesterday’s West Australian from a Mr Lindsay Rosenthal who is described as the chief executive director of companies controlling 17 retail jewellery stores. He says that he has always been against centralist

Federal Government but, owing to his unfortunate experiences with private insurance companies, is in favour of the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Corporation because of the competition which it would give. Mr Rosenthal, despite his previous predilections, does have a very correct appreciation of the situation. The Australian Government Insurance Corporation will give the opposition and the competition which he believes should be given and will deal with the sort of things which he raises in his letter, such as the collusion between insurance companies in the fixing of premium rates. That is one of the primary reasons that we wish to establish an Australian Government Insurance Corporation. It is to give competition in the same way as the Commonwealth Bank has given competition in the field of banking.

It does appear that the general insurance companies have been in the habit of setting premium rates in a random manner without professional actuarial advice. Their rates are not fixed actuarially but on what they believe the market can sustain. A check of the premium rates being applied throughout Australia for common householders and home owners policies show a quite extraordinarily wide range between the different companies. There is something clearly wrong with the situation in which this takes place. A substantial proportion of the Australian insurance industry is owned overseas- some 45 per cent of the general insurance industry- and this is another reason why we should be providing the sort of competition which the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will give to the largely foreign owned general insurance companies and life assurance companies in Australia.

page 1425

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO STATION

Senator BAUME:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Media aware that a statement claiming damages for defamation was issued out of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 15 October against a Mr Takis Kaldis, an employee of ethnic radio station 2EA, and against the Commonwealth of Australia? Has the Minister become aware that this action arises out of a broadcast made over 2EA by Mr Kaldis who is an employee of that station? I ask the Minister what procedures exist to monitor material transmitted over ethnic radio to protect the interests of all migrants? Will the Minister cause an investigation to be made into the program objected to and will he ensure that in future adequate supervision of scripts is exercised in advance of their transmission?

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

– I understand from what Senator Baume has said that a writ has been issued out of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. I would suggest therefore that the matter is probably sub judice and one on which I as a Minister of the Crown should not comment. So far as the last aspect of his question is concerned, I would suggest that he might have discussions with Senator Mulvihill and Senator Davidson, who have been placed on the committee by the Australian Government, representing the Government and the Opposition, to take part in the administration of the ethnic radio stations.

page 1426

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE

Senator McAULIFFE:

– Has the Minister for Social Security seen an article in today’s Melbourne Sun which reports that the Budget allocation of $90,000 to the Australian Council of Social Service represents a 75 per cent cut in the amount of funds allocated to ACOSS in the last financial year? Will the Minister advise the Senate whether this report is accurate and whether he will be making more funds available to ACOSS?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-The report is only partly accurate. I have read it. An amount of $90,000 was allocated to the Australian Council of Social Service- or ACOSS, as Senator McAuliffe would call it- in the last Budget. An additional $60,000 has since been approved by the Treasurer to be made available to ACOSS and ACOSS has been advised of this additional grant. This means that there is a total grant to this organisation of $150,000, which is 85.2 per cent of the amount allocated to it last year. That is a reduction but, as I told the Australian Council of Social Service at its annual general meeting, we are in a period where we have to cut back on public expenditure, and the view of the Government- and it is my view- is that if we are cutting back on public expenditure in the field of social welfare it ought to be cut back on advisory bodies rather than in the actual provision of services for aged people’s homes, homes for the blind and things of that nature. I think that if anybody has to take the knock, it ought to be the people who are offering the advice rather than the people who have to live in these institutions.

Despite that fact, ACOSS will still get some 85.2 per cent of what it received last year. So far, however- and this is where the Opposition becomes responsible- a payment of only $22,500 has been made to ACOSS and no further funds can be made available to it until the Opposition passes the Appropriation Bills. So if the Australian Council of Social Service is not receiving any money at the present time, it is solely the responsibility of the Liberal and National Country Parties, and particularly of the members of those Parties who sit in this Senate. A similar report appeared in the Sun 2 weeks ago which gave the unrevised figures. A member of my staff advised the Sun of the additional grant that had been given, but apparently the newspaper ignored that advice and has persisted in providing the misleading misinformation which is repeated in this morning’s edition.

page 1426

THE ROAD ACCIDENT SITUATION IN AUSTRALIA IN 1975

Report

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators, I present a report entitled The Road Accident Situation in Australia in 1975’. Due to the limited number available at this time, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1426

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Report

Senator DONALD CAMERON (South Australia) I bring up the 1 1th report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 1426

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following letter from Senator Greenwood: 22nd October, 1975

In accordance with Standing Order 64, 1 give notice that on Thursday, 23rd October, I shall move:

That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for further inquiry into whether:

  1. there was any agreement between the former Minister for Minerals and Energy and /or the Government and ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd to grant benefits or advantages contrary to the Government’s indigenous Crude Oil Policy to ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd.
  2. there was undue benefit, information or advantage given to ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd or to any of the Directors thereof. ‘

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

Senator Georges:

– I should like to raise a point of order. My point of order is that the subject matter of this letter which you, Mr President, have received from Senator Greenwood is subject to an inquiry by a royal commission. My information is that the royal commission is continuing this inquiry and that subpoenas are to be issued for Mr Hawke and Mr Connor to appear before this royal commission on this very matter. I ask you whether in these circumstances we should be debating the subject matter which may, in some way, influence the commission or prejudice the rights of the persons who are appearing or who are likely to be called before that commission. I ask for your ruling on this matter, Mr President.

Senator Withers:

– I should like to speak to the point of order. I know that there is a long standing convention- certainly a long standing practice- in the Parliament that matters which might be termed sub judice -

Senator Cavanagh:

– Are you going to break another convention?

Senator Withers:

– Stop your yapping. The trouble with Senator Cavanagh is that he is getting used to going back to his former role of being in opposition. He is practising that role at the moment. It is basically a practice of the Parliament not to discuss matters which are before the courts. I use the word ‘courts’ quite deliberately. It is for the protection of an individual whose life, liberty or property might be put at risk by something said in this place, by something which could influence a jury or which could influence others appearing before a jury that this rule generally applies. Senator Georges is talking about a royal commission. To suggest that Mr Justice Collins, who is the royal commissioner inquiring into this matter, is likely to be influenced or to bring down a different decision because’ of the debate which will take place in the Senate does not pay much credit to him. I am certain that Mr Justice Collins, who I think is sitting alone as a royal commissioner, is a judge of great experience and a judge of whom I have heard no criticism.

Senator Georges:

– I am not criticising him.

Senator Withers:

– Well, I doubt very much whether he will be influenced by what is said here. One of the tests that should be applied is whether or not the person who is in charge of the royal commission is likely to be influenced. I think it could be taken as read, even by Senator Georges, that the royal commissioner will not be influenced one way or the other by what is said here in debate. There are many Standing Orders and there are many practices that have been followed in this place, but they have always been interpreted in the sense that there have to be very grave reasons before debate in the Parliament is stifled. We all are aware that there are Standing Orders which state that a senator cannot allude to a debate that has taken place in the same session. The same session, as I understand it, is from the opening of the Parliament to the prorogation of the Parliament. That can last for 3 years. Whilst that might be a standing order of the Senate it is not enforced. Past Presidents of the Senate have ruled that such devices cannot be used to stifle proper debate in the Parliament and the opportunity for honourable senators to raise matters of public importance. I submit that the right of honourable senators to raise matters of public importance is more important than the fact that there might be a royal commission presently sitting, especially a royal commission which is certainly most unlikely to be influenced by a debate which takes place in this Parliament.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise on the point of order and I also ask Senator Georges whether he would be more explicit with regard to his statement that subpoenas have been issued. This matter has been raised today by me because 1 have received information, together with a statutory declaration, from a person who wants this royal commission to continue and who has received merely a formal acknowledgement of his letter and no further information. I believe that before the issues which have been raised by Senator Withers are determined by the President, it is fundamental that there ought to be some clear verification of the fact which is alleged. I am seeking by inquiry, in the time which I hope will be sufficient, to ascertain from the secretary of the commission whether the alleged position is true. If it be true, of course, it raises a factor upon which I would certainly like to consult my colleagues.

Senator Georges:

– May I seek leave to respond in order to make more explicit what I stated?

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Georges:

– What I wish to make explicit is that it is my information that subpoenas are likely to be issued.

Senator Young:

– lt is likely to rain on Sunday.

Senator Georges:

– If the honourable senator wants to take the matter lightly, let me tell him this: Subpoenas are likely to be issued by one of the parties appearing before the commission. That is my information. I put the information clearly before the Senate.

Senator Withers:

– Only the commissioner can issue a subpoena, can he not?

Senator Georges:

– On an application by one of the parties before the Commission. I am not a lawyer. If I have not used the correct terms let me make it clear to the Senate that my information is that an application is likely to be made by one of the parties appearing before the commission for Mr Hawke and Mr Connor to appear before the commission. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) has mentioned, although the commission is not likely to be influenced by what will take place in this debate, I warn the Leader of the Opposition that in previous questions, debates and contributions on this matter by Senator Greenwood reflections have been cast upon the commission. That is likely to occur today. For that reason and on the basis of what I have said, I suggest that this debate ought not to proceed until the matter is clarified. Perhaps it ought to be suggested to those who have information on this matter and who seek further inquiry that the inquiry should take place before the commission and not in the Senate.

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

- Mr President, I wish to speak on the point of order. I feel I should give you some information which I have just been given in my capacity as Minister responsible for royal commissions. I have been advised by an officer of my Department just now that counsel assisting the royal commission advised my Department about an hour ago that subpoenas have been prepared in draft form but that they have not been issued. As far as counsel assisting the commission is concerned, it is his understanding that it is not intended to issue subpoenas unless something exceptional happens.

Senator Wriedt:

– I simply point out that there appears to be an area of doubt because of the matter which has been raised by Senator Georges and particularly by the comment which has been made by Senator Douglas McClelland who is the Minister responsible for royal commissions. 1 have some concern that if the Senate proceeds with a debate it could prejudice other persons at some later stage. I think the Senate needs to exercise considerable care before it proceeds, unless honourable senators are quite sure in their own minds that that prejudice could not occur at some future time.

Senator Webster:

– It is quite interesting how matters arise in the Senate. We are advised in relation to the present matter under review that the Special Minister of State (Senator Douglas McClelland) had information an hour ago or that some officers had information an hour ago.

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

– It was given to me a minute ago.

Senator Webster:

– I thought the Minister had indicated that the information had come to him an hour ago. I am sorry if I have not indicated correctly so far as the Minister is concerned.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! We do not want the matter debated. It is just the point of order that is under discussion.

Senator Webster:

- Mr President, in this case it is important to note that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Greenwood) indicated that he wished to debate a matter of urgency, that apparently some honourable senators were aware of information which had been given to them some little time go, and that they did not wish to give that information to the Senate until Opposition senators stood up and attempted to have a matter of urgency debated. After consultation with my colleagues, and here I express my own opinion at the moment, that if the situation is that the royal commission will call before it members of Parliament or Mr Hawke or other people who may have been involved in this matter, I would prefer that the royal commission continued to investigate instead of this debate continuing. But again I refer to the fact that it was only while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was on his feet that this situation arose.

When Senator Georges first raised this matter my understanding was that he said a situation had occurred and that subpoenas had been issued. We now learn that subpoenas have not been issued. I acknowledge that the first reference could have been a slip of the tongue. If the situation is as the Special Minister of State has indicated- and I believe he said that there is no intention of these subpoenas being issue.d unless something important occurs- I think it is incumbent upon the Opposition to ensure that something important does occur because this matter is one of the most important issues with which this Senate will have to deal. So I say at this time that if I can get an assurance that the royal commission will undertake a full inquiry in relation to this matter, I will be pleased if no debate occurs. But if that is not the situation, I believe that the debate should proceed.

Senator Everett:

- Mr President, I speak briefly on the point of order in the hope that I can assist. I believe that the Senate should approach this matter from a completely non-political viewpoint at this stage and should consider the general propriety of what the Senate proposes to do. It has been stated this morning on the point of order that the royal commission is unlikely to be influenced by any public discussion on this matter of urgency in the Senate chamber today, but I suggest that that is not the only consideration. The point is that witnesses- there could be very many of them- might be calculated to be influenced by the public discussion of this matter in the Senate today and by on-going media comment in relation to the discussion. The Government Minister in charge of a debate on this matter in the House of Representatives on 7 October 1975 stated- as reported on page 1747 of Hansard of that date- when referring to persons who wanted some further inquiry into this matter: . . should go to tomorrow’s meeting of the Royal Commission and give evidence. We invite them to do so. We are prepared to offer them counsel because it appears that they need it.

The latter few words were a political comment. So an express invitation was given by the Government in the Parliament more than a fortnight ago to the persons who were critical of the Government and of other persons involved in this matter to appear before the royal commission to give evidence. The Government went so far as to say that it would offer them counsellegal aid. In those circumstances I submit that although there is no absolute rule, it would not be proper for the Senate to embark on a discussion of this matter when the way is open for anyone involved to appear before the royal commission either personally or through counsel.

I invite your attention, Mr President, to the extremely wide terms of reference of the Commission. They were announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 12 September 1973 and will be generally familiar to you, Sir, and to other honourable senators. The terms of reference are extremely wide. It was fortuitous that when this matter arose there was in existence a properly constituted royal commission to deal with this very matter. I admit that that was fortuitous, but that is the fact. I refer to page 1 745 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 7 October 1 975 where it is recorded that the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Lionel Bowen) said that immediately the matter was raised- it was first raised before the Royal Commission on 30 August- counsel contacted the Minister at that time. The Minister arranged for counsel to see him on the morning of the following day, Saturday. 31 August. The Minister asked counsel to seek from the Commission an urgent report on all the circumstances of the transaction that is embraced within the terms on the matter of public importance.

So that at all times since 30 August the Royal Commission has been seized of all the matters that are involved in this motion. It will be noted that all that the motion seeks to do is to have some further inquiry. The terms of the motion refer to the need for further inquiry into whether certain things happened. That inquiry exists by letters patent issued by the Governor-General in September 1973. In a matter in relation to which there can be some doubt, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) said, I would submit that all the facts that I have put to you indicate that the proper course for the Senate to take- and I do not understand that Senator Webster is putting any contrary view- is to leave this matter where it properly and lawfully resides. Anyone who wishes to appear before the Commission- Senator Greenwood has said that he has received a statutory declaration from a person who wishes to be a witness- can appear before the Commission and have counsel paid for, subject to the passage of the Appropriation Bills, by the Australian Government. In those circumstances, I submit, a doubtful case becomes a very strong case. I submit that the Senate ought not to run the risk of treading over the borders into a judicial atmosphere; it should keep itself as clear as possible from that. It is not just the judge who constitutes the Royal Commission who is involved in this matter; it is also potential witnesses.

For those reasons I submit that the case now becomes clear and that the attitude of Senator Webster, who expressed a principle with which I completely agree if one sheds from it the political overtones, should be accepted and that the Senate ought to decline to debate this matter.

Senator Wright:

– May I just -

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you speaking on the point of order, Senator Wright?

Senator Wright:

– Yes, on the point of order. I rise to ask Senator Everett whether he will remind us of the date upon which that statement was made about the provision of counsel.

Senator Everett:

– I respond to the invitation: It was on 7 October 1975 by the Minister in charge of the matter in the House of Representatives.

Senator Wright:

– That would appear to be after the report of the Royal Commission.

Senator Everett:

– The House of Representatives was debating the report of the Royal Commission on a matter of public importance raised by the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony).

Senator Wright:

– The other thing which would influence me very much in the matter is whether that offer of the provision of counsel is still available and an assurance that the Royal Commission will be available to hear counsel appearing for the parties to be represented. In view of the intimation that started with the suggestion of Senator Georges, which was a little qualified by Senator Douglas McClelland, and now with the intervention of Senator Everett with a reference to a particular record on the matter of summary responsibility, I just respectfully offer the suggestion that the Senate might take a little time to see whether or not the Government adheres to its undertaking and assures us that the Royal Commission is available for audience.

Senator Withers:

- Mr President, I do not know whether I can speak twice to the same point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– You may seek leave to do so.

Senator Withers:

– Very well. I seek leave to speak again to the point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Withers:

– I think that the proposition put by Senator Wright is reasonable. We have a procedural problem as I understand it. I do not know whether there is any method of adjourning the urgency motion to a later hour this day.

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

– Withdraw it.

Senator Withers:

– No, that is not necessarily the course to follow. Senator Wright has put forward a certain proposition, which I think is fair and reasonable, flowing out of Senator Everett’s statement that certain undertakings were given in the other House on certain matters. I know that one cannot expect either Senator Douglas McClelland, as the Minister in charge of royal commissions, or Senator Wriedt as the Minister for Minerals and Energy to substantiate fully that undertaking forthwith. It would be quite unreasonable to expect that. Perhaps we can come back to the matter after lunch when they have had time to consult with their colleagues. I do not know who the Minister was in the other place -

Senator Everett:

– It was Mr Lionel Bowen, the Minister for Manufacturing Industry.

Senator Withers:

– I imagine that if there was some opportunity for consultation between Mr Lionel Bowen, Senator Wriedt and Senator Douglas McClelland, most probably some assurance could be given as to what the present position is. We would have an opportunity if we resumed discussion on the matter at, say, 2.15 p.m. to say whether we accepted the offer made by the Government or to indicate a desire to proceed. I do not think that that is an unreasonable proposition if we can find some way around the Standing Orders to do it. In the meantime, the other business could be called on. I think that there is new knowledge in what Senator Everett has said and in the proposition put forward by Senator Wright. I think it is only fair and reasonable that the Government ought to be given an opportunity to consider the matters put forward. We can have a look at them in the meantime. Perhaps I could ask for leave that consideration of Senator Greenwood’s letter be stood over and that the matter be called on at 2. 1 5 p.m. this day.

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

– Why not call it on at a later hour?

Senator Withers:

– I think that a set time of 2. 1 5 p.m. would get us over the lunch hour.

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

– I do not know but there might be some difficulties in getting in touch with the royal commission.

Senator Withers:

– I think that we could come back to the matter at that stage. I would put down a set time so that atleast we can come back to it.

Senator Wriedt:

– Make it a later hour but before 3 o ‘clock.

Senator Withers:

– We could do it that way. Mr President, I ask for leave to stand over the consideration of the letter of Senator Greenwood until a later hour this day but not later than 3 p.m.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WEBSTER:

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement on this matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WEBSTER:

– I comment to the Senate on what I believe was the point taken by Senator Wright. It was that the offer of the Government was for individuals to appear before the Royal Commission on Petroleum and for counsel to be provided. As I understand it, that is the assurance that Senator Wright is seeking. I wish to read from the Hansard record to indicate that there may be some little misunderstanding as to what the Government offered. I shall read from page 1746 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 7 October 1975. We will understand from this the real assurances of the Government. It appears to me that perhaps they were not as purported. Mr Lionel Bowen, speaking in regard to the Royal Commission on Petroleum, said:

There would have been no benefit to anyone in Australia, to anyone in the Australian Council of Trade Unions or anybody in general. Members of the Opposition who are making accusations and maligning members of the royal commission and denigrating members of the judiciary should go to tomorrow’s meeting of the Royal Commission and give evidence. We invite them to do so. We are prepared to offer them counsel because it appears that they need it.

Mr President, I put it to you that that puts quite a different complexion on those to whom the Government will give support at the royal commission.

page 1431

QUESTION

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

-Is Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Devitt, for the disallowance of regulations and by-laws formal or not formal?

Senator Devitt:

– Not formal.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is notice of motion No. 3, standing in the name of Senator Devitt, for the disallowance of sections of an Australian Capital Territory ordinance formal or not formal?

Senator Devitt:

– Not formal. Mr President, I ask for leave to make a statement relating to the notices of motion standing in my name.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-The first notice of motion is for the disallowance of 3 bylaws contained in the Telecommunications (General) By-laws, made under the Telecommunications Act 1975. By-law 31 provided that the Commission or any of its employees would not be liable for any damage or injury which might result by reason of the installation of telecommunications equipment in a subscriber’s premises, and that where the subscriber is not the owner of the premises he should indemnify the Commission against any damage or injury which might be caused. By-law 32 provided that the subscriber was liable for any loss of, or damage to, telecommunications equipment installed on his premises. By-law 33 provided that this liability applied notwithstanding that the loss or damage to the equipment was not due to the act or default of the subscriber.

The Regulations and Ordinances Committee regarded these provisions as an undue infringement of the rights and liberties of the citizen. Although it was acceptable some years ago to confer immunity of this nature upon statutory bodies, it is now regarded as not in accordance with accepted standards. The Committee considered that the liability of the subscriber ought to be limited to cases where loss or damage to equipment was caused by his negligence and there ought not to be unlimited liability imposed by the by-law. The Committee put these views to the Postmaster-General and to the Telecommunications Commission. The Commission has now amended by-law 31 so as to remove the immunity of the Commission, and has repealed by-law 33. The Commission has also agreed to repeal by-law 32 and to replace it with a new by-law limiting the liability of the subscriber to cases of negligence.

In view of these steps taken by the Commission, I withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name. On behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee I thank the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) for his readily given assistance in this matter, and for his ready appreciation of the point of view of the Committee.

Notices of motion Nos 2 and 3 relate to matters concerning which the Committee has not yet concluded its inquiry. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is Government business, notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, relating to a variation of times of meeting of the Senate, formal or not formal?

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

– Formal.

page 1431

TIMES OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

1 ) That unless otherwise ordered, the times of meeting of the Senate next week shall be as follows:

page 1431

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

– I move:

Order of the day No. 3 relates to the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation Bill 1975. In normal circumstances, Mr President, it would be the Government’s desire to bring on for debate forthwith the Appropriation Bills and Loan Bills (No. 1 ) and (No. 2) in orders of the day but, because of the matter that has now arisen over the proposed urgency motion, Senator Wriedt and I shall be engaged on other pursuits until about 3 p.m. Therefore, it is my desire that intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of Government Business, order of the day No. 3. I also intend to move that Government business take precedence over general business after 3 p.m. this day.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition does not oppose those motions. Basically I am here because my colleague, Senator Durack, has gone to get his file for the next Bill. I think that what the Manager of Government Business (Senator Douglas McClelland) has put forward in this chamber is a sensible proposition. If the Government wants to deal with its Bill on the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation and to give it priority, it ought to be entitled to do so. That is not something about which we should be concerned. When my colleague, Senator Durack, comes back he will put down our views on that Bill. As to general business, Mr President, we have no objection to government business taking precedence this afternoon. We hope that by that time the position of the matter of urgency which my colleague, Senator Greenwood, hopes to promote, will be resolved. I think the motions put down by the Manager of Government Business are sensible and they are supported by the Opposition.

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

– in reply- Mr President, I appreciate the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) concerning the proposed order of business of the Senate today. As I mentioned, it is the Government’s desire to have the Appropriation Bills and the Loan Bills dealt with and disposed of- I would hope successfully- today. But Senator Greenwood has given notice of the discussion of a matter of urgency and matters arose earlier this morning about which you, Mr President, are now aware. As a result, Senator Wriedt, who is handling the business on behalf of the Government, will necessarily be out of the chamber with me for some time. That being so, the Government has decided to proceed with the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation Bill. I now note that Senator Durack is in the chamber.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1432

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That, unless otherwise ordered, Government business take precedence of general business after 3 p.m. this day.

page 1432

AUSTRALIAN OVERSEAS TRADING CORPORATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 October on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– When the debate on this Bill was adjourned on Tuesday evening I was referring to some statements made by the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean) in his second reading speech regarding the consultations which had taken place with the State governments and with business organisations in regard to the proposed law. I pointed out that the State governments had not by any means unanimously supported the measure and, in fact, 2 State governmentsthe Western Australian Government and the New South Wales Government- were not even present at the discussions that the Minister had had with the States. As far as business organisations are concerned, there seems to be a very widespread opposition to the measure. Indeed, the consensus amongst the business organisations concerned is clearly that the measure should be defeated. I quote from a letter addressed to the Minister from the Australian Manufacturers Export Council, a copy of which has been sent to me. The letter states:

All in all, there has been a further hardening of attitudes on the part of the two constituent members who have always been totally opposed to the proposal. … All this created doubt amongst the other members and gave rise to the recommendation for withdrawal or at least deferment of the Bill for twelve months.

The measure has always been strongly opposed by the chambers of commerce throughout Australia. I think the opinion of the Chamber of Manufactures of Australia is probably the most impressive of all because the interests of small manufacturers in Australia is one of the arguments put forward in favour of the Bill. Although the Associated Chambers of Manufactures sought a number of amendments to the Bill, some of which the Government accepted in another place, its final view is that the Bill should be opposed and the Director-General of that organisation has written to me accordingly. I think I should quote the views of another important organisation, the Australia-China Business

Co-operation Committee because, again, one of the major arguments in favour of this Bill is the need to encourage Australia’s trade with what have been called the ‘centrally planned economies’ or the communist nations. One may have thought that a body that is expert in trading with a centrally planned economy such as China would be one whose views should be sought. Certainly that organisation has expressed in no uncertain terms its opposition to the Bill. It states in a letter to me:

We do not believe that the proposed corporation could materially improve trading relations or practices between Australia and other nations, whether they be democratic economies or centrally planned economies.

So it is clear that the measure is not supported generally by business organisations, although one or two may support it and certain individual manufacturers may support it. But, as I have said, the overwhelming consensus amongst businessmen and their organisations, particularly amongst manufacturers, is that the Bill is not helpful to Australia’s trade, it is not helpful to them and indeed it should be withdrawn or at least deferred.

I want to turn specifically to the points made by the Government in support of the Bill. The Government claims that the Bill is desirable, or indeed necessary, to improve Australia’s trade with the centrally planned economies, whether they be the communist countries or not, although most of them are communist. The other argument is that the Bill will assist us with export to Middle East oil exporting countries. It is not clear why they are to be in a different category. The indication is that those countries also trade in the same way as the communist countries, namely, on a government to government basis and that therefore Australia needs to have a government trading body to deal with them. So the argument in favour of the Bill in regard to the Middle East countries seems to be much the same as the argument in regard to the centrally planned economies.

As far as that case for the Bill is concerned, I think there are some important comments that should be made upon it. Firstly, I have already quoted the opinion of the Australia-China Business Co-operation Committee, which is an expert body in trading with a centrally planned economy. As can be seen from the quotation that I have made from its letter to me that body does not accept the Government’s argument and is, indeed, opposed to the measure. The fact is, of course, that Australia has been trading for many years with centrally planned economies.

Senator Cotton:

– And successfully.

Senator DURACK:

– And, as Senator Cotton has said, Australia has been successfully trading with them. In fact, the greater part of our trade with those countries is in bulk commodities, particularly agricultural commodities, and this trading corporation is not, by its own terms, going to interfere in any way with Australia’s trade which is conducted by these marketing bodies- in particular, of course, the Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Meat Board and the Australian Wool Marketing Corporation. Australia’s trade with those countries in those commodities is now and has been for many years largely conducted by those boards and this Bill has no impact on that. Indeed, there is a clause in the Bill which specifically prevents the corporation from interfering with trade conducted by marketing corporations unless those marketing corporations specifically request it to do so.

Apart from the trade that has been carried on with the centrally planned economies or in countries which desire to trade by way of or through government agencies, the fact of the matter is that many individual Australian traders have been engaged in trade with those countries. Those countries are themselves well versed in trade with the free economies of the world. Although they may trade through a government monopoly of one sort or another they understand that when they are trading with the free economies- the Western style economies throughout the world- they must do in Rome what Rome does. They are perfectly well versed in what happens and are prepared to trade on the same basis as we wish to trade.

Other major trading nations of the world which have been trading with the centrally planning economies have not set up their own government body in order to do so. One has not been adopted by the United States of America or Japan. I believe that even Canada has not set up a body such as is proposed in this Bill. They have certainly set up bodies which assist with the marshalling of funds and so forth, but they are a different type of organisation altogether. The American Export-Import Bank is an organisation that is concerned with marshalling funds for the purposes of trade and is not itself a trader as this Bill proposes Australia should adopt in the shape of this overseas trading corporation. As I have said, there is plenty of precedent for trade being conducted with the centrally planned economies by private traders. It is being done in other parts of the world and it is being done in Australia. There is no reason why we need to have a government corporation to carry it out.

The other argument put forward by the Government in support of the Bill is that it will give assistance to the small manufacturers. There is no need to set up a government trading corporation to assist the small manufacturers with their export trade. Indeed, many small manufacturers have been highly successful in developing there own export trade and have been trading very successfully with other countries. I can recall, and I am sure that other honourable senators can recall, having attended an annual function of the Chambers of Manufactures at which it presents its export awards. I think it is a most impressive experience indeed to see the number and variety of Australian manufacturers who have traded successfully overseas. It is this sort of private initiative and endeavour which we of the Opposition believe will succeed in expanding Australia’s trade and export of manufactured goods rather than the creation of a government body for the development of this type of trade.

If a small manufacturer does not have the desire, expertise, knowledge, funds or whatever it may be in order to set up his own export business he can easily find other people who will do it for him. There are many organisations which specialise in purely the trading side and which will give him assistance and will take his product and bulk it with others if that is what is required or be prepared to promote the product individually if that is what is required. There is no need for that to be done by a government body. It can be done by private organisations. Possibly what is required in this area is better incentives and a better provision for the marshalling of funds to assist in the matter. It certainly would be the policy of the Opposition when it is returned to government to try to improve the facilities even further, whether they be through trade promotion by the Department of Overseas Trade, in strengthening the banking facilities or in providing whatever avenue of assistance may be available. This can be done and will be done by the Opposition. It should be done by the Government in that way and, not by setting up a government trading body.

We already have, of course, the very valuable and very successful Australian Trade Commissioner Service throughout the world. That organisation, through the Department of Overseas Trade in Canberra, provides invaluable assistance. We hope that it will go from strength to strength in the future and will provide the sort of assistance that the Australian manufacturer and exporter needs, whether he be large or small. We of the Opposition believe that this is the solution to expanding Australia’s trade. We are therefore opposed to the particular solution contained in this Bill, namely, the setting up of a government bureaucracy that will no doubt be staffed in many cases by people who do not have expertise in the area. We do not see that as the solution, lt is for that reason that we will be voting against the motion for the second reading of this Bill.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– I am rather grateful to Senator Durack for introducing his opposition to the Bill in that manner. I am reminded of the debate that must have taken place in the New Zealand Parliament some 1 8 months ago or so when the Government of that country indicated its intention to set up a New Zealand export-import corporation. I am basing that assumption on an article which appeared in the business and economics column of the Canberra Times on Wednesday, 13 August, this year. I would like to quote a little from that article so that honourable senators can assess the current situation for themselves. The reporter is Anthony Haas and this is what he had to say:

Criticism from the National Party Opposition and sections of the private commercial sector expressed during debates on the Ex-Im founding legislation last year left an impression that those for whom the service was intended did not want it. Fears of socialism, of monopoly, unfair government advantage, interference in the private sector and duplication of existing services were expressed in the criticisms.

There was another article in the New Zealand Herald Financial Review by staff correspondent Wallis which, under the heading ‘New trading corporation signing up major firms’, said-.

Controversy and dire forebodings attended the birth, little more than a year ago, of the New Zealand Export-Import Corporation.

Some manufacturers, and the Opposition, were quick to spot the big brother of socialism in Government moves to set up a corporation which could compete in trade on an equal footing with private enterprise.

This is indicative of the statements made by Senator Durack this morning and in the debate on Tuesday afternoon when he announced the intention of the Opposition to oppose this Bill. The Opposition sees the big hand of socialism coming down on the small traders who see any advantage at all in continuing the way they have been. There is a more recent statement on the home front to which Senator Durack also referred and I point out to honourable senators that there is a distinct similarity between what I have just read and what I will now quote from a statement from the Australian Chamber of Commerce dated 1 9 August this year. In part it says:

In conclusion, we repeat that this legislation is not only unnecessary but could be positively damaging, not only to the direct trading interest of Australian exporters, but could undermine the confidence of the overseas importer who has worked in partnership with the Australian exporter in establishing and developing markets for Australian products. Indeed it presents a positive threat of nationalisation in the field of Australia’s international trade.

Honourable senators can see that there are not only similarities but also repetitions in the statements I have just quoted made by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and in the New Zealand Parliament not long ago. The same trite phrases that were being used then are being used now and by similar people. I do not want to forget to mention the repeat of the entire letter from the Australian Chamber of Commerce in a rather interesting little publication called Objective which was published on 18 August 1975, one day before the letter from the Chamber of Commerce. When honourable senators look at who is responsible for the publication, which lays claim to being an independent weekly newsletter, they will find it interesting that the Canberra editor is Mr Jonathan Gaul who, 1 understand, at one time was with the Canberra Times, was President of the Press Gallery here and was speechwriter for Mr William McMahon. He was appointed to Mr Snedden ‘s staff in June 1974. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the Opposition deciding to oppose this legislation. It felt that the circulation of the Objective is so great that it has won people around to believing that this is an attitude adopted by the LiberalNational Country Parties prior to the Bill being introduced in the House.

What is the situation now in New Zealand? Here I must return to the two articles I have already quoted from. The Canberra Times said:

Several hundred manufacturers who could expand their exports have sought assistance from the fledgling New Zealand Export-Import Corporation.

There are the people Senator Durack said would be harmed by the establishment of the Overseas Trading Corporation. The article goes on:

Manufacturers inquiries through the Manufacturers’ Federation and the Ex-Im Corporation evidence a widespread fell need for the Government-created Corporation. Clear early vindication of the Government’s initiative in setting up the sort of state trading corporation, favoured by an increasing number of countries, comes firstly from a significant Manufacturers’ Federation export survey.

These are the people whom Senator Durack says are not being considered in this legislation. The article continues:

Of 228 exporters surveyed 56 per cent sought assistance from the New Zealand Export-Import Corporation.

They are not necessarily all small business people. Probably some were quite large trading organisations. So of 228 exporters surveyed 56 per cent sought assistance from the Ex-Im Corporation. The article continues:

The concerns expressed by the companies New Zealand relies on to expand manufactured exports show why the Ex-Im is a necessary addition to the New Zealand trading scene. Existing exporters want help- 40 per cent in the survey already export to 3 or more markets and 2 1 per cent of the exporters intend to diversify into additional export markets.

From what the New Zealand Herald Financial Review says, not only big companies have shown interest because the corporation has on its books also a range of clients which runs right down to the man working alone in his garage who thinks he has come up with something that could make him money on the overseas market. To gauge interest the Corporation sent out a questionnaire to 300 manufacturers. It got 130 replies from companies wanting the Corporation’s help to develop overseas markets. I would like to remind honourable senators at this point -

Senator Durack:

– This Corporation is not going to help people to do it but will do it itself.

Senator COLEMAN:

– For goodness sake, Senator Durack, do not talk rubbish. For goodness sake, read the Bill before you get up and oppose it in its entirety. Mr President, it is obvious from what Senator Durack said on Tuesday and again this morning that he has not paid the Government the courtesy of reading the Bill, nor has he bothered to see what is happening in other countries. We are talking about trade, as was the Chamber of Commerce. What trade? If we take agricultural commodities and primary products out, what is left? We have been dealing in dolls’ eyes and toothpicks for so long that we cannot see that there is anything else in the export market. I think that the Chamber of Commerce is on the wrong tram. It is so busy seeing socialism and nationalisation that it has not been able to see or to assess the true situation, nor has it wanted to.

Senator Missen:

– You would know better?

Senator COLEMAN:

– I would know a great deal more than some of the members of the Chamber of Commerce, I assure you.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Coleman, please address the Chair.

Senator COLEMAN:

– My apologies, Mr President, for the rude interjections of the Opposition. Australia has been standing on the sidelines of international trade for many years while the rest of the educated world is getting in on the markets that we so desperately need. I do not say ‘we’ meaning the Government but ‘we’ meaning the country. There is tremendous potential in Australia for an export market organisation of this nature. Every other country in the world is doing it and we are sitting back and saying: ‘Come on in and get our contracts, the ones that members of our community can participate in ‘.

We heard evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade quite recently in our investigations into Indonesia from large and small businesses, from potential and existing businesses, that they saw a need not only to extend the trade commissioner service that Senator Durack referred to but also to set up an organisation that was capable and able to advise them when there were tenders being called so that they would be able to submit a contract to an overall body and so be able to tender for part of the contract rather than for the contract in its entirety, because not all companies are able to do that. At the moment they are prohibited from tendering purely and simply because they cannot tender for all of it. While we are so busy discussing the Chamber of Commerce, let us consider what the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association had to say about it. They are people who have consistently supported the establishment of the Corporation. HEMA in its 1974 annual report said:

HEMA applauds the decision by the Government to establish an Overseas Trading Corporation on the understanding that its main thrust will be towards the development of export business with countries having centralised economies and the Middle East Sheikdoms all of which have expressed a clear desire to trade with other countries on a government to government basis. Beyond those countries, the corporation will also seek to develop business in countries where, up to the present, there has been little or no penetration by Australian exporting companies.

In principle the proposal does not differ widely from similar institutions in other countries, for example the American EXIM Bank and MITI in Japan.

The Corporation could have special significance for the heavy engineering industry by providing a vehicle for the formation of consortia of engineering companies to enable them to tender, using the corporation as the prime contractor, on a group basis instead of individually as heretofore. By combining the facilities of EPIC, the Export Bank and the Overseas Trading Corporation it should be possible for heavy engineering companies to enter markets which have been neglected in the past because of the lack of such facilities.

HEMA has had preliminary discussions with officers of the Department of Overseas Trade to confirm that the acceptance of such a co-ordinating role would be within the charter of the Corporation and it is intended to arrange meetings between interested companies and the Department to establish guidelines in the matter.

I think it is important that we look at the people who make up the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association. We are so busy looking at the Australian Chamber of Commerce that we are not able to see the wood for the trees. Just who are they? They are not piddling little operators who work in a backyard and think that they may have something that should be available to the overseas market. They are well known and well respected business operators who know what overseas trading is all about and how it can best be fostered. They are the ones who have read the Bill, they have studied it, they have not raised objections. Just let us look at a few of them. We have, for instance, Bradken Consolidated Ltd in New South Wales with a paid-up capital of $4.5m; Comeng Holdings Ltd of New South Wales, paid-up capital nearly $7m; Commonwealth Steel Co. Ltd, paid-up capital $6m; Vickers Australia Ltd in Victoria, over $6. 5m paid-up capital; Johns Consolidated Ltd, paid-up capital in excess of $ 15m. They are not small organisations who have not already investigated the possibilities of overseas trading; not small organisations who have not already run into trouble trying to get their products through to the markets.

I referred earlier to the New Zealand situation. It is only with the efforts and through the operations of the Ex-Im Corporation in New Zealand that New Zealand has been able to tender for part of a $900m project being developed in Iraq, entitled ‘The Livestock Project’, which involves the establishment of a wide variety of infrastructure and machinery. The United States of America has a variety of similar facilities. It has the ‘Big ticket’ program, which assists American manufacturers to export capital plant to the sheikdoms and centralised economies. The people referred to in the HEMA report and the Age newspaper of 28 May this year gave a few details of arrangements for the trading of United States grain for oil with Russia. The Japanese have bilateral arrangements with China and with Russia to exchange trade for coal from Siberia. West Germany and the United Kingdom have arranged a number of barter deals with the U.S.S.R. and very recently the European Economic Community Commission has been making the arrangements on a group basis.

So what this Bill provides for is the accepted form of export-import trade throughout the world. We are the only ones who have an Opposition which sits back and says the Chamber of Commerce does not want it. Senator Durack referred to the export awards from the Chamber of Manufactures. There are 3 organisations which received those export awards and which are in favour of this legislation. I believe the only reason why the Chambers of Commerce are opposed to it is that they are being influenced by export managers who look to their own jobs and the protection of their own jobs. If this is so, let me leave them with one comforting thought. The

American Export-Import Bank report of 1974 makes the claim that its operations in overseas territories accounted for the creation of one million jobs throughout the United States. The Opposition should assess this Bill in its entirety. It should contact the people to whom I have referred this morning and see the advantages that are available to Australia from overseas trade. I commend the Bill.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.1 5 p.m.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

-The Senate is debating the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation Bill, which sets out to establish an overseas trading corporation. The Opposition is basically opposed to the Bill, certainly in its present form, for a number of reasons with which I propose to deal briefly. In the first place, this appears to be yet another attempt to move into the traditional areas, the legitimate areas of private enterprise in international trade as part of the economic involvement of this country. It seems to be an attempt to move into this area with little other objective than to involve the Government as a specific entity. In that entity it can be only a competitor because it is said by those who support this proposed legislation that it is necessary for there to be competition in this field. That is the story behind the entry of government into virtually every field. But the major objection to that, in the view of the Opposition, is that this sort of entry, this sort of competition, can only resolve itself into competition from a privileged position and it therefore virtually involves the taxpayers’ funds in risk enterprises in which they should not be so involved.

Consequently, it is the Opposition’s view that such an overseas trading corporation, yet another Government entity in the field, can contribute nothing to efficiency or profitability, or indeed to technology or to the personnel involved in those areas of international trade. There seems to be no way in which such a government entity can be assumed to contribute in those fields. Rather can it be seen as an involvement which concerns itself with the attitude of government control being synonymous with government ownership or direct intervention from a privileged position, and to that the Opposition is totally opposed. Government control, government assistance, government involvement in international trade, as in so many fields, is a perfectly legitimate and necessary situation; but in this circumstance and in this form we do not believe that it has anything to contribute to the circumstances that exist in a free enterprise economy. Naturally, organisations such as this are found in the centrally planned economies because, as has been said so many times by members of this Government, they operate under totally different systems. While we operate in this country under a system that has been an evolutionary system in an Australia way, it cannot be seen as being necessary in any way to produce yet another government entity operating in competition with others but from a privileged position.

The object of the Overseas Trading Corporation is stated as being to engage in overseas trade, subject to prescribed conditions. Of course, that of itself and on the surface is perhaps a reasonable objective. But I believe that 2 questions must be answered. We must ask ourselves: Is it necessary? What can it really contribute to the effectiveness of international trade in the Australian scene? If in any way it were conceded to be necessary- we do not believe that it is, certainly in the form in which it is envisaged in this Bill- then the Opposition believes that the conditions and the restrictions that are found within this legislation are certainly insufficient to provide a proper measure of safeguard to those areas of international trade which have built this country into the twelfth largest trading nation in the world.

The Minister for Minerals and Energy (Senator Wriedt), in his second reading speech, in looking for reasons for establishing this entity referred to the fact that overseas trade is an evolutionary circumstance, that it is constantly changing. Indeed, in one part of his speech he said:

The time is most opportune to re-appraise what now appear to be gaps in Australia ‘s overseas trading machinery.

I put it to the Senate that those gaps are basically imaginary gaps. I put it to the Senate that the circumstances of international trade recognise that it is an evolutionary concern. What concern is not of that manner? There can be no point in establishing a government entity to fill in the gaps because, as they occur, the gaps are solved and filled in by the trading entities that exist and have grown in the process of making this Australian nation the twelfth largest trading nation in the world. There is no reason to assume that the evolutionary process that has occurred to this point suddenly is going to break down. On those grounds, I do not believe that there is any justification for the establishment of this particular government entity.

Various items can be cited that change the area and priority of demand in international trade. One such item referred to by the Minister in his second reading speech was the price of oil, and of course that has changed significantly the area and priority of international trade and demand. That sort of circumstance has been a continuing one. Indeed, we see it in another field in our trading relations today. In Russia, because of climatic conditions, there appears to be a shortfall of some 40 million tons of wheat. Incidentally, that is equivalent to approximately 4 Australian harvests. In view of that situation, quite obviously the Soviet Union will be involved in massive purchases of grain, and this must affect the areas and priorities of her demand. The fact that this happens every year- indeed it is happening in periods of far less than a year; it is a constantly changing situation- does not mean that suddenly the international trading capacity of this nation has broken down and that the solution is to be found by involving the Australian Government as a trading entity. On those grounds I find it impossible to support the introduction of the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation in the form in which the Government proposes that it should be introduced.

As I mentioned earlier, there seems to be little reason, if any, for transferring in any way the risk involved in this massive enterprise of international trade from those who are the traditional and successful operators to the Australian taxpayer, who incidentally would be funding the initial capital of this Corporation and would be funding the interest, because no interest is payable on the capital of the Corporation as it is envisaged. Consequently, the seeds are sown for this Corporation to become a privileged entity and not in any real sense a true and straight competitor in the field of international trade if, indeed, there was a need for that to occur.

I think it is pertinent that when dealing with legislation such as this we should ask ourselves: What is the contribution of the Government in matters of trade as a direct operator in that field? I do not believe that the Government’s contribution has been very praiseworthy. If one looks at the field of mineral trade in Australia one finds that we have locked away uranium in the last 3 years. We may have missed what may be some of the greatest markets for this ore. We have missed those markets because of the Government’s policies. We have seen the searchers for uranium go to different areas. The markets do not go without; they get the uranium somewhere else. Perhaps in the not too distant future the price of that commodity will fall and then we may seek to export it.

In the areas of both coal and iron ore which are 2 minerals enjoying a vast demand at the moment and enjoying extremely high prices, we have seen through the Government’s intervention prices arrived at which are below the prices that the industry itself was able to negotiate. In addition, we now see in the coal industry levies of $2 and $6 per tonne imposed on what are called windfall profits. The tragedy of this situation is that in all probability it will mean at least a partial incapacity, on the part of the industry, to develop the facilities that it needs to meet the fairly obvious demands in the near not too distant future.

The Government has, through its policies and attitudes, created a situation in the area of oil exploration and development that is causing this country a great deal of concern. It is the efforts of the 1960s in particular that have seen us producing 70 per cent of our requirements in oil. Because of the attitude of this Government in the last 3 years we have ceased to increase our capacity in this enormously important field. This situation is enormously important from many points of view, not the least from the point of view of inflation in this country. I believe that these are just 2 areas of direct Government involvement which have contributed nothing to the trading circumstances in this country. I cannot see that the establishment of a specific Government entity in the international trading field will contribute anything of value in this area. A lot has been made of the necessity for government to government trade in an era when around the world there are a number of centrally planned economies. Of course, this has been the situation for many years. It has also been the situation that Australia’s trading capacity and our trading entities have been most successful in trading with those centrally planned economies over a wide range of goods.

The Australian Wheat Board and the Australian Wool Corporation, for instance, are 2 examples of statutory corporations operating successfully in trade with countries such as China, Russia and many countries of the eastern European bloc. These activities have been aided by the private operators in virtually all of those countries. Once again, the contribution to international trade in Australia by the Government cannot be seen to have been productive. In fact, 1 suggest that it may be far better for the Government, in the international trading field, to concern itself with trying to get around some of the damaging situations that are confronting a large part of our trading activities. I have in mind, for instance, the attitude of the unions to the export of wheat to Chile. What was the Government’s contribution to that trade? It made no contribution except a negative contribution. That is a trade that has taken about seven or eight years to develop and it has now been lost. It is a trade which may well take a considerable time to regain.

I mentioned only yesterday and I mention again in passing the contribution of this Government to Australia’s international trade in its suggestion in May that the base price of wool should be reduced. What a contribution that was. My point is that if the Government is really concerned with developing and aiding Australia’s international trade it should be concerned to decry some of the damaging actions that have taken place and which have done so much to set back a trade situation that in many cases has taken years to establish.

I believe there is a distinct vagueness in the concept of the clearing house type of organisation envisaged in this legislation. It is alleged that it will aggregate small lots for exporters and bulk purchases for small manufacturers. That sort of capacity exists already. Of course, as members of the trading entities in Australia avail themselves of that sort of situation now, there seems to be a measure of irony that this Government should attempt to involve itself in saving the trading capacity of small operators. Indeed, the small business and the small operatorwhether he be an exporter, importer or manufacturer for the Australian scene or a small Australian mining company- has suffered at every turn of the road in the last 3 years. To imagine that this legislation is being introduced with a view to improving the lot of these people and of these entities by a centralist government is too far fetched for most people to believe readily. Likewise in the centralist philosophy in which we live under this Government, it seems unreal to think, as is suggested in the legislation, that there will be constant consultation with State governments and business organisations. That certainly is an about face in the activities of the Government in respect of virtually any part of the Australian economic and social order.

I return to the fact that the initial capital of this organisation is to be at the level of $ 1 m. That is a pretty unreal level if it is to be a very effective trading entity. But be that as it may, that is in the form of a grant of money on which no interest will be payable. Consequently, once again, there is a lack of responsibility and it is responsibility that ultimately breeds efficiency and profitability. I see many dangers in the establishment of an organisation such as the proposed Overseas

Trading Corporation. In answer to the question I posed earlier, in summary it seems to me that an intrusion of Government into this import and export area is totally unnecessary. What is envisaged in this legislation is the intrusion of a straight Government entity as distinct from normal, proper and increasing Government involvement through assistance and encouragement in the areas of international trade. I believe we must safeguard those elements in our trading community which have developed this country to what it is. In this legislation there appears to be no proper and complete safeguard in that area. The private sector has been traditionally capable of doing this job. The contribution of a privileged competitor can create only a large measure of dismay and uncertainty which will, in the long term, react unfavourably on the Australian trading scene. It is not only unnecessary but also its aims and objectives appear to be suspect when looked at against the background of the centralist philosophy of the present Australian Government.

The limiting factors to Australian trade, both import and export, are surely the availability of goods, services, finance and transport. They are not related to technological capacity and expertise. We, the private and corporate traders in this country, have an adequate degree of expertise and an adequate capacity to know and to use the technology in these various fields. Consequently, in the establishment of this entity there can be no contribution to the availability of goods and services which are, after all, the basic elements of international trade and, indeed, of internal trade, When I say that the safeguards in the Bill appear to be inadequate, I shall suggest one or two areas in which this can be clearly seen and represented. The Overseas Trading Corporation can involve itself virtually in any trading circumstance by appointing or by being appealed to by another entity in another country. It is not, as is suggested, just purely an addition or a help to the Australian trading scene but rather it is a competitor in every area of that trade.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and many other industry groups are totally opposed to the introduction of this Corporation as envisaged in this legislation. Clause 1 1 of the Bill does not deny the Corporation the right to import goods as agent of another person. This is a privileged circumstance. The Corporation could establish retail outlets in overseas markets, exporting directly to its subsidiary and consequently damaging existing trade and, more particularly, the promoters and builders of that trade. By clause 12 it is intended to deny the Corporation the right to produce or manufacture goods, but the exceptions in sub-clause (2) are so wide that the clause becomes virtually ineffectual. Clause 13 which relates to national interest considerations again opens the way for political motivation in international trade. The political motivation is to be based and backed by taxpayers’ money if, on certain occasions, it is not commercially successful.

I make it clear that in opposing this Bill and in opposing the establishment of this Corporation we are certainly not opposing the idea and the necessity of Government involvement in the form of real and proper assistance in the area of international trade. The area which has already been established through the Australian Trade Commissioner Service must be increased and improved as time goes by for this can be of value to importers and exporters alike. The marketing assistance section of the Trade Promotion Divison of the Department of Overseas Trade should involve both import and export trade. In this circumstance we are looking at a position where the Government, in relation to international trade, remains the important servant of the people and not the master as it may well become with the introduction of this type of entity which is the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation as envisaged in this Bill. Trade missions, both State and Federal, are of extreme importance in promoting trade as also, of course, are incentives in the manufacturing and export fields. These are the proper and necessary areas in which Government assistance must remain. This assistance has been significantly and, hopefully, improved. In closing, I mention the views of the President of the International Trade Division of the Chamber of Manufacturers. In an annual report he makes a number of statements of which I believe the Senate well could be aware. He stated:

State trading corporations are necessary for countries with so-called centrally planned economies, but we feel that free enterprise economies of the world have little use for them.

Further on- I believe this is of some real significancehe stated:

There are anomalies in the Bill which in my opinion can only be to the disadvantage of manufacturers and traders.

It is inferred that the proposed corporation may engage in barter deals or switch trading.

If this is intended the implications for our norma) international trading procedures will be formidable.

Another aspect of this which is of particular importance to manufacturers is the application of the tariff schedule.

How is the tariff to be applied in circumstances where the value for duty of an import is to be measured in terms of barter or in which the current domestic value of the commodity may be established purely by political regulation?

Finally, he states:

There can be little to be gained by endeavouring to build safeguards into legislation which is socialistic in concept and under which the Minister may do almost anything on the pretext of the national interest.

For these reasons, because the Corporation appears to be totally unnecessary and because it appears to have built around it insufficient safeguards for a capable trading organisation in this country, we in the Opposition oppose the legislation.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-I have listened in vain to the 2 honourable senators from the Opposition who have spoken on the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation Bill for some reasonable justification for the attitude the Opposition is taking to the Bill. Senator Durack, from his comments, appears not to have read the Bill. I will expand on that later. Also, if his comments are to be taken at their face value, he does not have the slightest comprehension of the effects of currency revaluations, tariff imposts and charges of that nature on external trade. Senator Scott, in his characteristic sanctimonious style, emitted the usual National Country Party bleats on the mining junta and his usual catalogue of errors with respect to agriculture. Given what we have heard from the speakers on the other side of the Senate as a substitute for a case in opposition, I can only assume that the honourable senators are opposing this legislation because directions have been handed down to the Opposition by the Chamber of Commerce that this Bill is to be killed. The faceless men of the Liberal Party from outside this Parliament have obviously yet again dictated the Opposition’s policy.

Despite the euphoric account of the achievements of private traders with respect to the management or conduct of Australia’s external trade, it is apparent to anyone who has delved into the area that all is not well. The euphoric accounts of the benevolent influence and the efficiency of private exporters and importers are difficult to reconcile with the facts from the real world. I shall cite a couple of examples. An Australian Meat Board delegation visited the Middle East countries from 24 May to 1 1 June, and I shall quote from a report submitted by Mr O ‘Toole, who was a member of that delegation, with respect to the export of Australian agricultural products to the Middle East. The members of the National Country Party should be particularly interested in this. The report states:

From the remarks of local merchants it appears possible that disreputable Australian Exporters are exploiting the local importers lack of knowledge when specifying their actual requirements. In one instance an importer who ordered a significant amount of minced meat eventually received a delivery of minced meat that was 90 per cent fat, all perfectly legal, as the importer was not aware that specification of fat content is essential when ordering processed meat.

Because the crafty Australian exporter pulled off a mini rip off, it is unfortunate that the Arab importer retains a poor view of the quality of Australian processed meat and has already gone elsewhere for future orders.

Another importer has been purchasing processed hogget carcasses, here again he expressed grave doubts whether the carcasses were hogget, he claimed that they were fat older sheep.

Likewise, if anyone had attended the hearings of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade that have been held over the last nine or ten months under Senator Coleman’s very competent chairmanship or chairpersonship he would be aware that it is extremely difficult for small businesses to export to markets such as Indonesia. Of course, as was explicitly stated in the second reading speech to this Bill, this is one of the purposes for which the Government has attempted to establish this Australian Overseas Trading Corporation. Apparently the Opposition will prevent the Government from establishing the Corporation.

Senator Durack in the first instalment of his very long speech on this subject on Tuesday evening, when referring to the membership of the Corporation, made this astonishing statement:

I would have thought that if one were going to set up a trading corporation to compete in this very sophisticated and somewhat rugged area of enterprise and competition, the people engaged in it would certainly have to be very well versed in industry and commerce. Apparently, though, if one is a public servant or an accountant or a trade union secretary one may well be chosen to be a director of this corporation.

It appears from that statement that Senator Durack, in his eagerness to do the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce, had neglected to read clause 1 6 (3) of the Bill, which states:

A person shall not be appointed as a Director unless he appears to the Governor-General to be qualified for appointment by virtue of his knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce, public administration, finance or industrial matters.

Although, according to the Premier of Queensland, all that is required by way of qualification or competence to be a member of this Senate is that one should be an avid reader of westerns and comics- although that qualification may be regarded by the Premier of Queensland as adequate for appointment to this Senate- I can assure Senator Durack that clause 16(3) of the Bill makes it quite explicit that people of the calibre of Mr Field- I am not sure what his current status is- will not be appointed to this Corporation. While on the subject of Senator Field, I heard recently- I am not sure whether this is correct, but it seemed to me to be quite conceivable- that the reason why Mr Bjelke-Petersen appointed Mr Field or Senator Field to the vacancy in the Senate- apart from his desire of course to taint the Senate as the Liberal member for Moreton so succinctly expressed it- was that Mr Bjelke-Petersen wanted to have someone, anyone, in some Australian parliament, any Australian parliament, who would make Mr Bjelke-Petersen look like an intellectual, and Senator Field was the only person available who had those qualifications. Senator Durack in the first instalment of his speech last Tuesday evening continued- a curious ambivalence or lack of comprehension or mental discipline, I am not sure what it is induces this sort of a statement from members of the Opposition:

It is all very interesting and ironic that this Government which has done so much to impede, obstruct and certainly to discourage trade by . . .

Six lines later he continued: . . a government which has by its highly extensive revaluations seriously impeded all the exporting and overseas revenue industries of Australia . . .

Then in a display of incredible ignorance of the facts Senator Durack made this statement : a government which has created havoc by its 25 per cent across the board tariff cuts to one major area of our trade . . .

What Senator Durack is clearly postulating is that a tariff cut in some way impedes trade. I thought we had been hearing from members of the Opposition for about the last 9 months that as a result of tariff cuts a flood of cheap imports was coming into Australia. I do not know how Senator Durack reconciles that allegation with his other allegation that tariff cuts in some way or other impede trade. I think that it is indicative of the level of attention which the Opposition has devoted to this Bill. I am sure that Senator Durack is not so ignorant of these matters that he fails to appreciate that that statement of his to which I have referred is ludicrous.

Senator Durack expressed some specific objections to particular clauses of the Bill and Senator Scott repeated them. That is a defensible position. It seems to me that if that is the view of the Opposition, the appropriate action pursuant to that view would be to agree to the second reading stage of the Bill and at the Committee stage to implement amendments or to remove the clauses which the Opposition finds objectionable. But of course the Opposition is not going to do this because the Chamber of Commerce in the letter which it sent to Senator Durack and to all other honourable senators made it quite clear that it did not want that to be done. So the faceless men will again pull the strings which activate the puppets in this chamber. Senator Scott mentioned wheat sales to Chile. He criticised the actions of certain unions which impeded that trade. If it makes Senator Scott feel happier, I personally disapprove of that sort of action by industrial unions, just as I disapprove of the use of political-cum-economic muscle by vested interests in the dairy industry and by certain margarine manufacturers to deny Australian housewives and other consumers over the last 25 years open access to margarine supplies. Indeed, this attempt by certain margarine manufacturers, aided by their puppets in this chamber and in the other chamber- the Country Party- to subvert the free market still continues. I suppose one of the reasons why the Country Party is so reluctant to have disclosed publicly the sources of political funds may be, or no doubt is, that the Country Party and the margarine manufacturer in question would be highly embarrassed if it became a matter of public knowledge the amount of the funds which that margarine manufacturer has contributed to the Country Party.

To return to Chile, Senator Scott also postulated that this action on behalf of the unions had very significantly financially disadvantaged the Australian wheat grower. It is difficult, in fact it is impossible, to make an objective assessment of that sort of situation but, for his future contemplation, I would draw Senator Scott’s attention to the publication Chile Today which is issued by the Embassy of Chile in Canberra. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack for one has clearly expressed in this chamber his admiration for the junta which currently rules Chile, and I am sure that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack would not suggest that the representatives of that junta in Canberra would publish information which was less than completely accurate. According to the February edition of Chile Today Chile has secured wheat from the United States on 20-year terms at 4 per cent interest. If that report is true- I have no reason to believe that it is untrue and I am sure that were Senator Sir Magnus Cormack here he would assure us that it was true, coming from that impeccable source- I suggest that the Australian wheat growers would not be prepared to meet that sort of competition, selling wheat on 20-year terms at 4 per cent interest. In other words, that is a disguised gift and not a commercial sale.

I would like to investigate a little further this matter of tariff cuts, revaluations and so on. I must conclude from an examination of the remarks made by Senator Durack at page 1305 of Hansard that he strongly disapproves of the actions taken by this Government during 1972 and 1973 in revaluing the Australian dollar, as indeed he obviously disapproves of the tariff cuts. His Country Party colleagues feel very strongly about this matter; they strongly disapprove of tariff cuts. I just wish that they would go out into the countryside and tell their own supporters that they believe in high tariffs and that they belong to a Party which believes in high tariffs. I just wish that members of the Country Party had sufficient honesty to do that. Mr President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

General business taking prcedence of Government business after 3 p.m.

page 1442

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Matter of Urgency

Debate resumed.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Under the Standing Orders this matter would ordinarily have come on at an earlier stage this morning. As a result of the discussions which then took place, the matter, by the concurrence of the whole of the Senate, was stood over to enable the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) to take up certain suggestions which were made from this side of the chamber. In the intervening period Senator Wriedt has spoken with Senator Withers and later with me, but no finality has been able to be arrived at in regard to those matters which were discussed. We are interested to hear what the Government may be prepared to say in regard to those matters, but as we are not in the position to receive any such intimation now and as the matter involved in the debate would take considerable time to discuss- we know what the rising hour of the Senate is this afternoon- the Opposition does not desire to proceed with it this afternoon. I think the Government is aware that it is likely that the matter will be pursued one day next week. In those circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw the matter of urgency in my name.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Matter of urgency- by leave- withdrawn.

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

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement on the same matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-I would indicate that the suggestions put forward this morning by the Opposition in regard to this matter are being actively pursued by the Government. I was hoping that by this time this afternoon I could indicate to the Senate a specific or particular stand which the Government would take. Unfortunately time has not enabled me to do that. However, I accept the position taken by Senator Greenwood. I think it is the wisest course to take today because of the limitations of time and, as I indicated earlier, because this is not a matter into which we should rush without some consideration. However, I accept the fact that the Opposition naturally is at liberty to bring this matter on again one day next week or at some time in the future. At that time we will deal with it accordingly.

Consideration of Government business resumed

page 1443

AUSTRALIAN OVERSEAS TRADING CORPORATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– As I was saying, since Senator Durack has clearly expressed opposition- I presume he speaks for the entire Opposition on this matterto the revaluation of the Australian dollar during 1973 and to tariff cuts, and also since the Opposition has recently and enthusiastically been converted to monetary prudence and Friedmanism, and since it is seriously concerned about the inordinate growth in the money supply and has stated that it is extremely highly irresponsible for a government to allow growth in the money supply in excess of 20 per cent, notwithstanding the fact that it presided over a growth rate of 34 per cent in the money supply during the dying months of its term in office, I wonder just what mechanism the Opposition would have used to control the explosion of the money supply during 1973 if it had not revalued the dollar or had not cut tariffs. I suggest that it could exercise arbitrary controls, but free enterprise governments do not exercise arbitrary controls, do they? Then again, free enterprise governments do not believe in high tariffs and they do not believe in subsidies either, do they? Indeed, there seems to be so much confusion about the meaning of the term ‘ free enterprise ‘. It is thrown around as a sort of euphoric term in this chamber by members of the Opposition when obviously they do not have the faintest idea of its meaning or, if they do have the faintest idea of its meaning, their fundamental intellectual dishonesty prevents them from ever making a rational statement about it.

Senator McLaren:

– You know the policy of the Country Party, do you not? It is: Capitalise profits and socialise losses.

Senator WALSH:

– Capitalise profits and socialise losses, yes. I noticed that Senator Webster 2 days ago failed to respond to a question when he was asked whether he believed in high tariffs and whether he also believed that tariff cuts were a manifestation of socialism. If Senator Webster does believe that tariff cuts are a manifestation of socialism I trust that some time in the future he will enlighten us on that point. I trust he will do this as I trust subsequent speakers for the Opposition on this Bill, if any, will explain how, having announced a policy of revaluation or of tariff cuts and, of course, being apostles of free enterprise automatically renouncing any arbitrary restriction on the inflow of foreign capital, they would have controlled the flow of foreign capital and the consequential explosion of the money supply during 1973 without employing any of those tools which I have mentioned.

It was asserted by Senator Durack and I think, by Senator Scott that we had managed to trade very successfully with centrally planned economies and with the entire world until now without any Overseas Trading Corporation and that ipso facto there was no need for an Overseas Trading Corporation. Members of the Opposition appear to have very short memories on this matter. In fact, I can recall from early in 1 970 to very late in 1 972, a period when wheat quotas had imposed significant hardships upon the Australian wheat industry and Australian wheat growers- they were imposed by a Liberal-National Country Party Government- and the nation was rather desperate in a search for wheat markets we failed to make sales to our major wheat market, China. Of course, the reason for this was that China had been so consistently insulted by the Leader of the National Country Party, Mr Anthony, that it had decided in an extreme buyers’ market to purchase no grain from Australia. Mr Anthony showed his concern for the rural community and for Australian exports in a statement issued in February 1 972 when he said that he would not sell his soul for trade and that he did not care if we never sold a bushel of wheat to China. I do not know what the value of his soul is. But I suspect that a number of members of the Liberal Party, having been pushed into 2 political disasters by this bushranger in the last 18 months are beginning to have second thoughts about the value of both Mr Anthony’s soul and his political acumen.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Let us deal with facts.

Senator WALSH:

– I think that was factual enough. 1 think it was highly factual. The accuracy of it can be assessed by the reaction that it provoked from honourable senators opposite.

Senator Jessop:

– You could not provoke me; you are too dull.

Senator WALSH:

– There interjects Senator Jessop. Of course, ever since Senator Hall entered the Senate, Senator Jessop has been extremely jealous of Senator Hall’s political acumen and his ability to grab headlines in the newspapers. Senator Hall made a statement 3 weeks ago calling upon the Opposition not to reject the Budget -

Senator Jessop:

- Mr President, I rise to order. I seek your advice as to whether this is relevant to the debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I remind honourable senators that they are obliged under the Standing Orders to make their contributions to the debates relevant. I also remind them that throwing compliments across the chamber is highly disorderly.

Senator WALSH:

- Mr President, I accept your ruling. Of course, you are completely correct. I strayed from the subject matter of the Bill. But I draw your attention to the fact that I was provoked by Senator Jessop. I think that in the circumstances it was appropriate. For Senator Jessop’s benefit I will finish that story on some other occasion when it is more appropriate, perhaps during the discussion of an urgency motion or during a discussion of general business.

I have one final comment on our success in the past in trading. It relates to the deep concern and the very sincere concern that the National Country Party generally and Mr Anthony in particular has in successfully promoting overseas trade. I recall when Mr Anthony addressed a meeting of the Farmers’ Union Executive of Western Australia in September 1970- certainly, it was about that period- at another time when it was extremely difficult to sell beef on the overseas markets. The Australian Meat Board was at that time employing a lobbyist in Washington. The purpose of this was that the lobbyist would activate consumer groups inside the United States of America and make American consumers aware of the fact that due to import restrictions, overt or covert, beef in particular was far more expensive than it needed to be in a free market situation. Mr Anthony told the Farmers’ Union Executive that this lobbyist had been so successful that he was embarrassing the Administration. Of course, the Administration was that well known Administration of Richard M. Nixon, another close associate and friend of Mr Anthony and most of the other members of the Opposition in this place. He went the same way as the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will go ultimately and for similar reasons. But because the activities of this lobbyist were embarrassing Mr Anthony’s friends in the Washington Nixon Administration, Mr Anthony said that we’ had to call him off. He did not explain who we’ were- whether it was the Australian Meat Board which is ostensibly independent of government control, whether it was Mr Anthony himself, the National Country Party or the Chamber of Commerce which apparently dictates policy in relation to this Bill. But I mention that point in closing to give an indication of the degree to which the National Country Party is concerned about successfully promoting Australian trade and sales of Australian primary products.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I remind the Senate that we are debating the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation Bill. I am quite sure by the confused look on faces all around that this will come as something of a striking revelation. I must say this for Senator Walsh who has just resumed his seat: I am glad to see that he is back at his best nasty method of attack in the Parliament. Yesterday at one stage he sounded as if he was becoming a little reasonable. I think that had us all a little disturbed. But it is nice to know that he is back to the situation where he can face the position. He claims that if we quote a submission from the Chamber of Commerce it is because we are faceless men doing as our masters tell us. Mr President, he never thinks of his own masters.

The point is that Senator Walsh has the idea that everybody has to have masters. He thinks that everybody in the Senate has to be speaking and using opinions which are put forward not because they are the views of people who are experienced in the area concerned, as the Chamber of Commerce and its export division are concerned with this area and know the position. He also has to assume therefore that when people quote from the experiences of people engaged in schemes and in this sort of work in their daily lives that submission should not be considered. I think that is one of the few relevant remarks that 1 gleaned from Senator Walsh’s speech. The only other relevant remark he made was to suggest to the Opposition that it should go into the second reading of the Bill, take the Bill piece by piece and try to make a good Bill of it for the Government. As I understand it, that is not the job of the Opposition. It has a lot of other jobs but it is not the job of the Opposition to make Bills for the Government. Nor is it our job to try to go through the thicket of provisions, the unending suggestions and opportunities which this Bill gives to the Government and to try to reduce them to something in size that will satisfy us. I do not think we can do that in any event.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Do you not think he is suffering from an intellectual dose or a caustic dose of Marcuse?

Senator MISSEN:

– I do not know what the honourable senator is suffering from. As Senator Baume is not here, I prefer to leave it until he returns to the chamber and can give a diagnosis. Before I go back to the arguments on the Bill, I wish to deal with one slightly relevant point made by Senator Coleman in the course of her long speech. She preferred to give us examples of New Zealand. She wanted to point out to us that in New Zealand where some similar scheme is in operation it was greatly resisted by the Chamber of Commerce and other bodies because of a threat of nationalisation. Then she said that now companies are using it, that now businessmen are prepared to work through it and try to get some gain. At least the businessmen are not mad. While that Government remains in New Zealand- I gather it is only a matter of weeks now before the Government faces its masters- of course businessmen will use the opportunities that are there. They would be crazy businessmen if they did not. But they have expressed their opposition to this proposal. Of course the proposal in Australia is under a great deal of attack by all those associated with it. A problem with this Bill is the problem which exists with so much of the administration of this Government. If the Government thinks a problem exists- and there certainly is a problem here- then it says that the answer to that problem is for it to get in and create a corporation and compete with industry. It thinks it should compete with the importers and exporters instead of giving them assistance by way of incentives, which would be more valuable. It could perhaps help with banking facilities and provide assistance which, through the running of a sound economy and through reducing inflation, would be of the most inestimable importance to the success of exporters and importers. Instead of that it makes the same old mistake that it made with the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill and other Bills, thinking that it can do better than private enterprise. History has proved that it is wrong.

Is there in fact a need for this legislation? Has any development in the community indicated this? Have the organisations that are concerned with this measure been asked their opinion? The Minister for Overseas Trade, Mr Crean, referred in his second reading speech to consultations which had taken place with various industry groups. I think this is one of the few occasions of deceit, where the impression is given by the Minister that those were consultations in which the industry groups agreed with the proposal that was made. In fact, the Australian Chamber of Commerce, for example, and other bodies have expressed their total opposition to the proposed Corporation and on many occasions have made sure that their views were known and that other people in the community were able to express their views. Yet the Minister has referred to consultation having taken place and has given a quite false impression.

I make the second point that there is no need for this Corporation. There is no lack of expertise in the importing and exporting part of our community. People have been doing these things for years. They have gone through a long process of developing contacts with other countries, including the centrally planned economies to which I shall refer in a moment. It is as a result of this work over the years by the many people who are engaged in exporting and importing that we have become the twelfth trading nation in the world. I do not know whether we still hold that position or whether we have slipped down the line by now. But certainly it is by the achievements largely of private enterprise that we attained that status. We are a country of small population that has developed a valuable trade. This must be borne in mind.

On the question of whether there is a need for this proposed Corporation, I make reference now to that organisation which is so unhappily regarded by Senator Walsh- the Australian Chamber of Commerce. I remind honourable senators of the stand that Chamber has taken after investigating this issue and after receiving the reports from their export councils and so forth. I read from the August journal of the Australian Chamber of Commerce. It states:

Following a special meeting of representatives of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the Australian Chambers of Commerce Export Council and leading business houses, the following statement was unanimously adopted as representing the views of Australian Commerce on the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation Bill presently before Parliament.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce holds firmly to the belief that the proposed Australian Overseas Trading Corporation is unnecessary and that the aims and objectives which have been attached to it can be achieved without further direct involvement of Government in overseas trading.

I think what follows is the significant fact. The article continues:

The factors which limit Australia’s trade, both imports and exports, are the availability of products, services, finance and transport and not a lack of capacity, technology, or experience on the part of private traders themselves.

Nothing that has been said in this debate today or in the debate in the other place has indicated any lack of ability in that area. It is rather the lack of Government policies- the lack of assistance which the Government has given to private traders- which has caused the difficulties and the lack of complete achievements.

I want to speak also on the fact that it is not necessary for governments to do these things. I want to give an example of an analogous area. Appearing in the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Journal of June-July 1975 is a description of the work being done by a private enterprise organisation called the AfroAmerican Purchasing Centre, Inc., which is situated in the World Trade Centre of New York. This organisation is one which helps international trade as a private organisation and finds it beneficial and profitable to do so. Among other things, it has organised a staff of technical experts- consultants and professional buyers with specialisations in most aspects of economic development. With speed and efficiency characteristic of buyers in highly competitive industries, AAPC delivers a wide variety of services to its clients. What it does, among other things, is to train and to bring across to America people who will be able to work in the foreign trade area and manage to obtain for their own countries good bargains and excellent trade with America. Without describing this at length, I will say that it does provide an example of what can be done and is being done in various parts of the world. The assistance which governments could give to the development of those organisations would be infinitely more valuable than the spending of money on a government body with all the deficiencies that have been pointed out in this debate. I have pointed out that this Bill provides a competitor for the industry rather than assistance in the development of better trade.

Thirdly, I want to deny the allegation which has been made in support of this Bill that centrally planned economies require such a corporation; that they will not deal with the small organisations or with the private enterprise body; and that they insist somehow upon dealing with a government body. I think that the overwhelming percentage of people in this country believe in developing trade through private enterprise and not through the government sector. But leaving that aside where is the necessity for this Corporation? Mr Crean said in a Press statement issued before the Bill was introduced:

Our trade with the Centrally Planned Economies was not being developed as it should. The percentage of Australia ‘s total exports going to the CPE’s had actually declined quite sharply from 11.5 per cent in 1963-64 to 5.9 per cent in 1973-74.

Of course, he has not shown why that has taken place. He puts down the facts and somehow plumps for the idea that the reduction is due to inefficiency. The Press release continues:

Mr Crean said that the proposed Overseas Trading Corporation was specifically designed to develop trade opportunities with these areas. The record showed that tradebecause of differences in the trading system- had not been developed in any significant way.

One should compare that with the material which is produced by Mr Crean ‘s own Department. We can turn to the journal of the Department of Overseas Trade. Let us bear in mind that what is incorrect about the allegation concerning the requirement of centrally planned economies is that there are numerous examples of centrally planned economies dealing with the private sector. Also, there are plenty of examples of where the CPE countries which have previously dealt with common board securities to the private sector, because of the poor service and delays experienced with the board, are now turning to the private sector. The Australian Meat Board is a prime example of this. But let us look at some of the countries one would expect would be most desirous, whether for political or economic reasons, to deal with some central body. Let us take Iraq, a socialist country, and see what is said in Volume 27, No. 5 of the journal of the Department of Overseas Trade. It states:

Because Iraq is a State-controlled economy, business is often carried out by means of public tender, although there is an increasing trend to issue invitations to selected known and reliable manufacturers and consultants.

Iraqi authorities prefer to conduct business on a principaltoprincipal basis and there are heavy penalties for the use of intermediaries in some cases. But, to identify possible opportunities and to follow-up offers which have been made, it can be very helpful to have a local representative in Iraq.

In other words, Iraq is encouraging and requiring the dealing to be on a principal to principal basis and not through intermediaries. Why would it be suggested that it would not deal with us in that regard? Let us take the situation in Cuba as an example. It is unquestionably another socialist country. Let us see what is said in Volume 27, No. 6, about relations between trade and private enterprise in that country. It reads:

To enter the Cuban market, it is first necessary to send to the appropriate importer complete information on the specifications and/or technical data relating to the product. The importer has to present a detailed case to end users, and other departments must be consulted. It is a time-consuming but thorough procedure conducted in a businesslike manner.

As a result of the investigation, orders may be placed or an invitation issued to the exporter to visit Cuba for further discussions.

So Cuba itself, with all its ideological views, is not relying on the fact that it wants to or does cut out the private enterprise exporter. Czechoslovakia is another example. This time I refer to Volume 27, No. 6, of the Department’s journal, which states:

Direct promotion to end users, distributors, and industry trusts is essential if a foreign supplier wants to effectively introduce his products.

That refers not to dealing with massive government corporations but to dealing with the end users. Let us take the arch example of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. One would expect that the U.S.S.R., if anyone, would have this desire. The remarks in Volume 27, No. 9, on trading with the U.S.S.R. are as follows:

Many Australian companies have established offices in these countries to cope with the increasing business being conducted. The fact that these offices are accepted is a good indication that government to government dealing is not one of the major considerations.

Let me repeat that last sentence:

The fact that these offices are accepted is a good indication that government to government dealing is not one of the major considerations.

Those are not my words; those are the words of the Department of Overseas Trade. That is its advice to people dealing with the U.S.S.R. Quite frankly I prefer it very greatly to the words of the Minister on the subject.

Senator Jessop:

– He does not listen to his Department.

Senator MISSEN:

– He probably does not listen to his Department. He probably has too many other things to listen to.

Senator Primmer:

– Perhaps it is because he prefers a different situation.

Senator MISSEN:

– I am not putting them forward as my argument; they are just examples which have been supplied to us by the Department. I am prepared to accept wise advice to exporters in this country but not deceptive advice.

Senator Jessop:

– Did you say that those governments had principles too?

Senator MISSEN:

– I did not say ‘principles’. I said that they had ideologies and that they were socialists and so forth. I think one of the important principles they have is that they like to do a profitable deal.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about comparing Iran with Algeria? You have not mentioned Algeria.

Senator MISSEN:

– No, I have not mentioned Algeria and about 150 other countries.

Senator Mulvihill:

– But they would be a better socialist example than the other ones.

Senator MISSEN:

– They might be used. Nonetheless I will leave the other 150 nations and so forth to some other person. I want to refer now to what another organisation that is closely concerned with overseas trade- that is, the Australian Industries Development Associationhad to say in its bulletin on this subject. It condemned the Bill as being unnecessary and said that it would bring a proportion of trade into government hands. It referred to the experience of trading companies in commenting on a passage from the Government’s case which it found to be quite unacceptable. That passage reads:

The different economic systems of the centrally planned economies and their lack of understanding of free enterprise market structures make it difficult for trade growth to occur and difficult for trade to be developed and promoted in the same way as with Western Countries.

Australian traders generally are inexperienced in dealing with the centrally planned economics . . .

In reply to that the AIDA said:

As regards the claim that small manufacturing establishments are in need of the marketing research and skills of such a Corporation in order to build their exports, and are in need of its services as an import agent, the best that can be said about such a sweeping and unsubstantiated claim is that the voices of the small manufacturers have not been very loud in calling for those benefits, and that Australia is not without trading companies which can do the same job satisfactorily and efficiently.

I think that makes this claim for it- an important claim that the Government has made- quite wrong and quite unnecessary.

If one looks at the Bill- I shall look but briefly at some of the major points of it- one can demonstrate that there is no doubt that the Government seeks wide and vague claims for the expansion of its activities under this corporation and one can readily realise why the Opposition cannot find it possible to repair this Bill. The powers of the corporation under clause 7 of the Bill are so wide. It can export and import goods, buy and sell, and engage in arrangements with persons and organisations to work as an agent or to act as an agent for the corporation. That is a wide one indeed. There is no saying what sort of work it may want them to perform, what sort of matters it may require to be undertaken for it and what sort of factories it may need to set up to create something. Under Clause 12 it has not got the power to produce. It cannot produce or manufacture goods. But it can arrange for that to be done. It can go ahead with the processing or manufacturing through agents. Those powers ought to be appreciated. A flour mill could be created under this Bill. Any form of manufacture like that could be created because it would be part of the incidental powers, part of the things it would need, to export the flour which it had. The Bill is so wide and so vague.

The so-called protective provision in clause 10 starts by saying that where the board knows that a person is carrying on an established and continuing business in the export of goods of a kind from Australia the corporation shall not arrange to export any goods of that kind to an importer in that country. Of course, how is the Government to know this? How is it going to be told this? Is some sort of record going to be kept or will some exporter suddenly find that that country has been flooded with goods from it and that it will not be exporting to the same person but perhaps will be exporting to some other person in that country. The board is all right; it does not know about it. It can then probably do as it likes.

The last one- one could make many references to these clauses- is the power under clause 13, which is the national interest clause. This matter has been discussed quite thoroughly in the Parliament. This clause gives the board -of course, on the direction of the Minister- the power to buy things not on an economic basis and not in order to compete against existing exporters and importers on some fair basis but because the country considers, or the government considers, that it is a matter of national interest, lt is then empowered to go ahead and carry on an uneconomical undercutting sort of trade. If any private companies were to do this they would probably be subject to being dealt with under the Trade Practices Act. Those are some of the provisions that make this Bill a Bill of deception and one with unlimited powers which would be soon seen to be exercised with vigour by this Government.

I conclude by saying that what is needed is special assistance- not this Bill- that will enable the experienced exporters in this country and the experienced importers to be able to trade better, to have the backing of the Government, to have the assistance of it through facilities, through incentives where that is necessary, and through assistance in banking facilities and for this country to get its inflation under control so that it can compete and its goods will be saleable on overseas markets. If the Government were to concentrate upon the real issues that are prevalent in this country today and were to try to find real solutions to them, that would be the way in which the exporters and importers would really gain. They will not benefit by this crazy idea of creating a corporation and letting it compete and hoping for the best, at the expense of this country. The Bill deserves to be rejected and I trust will be rejected because it is just another of the poor judgments of this Government which have brought it to such an unhappy pass.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I can only say that the Government is most disappointed with the attitude adopted by members of the Opposition towards this Bill. They are obviously blinkered by ideology. It is, they say, a socialist intrusion into an area that legitimately belongs to the private sector and in which they say that private sector has been so successful; so they say that it should be opposed in its entirety. Members of the Opposition say that the private sector is opposed to it and that no other free enterprise country has a need for such a state trading enterprise. I am prompted by Senator Coleman’s query to them as to whether they have read the Bill. What is the fact? The fact is that this Corporation is designed to foster trade in areas where it is not being adequately developed, that is, with the centrally planned economies and the newly rich Middle East countries who prefer and sometimes insist on government to government dealings. Who is opposed to it? The chambers of commerce are, but what do they represent? What trade do their constituent members conduct with the centrally planned economies? Virtually nil.

Who is in favour of the Corporation? All State government departments with responsibility for trade and industrial development favour it. At a meeting in Canberra last year the State Ministers of Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania supported it. The Western Australian and New South Wales Ministers were to attend but were prevented from doing so because of an air strike. The Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association strongly supports it and says it is the only vehicle through which they could compete in the ‘big ticket’ Middle East projects which, it says, must be on a government to government basis. HEM A is a most prestigous group of Australian companies, as Senator Coleman outlined earlier in this debate.

Where are the trade achievements of the private sector in trade with the centrally planned economies? Their achievements have been virtually nil. In 1963-64 our exports to the centrally planned economies mainly wool sold by auction and wheat sold by a statutory authority, were valued at $320m or 11.5 per cent of our total exports. In 1 973-74- ten years later- our exports to the centrally planned economies, mainly wool and wheat, totalled only $4 1 5m or 6 per cent of our total exports. Where are the trade achievements of the private sector referred to by Senator Durack? There are none of any significance. In reference to the Opposition claims that none of the major trading countries has seen a need for a state trading enterprise to conduct trade with the centrally planned economies yet do well without it, I ask: How about the United States of America, the bastion of free enterprise? Its Export/Import Bank with $20,000m ties up markets in the centrally planned economies and South America. The United States Government and the Japanese Government have entered into a 3 year agreement for the supply of 42 million tons of grains and soya beans to Japan. What does the National Country Party think of that? What does the Opposition think of the massive wheat/oil deal just concluded by the United States Government with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. How secure are the U.S.S.R. and Japan as markets for our wheat now?

The European Economic Community has now embarked on direct government to government deals. The EEC Commission has just concluded negotiations with the Arab Republic of Egypt on a 3-year agreement for about $200m worth of EEC agricultural products- one million tons of wheat, 225 000 tons of sugar, and 1 1 000 tons of butter, milk powder and cheese. What does the National Country Party think of that?

Mr President, the real issue is whether we move with the times in a rapidly changing word and equip ourselves to match other countries and continue to develop new markets for our agricultural products and manufactures. I cannot think of one major trading nation that is not or has not moved in the direction of more government to government trading arrangements. The U.S.A., Japan and the EEC have already done so, as have Canada and New Zealand. Australia as the world’s twelfth ranking trading nation cannot afford to live in the 1950s, as the Opposition wants it to do. This Trading Corporation would be a positive step in the direction of the late 1970s and 1980s but, unfortunately, the Opposition is blinkered by ideology. Leave it to the private sector, the Opposition says. Let us have no socialist intrusion into its legitimate sphere. Where would our wheat trade, wool trade, and dairy products trade be today if it were left to the private sector? We live in a changing world and we must adapt to it.

I again urge Opposition senators to have an objective look at this Bill and to consider that all their State Government Departments support it. All State Ministers present at a special meeting in Canberra support it. Knowing what I do of the blinkers on the Opposition today and of the atmosphere in which we live I suppose it is futile to ask the Opposition to appraise objectively what this legislation is all about. On that note I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Question put.

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 29

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1450

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76 [No. 2]

page 1450

APPROPRIATION BILL (No: 2) 1975-76 [No. 2]

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 22 October on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– Last night the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Senator Wriedt) in his second reading speech said that there was nothing new of any value in these Bills. It was an extremely short speech. The whole question has been debated for quite a time and quite extensively. The underlying economic issues have been debated since the Supply debates of May of this year. So there has been no lack of opportunity for people to illuminate the economic scene with their remarks. Accordingly, in the interests of peace and good government, I shall be extremely brief this afternoon. That leaves it to the Government to do what it wishes to do. For our part, we can see no great case for spending any length of time on these Bills. I think that quite a number of speeches on this subject might well be incorporated in Hansard if by any chance they are prepared. Therefore, I move:

What we are really looking at, in the context of these Bills, is a prize fight which has not yet begun. Everybody loves a fight, except when they are involved. There is always a lot of noise, a lot of excitement, people trying to sell tickets, collecting towels, throwing soft drink bottles, people in corners of rings laying bets and making a lot of clatter and bang, cheering and booing in the seats of the spectators at the ringside. We should consider that the contest has not yet begun. The fighters have not even gone into the ring, for all the noise and excitement that are going on. For our part, we are quite genuine. We are trying to get the fighters into the ring. We are not getting any real help from the people who regard themselves as the champions. One or two senators opposite have had some experience in the boxing ring. They know what I am talking about. I say to them and to most people interested in this scene that it is great fun for the spectators, the cheerers and the booers; but they will get involved one day because in the end the fight will be a general fight. The prize will be this country and its future in terms of its economy, philosophical and policy management. It is no light prize. So one way or another the people of Australia will become involved and will make a decision in their own interests and those of their country. They will not be able to leave it to other people to interpret the events for them.

When one considers the material that comes out of Canberra one sees how fortunate it is for all of us that in the end the people do not rely upon the information coming out of Canberra to judge the real situation. It is said that the issues are being polarised. So they should be. In the end the issues are quite simple. They are economic issues which, through time, have been very carefully examined by most people. They will be more carefully examined. They include constitutional issues such as the way the country should be governed, by what sort of people, their morality, their capacity and their principles. People will have a little longer to determine those issues than they might have had. They would be wise to determine it very carefully because their country’s future is at stake. The kind of people who run the country and their attitudes are all-important. I think that most members of the Senate and the House of Representatives- at least I would like to believe this is the case- have great faith in the people of Australia. We have great faith in our country. We believe that once the people are properly informed and thoroughly informed they will make the right sort of judgment. So the tactics of hysteria, confusion, threats of violence, excitement, talks about Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland and riots in the streets, I hope, will impress people very little and will make them slightly disgusted with the kind of material that is being disseminated.

There is one issue with which I can deal quite briefly, and that is the problem which the Government has of carrying on its business. It is making all sorts of remarks about its Supply position. I shall deal very briefly with that and say that if the Government wants the debate to go on for much longer we can do a great deal more work on this matter. The simple facts of life as they affect this Government, in economic and financial terms, were disclosed in May 1975 when the Supply Bills were debated. The contrast between the previous year and the current year was highlighted. Supply Bill (No. 1 ) in May of this year allowed for an expenditure 49.3 per cent greater than the expenditure for the previous year. Supply Bill (No. 2) allowed for an expenditure increase of 1 10 per cent over that for the previous year. The overall increase in the 2 years was about 63 per cent. The Budget documents show that the total proposed Government expenditure during the year will increase by 23 per cent. Clearly there is some great lack of information or understanding, or a deliberate intent to mislead people in the comments of the Government now being made in all sorts of areas that it will run out of money almost immediately. I would think that on the best evidence available there is clearly enough money to go well into November and, very likely, on a critical analysis which could be conducted later, into the third week of December.

Let us look at these facts as the essential facts of economic life. If we judge it that way we are really saying that it is not true that there is an immediate distress as a result of a lack of money. That is nothing like the case. We are saying that the Government has only to go to the people and Supply will be guaranteed. The only option available to the Government is to call a double dissolution. It has a stack of Bills on which it could call one. It has no need, no right, no cause to put any Australian in a state of distress. The assumed case is that there is a shortage of money. As time goes on, I think it will be proved to be untrue.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– The Government could borrow from Khemlani for temporary purposes.

Senator COTTON:

– He may even come back with some money in a bag; I do not know. We are still saying to the Government quite simply what we said previously. It is time it went to the people, lt is time it got into the ring. It is time the Government stopped taking bets on the side and shouting everybody down. One of these days it is going to have to face the real issues of its incompetence, its deceit, the future of the Australian people, and its refusal as a government to face them. I have moved the amendment, Mr President, and there it rests.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate is once again debating the Appropriation Bills. There is a great deal of apprehension throughout the land at the continued attitude of the Opposition parties, attitudes which indicate clearly that they are endeavouring to create not only a constitutional crisis, a political crisis, but also a financial crisis from which the Australian community may well suffer considerably more damage than from the indecision that has characterised the attitude of the Opposition since the Labor Government came into power in 1972. 1 think it was Senator Bunton, as well as several other honourable senators, who drew attention yesterday to the fact that the Opposition parties had committed themselves to supporting the Budget. The Budget has been described by some of their spokesmen as being a Budget of moderation, a Budget that was seeking to bring about more confidence within the community. Yet the Senate has been subjected constantly to amendments to the Appropriation Bills for the purpose of destroying the Budget and destroying this Government. If the Budget were to be placed aside it would have disastrous effects from the point of view of the obvious recovery that is taking place within the economy in this country.

The Government has challenged the Opposition time and time again to indicate what it considers to be the basic weaknesses in the structure of the Budget, to indicate the areas in which there ought to be cuts in government spending and general expenditure. Each time they have been challenged Opposition speakers, whether from the Liberal Party or from the National Country Party, have failed to meet that challenge. If the Budget is considered in more detail it will be found that the Opposition is using the Budget as a means of achieving a political end and that there is no justification for the political decision that has been taken by the Opposition parties. It is interesting that those who claim that the Parliament shall be supreme, those who claim the sovereignty of the Senate, those who express the view that the Senate is a House of review with rights and privileges, are the ones who have themselves surrendered the sovereign rights and given to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Fraser, the responsibilities which surely should remain in this place.

If one examines the Constitution, the whole background to the Senate and what was the thinking of the founders of our Constitution surely it must be remembered that the role of the Senate was to be that of a House of review and to protect the interests of the States. One therefore finds it very difficult to understand the illogicality of the Opposition in moving this amendment, which will have the effect of deferring the Budget and deferring the implementation of the Government’s economic policies because within the Appropriation Bills that have been constantly before the Senate in the last week is the allocation that is to be made available to the States. An examination of the Budget shows that something like 38 per cent of the Australian Government’s collection of national revenue is in fact earmarked in one way or another for grants to the States. So this place, which is supposed to represent the interests of the States, is creating difficulties so far as the States are concerned. One only has to examine the deficits of the States to appreciate the very grave responsibility that rests upon the Opposition parties in this place should they continue to defer or reject the Budget and its financial implications.

When one examines the Budgets for the States in recent years one finds that almost without exception the States have been involved in deficit budgeting. Without exception the States have been clamouring for additional funds from the Commonwealth, and without exception the States will be affected by any immature premature decision of the Senate. Yet clearly that is the political aim of the Opposition parties. Of course, in this same Budget the basic essentials show that 37 per cent of the funds are earmarked for the Government’s health, education and welfare programs. So some 75 per cent of the amounts provided in the Appropriation Bills which are before the Senate for consideration have the purpose of meeting the basic needs of the Australian people; that is funds provided by the Australian Government and by the States in the earmarking of funds from the Australian Government to the State instrumentalities. Yet there is this continuing attitude by the Opposition, an attitude which it seems to me is designed to undermine public confidence in the economy and in the Government itself. I want honourable senators to have some regard to their attitudes, to look at this area of decision making away from their political philosophy, to look at it from the point of view of what it will do to the economy of our country. It is interesting to note the comments in the newspapers, even as late as yesterday, and I quote from yesterday’s Sydney Sun:

The latest forecasts are that the world economy will take much longer than expected to pull out of the worst recession since the 1930s. Over the past few months economists have been sadly revising their estimates.

The article goes on to deny the basic essential argument of the Opposition speakers, and particularly the very pathetic effort of the mover of this amendment. Even now, Opposition speakers do not produce arguments to justify their attitude on the Appropriation Bills. They do not take into account the economic difficulties that face all of the western countries but endeavour to convince the Australian people that there is something exceptional and something different as far as the Australian economy is concerned. These tactics can be described only as devious, despicable, dirty tactics, designed to create a condition whereby the Government, which has a majority in the lower House, will be unable to govern, designed to create conditions of chaos throughout our community. The Opposition uses as its argument the deficit aspects of the Budget. It uses as its argument the inflation rate, ignoring the fact that in 1951, the second year of its 23 long years in power, Australia had the highest rate of inflation in the postwar years. It is significant that in 1951 the inflation rate was at its highest in Australian history- something like 8.85 per cent higher than it is in the current year. We are all aware of the very important figures which were released today which show that the Government is now on top of the problem of inflation in this country. At that point of time in 1951 the Menzies Administration was in a minority in the Senate, yet there was no suggestion that the Labor Party should exercise its powers to reject the 1951 Budget, despite the high rate of inflation and despite the uncertainty that existed in the business community at that time. Since the Whitlam Government came to power in 1972 we have been concerned with a large legislative program- 627 Bills have been passed by the House of Representatives, and of that number 498 have been considered and passed by the Senate. Some 71 of them have been rejected. Many of those have been important pieces of legislation to give effect to the Government’s economic policies and management responsibilities. They have been affected by the carefree attitude that the Senate has adopted. We are reminded that from the first few months in the life of the Whitlam Labor Government, honourable senators opposite began a policy of obstruction, not review; it began a policy of conspiracy, not co-operation; and it began a policy of bringing down and undermining this Government.

I well recall the remarks of Senator Withers on the eve of the double dissolution in 1974 when he said that the Opposition had set out a year before to bring this Government down. I was surprised to find that Senator Guilfoyle expressed similar sentiments in another place which indicated that there was a plan, a plot and an endeavour to bring about the downfall of the Government. We all know, of course, the subjective factors that led to the denial of Supply, which was the instrument which brought about the double dissolution in 1974. I am surprised that members of the Opposition parties, who have always decried the philosophy that the end justifies the means, should apply this very principle so far as this Government is concerned- a goverment which twice in 3 years has been given a majority in the Lower House and which, even in the double dissolution elections of 1974, failed by a handful of votes in Queensland and New South Wales to win the additional seat in each of those States. There is no question that this Government would have enjoyed a sufficient majority, with the good sense of honourable senators who are non-aligned in this House, to carry forward its legislative program.

It is in these circumstances, when Bill after Bill in this House is being rejected again by the Senate, that we have to take this problem to the Australian people. We have to tell them what is happening to their country, what is happening to the instruments of Parliament, and what is happening to parliamentary democracy. Of course, in this area it is clear that Opposition senators have surrendered to Mr Fraser their right to make the decisions. They gave away that democratic and jealous right which they claim is theirs when they gave Mr Fraser the right to make the decision whether Supply would be denied or not. In case anyone has any doubts, I have taken time off to see what Mr Fraser has had to say. Speaking to an outside organisation he said at the Federal Council of the Liberal Party in his keynote address:

I think I will never be involved in a more difficult or momentous decision than the one which now faces us.

Of course, he said also on the television program This Day Tonight that it was his task to determine the issue of the Appropriation Bills and Supply. It is interesting, of course, that we do not hear about the faceless men in these circumstances. We do not hear that people outside the Parliament were making considerations as they did with respect to the possibility of a normal election of the Senate, which is due to take place before June 1 976, and how the Federal Council of the Liberal Party in fact gave the riding instructions to the four anti-Labor conservative Premiers to deny certain elementary facilities for the purposes of holding normal Senate elections. The quesion that has to be raised in this place relates to the conventions upon which the whole parliamentary system operates. We find, for example, that conventions are the basis upon which Parliament functions- conventions which are not readily identifiable or found in the Constitution or in any decision of the High Court, but conventions upon which the Parliament itself could not operate without some degree of understanding and some degree of common sense, bearing in mind that many of these conventions are related to the Westminster system of government.

What are these conventions? That the Prime Minister’s office itself is not identified in the Constitution; that the Governor-General himself is not obliged to ask the majority leader to form a government; nor does the Constitution or any legal decision recognise any rights so far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned; nor does it recognise the facility known as Cabinet; nor is there any reference to the fact that the High Court has power over and above the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that the High Court has any particular powers in these respects. There has not been any departure from the principles that have been laid down about the Prime Minister residing in the House of Representatives. We all recall that when Mr Gorton was in this place and was selected by the Government parties at that time to become the Prime Minister, he took the decision to resign from the Senate so that he could occupy that position in the House of Representatives. There was nothing in the Constitution or in the statutes of this country that would have prevented him from occupying the position of Prime Minister in this chamber. It was one of the conventions. Of course, there is certainly nothing in the Constitution itself. Another of the conventions permits the Leader of the Opposition to have discussions with the Governor-General or to be summoned to appear before the GovernorGeneral. There is not necessarily precedent for that. There is no reason that these conventions should be followed, other than the fact that they are conventions and that they are traditions. 1 think it is in the Constitution that Her Majesty has certain rights to disallow a Bill within a year of its passing both Houses of the Parliament. It is a convention which has never been taken up, so far as I have been able to ascertain. What other conventions operate within the parliamentary system itself? We have the convention that deals with pairs. It is not provided for but it is a matter of convenience. It is a matter for the consideration of the parties in this place.

Senator Young:

– Do not go too deeply into that point, senator.

Senator GIETZELT:

– We have the convention where the government of the day is entitled to ask the Leader of the Opposition to table documents of the previous Administration. Of course we know that with respect to the very shameful episode in which Senator Young and his Party were involved in relation to the war in Vietnam, when we wanted to table the documents to show exactly where the Opposition parties while in government had lied to the people and to the Parliament, the convention was maintained by the Whitlam Government. We did not go ahead and table the documents. We gave Mr Fraser the opportunity, by convention, to maintain that propriety of not dealing with Cabinet documents in a public way because the convention said that it required the consent of the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, there are conventions that work in respect of this Senate. Section 17 of the Constitution gives the Senate the right to withdraw the President of the Senate by a simple vote. That has not been done in 75 years. It is another of the conventions which has been broken by no party or group since Federation. By a simple vote- he does not have to be guilty of a misdeamenour- the President can be removed. It is another of the conventions which honourable senators up to now have respected, as they have respected the conventions of the other matters to which I have referred. It is not difficult to appreciate that even the Opposition had some regard for these sorts of matters. 1 refer to a statement which the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Fraser, made on radio on 2 March. He said:

If the Parliament becomes unworkable by destruction of convention, democracy itself becomes unworkable because democracy rests much more on adherence to convention than to the rigid application of the rules of law.

Of course, we know that Mr Fraser came to the leadership of the Liberal Party because of the dissatisfaction and the misjudgment which have been characteristic of the Opposition parties and which led to the defeat of their grab for power in 1974. Who among the Opposition senators will now not concede that they made a grave political misjudgment when they set in motion the denial of Supply in April 1974? They thought that they were on a winner then, as they think that they are on a winner now. They lost then and they will lose now because they are the ones who are undermining the convention. They are the ones who because of their class position are unable to appreciate that sometimes there is a need for a change in the manner of government and for a change of emphasis in government. While I am dealing with this subject I should like to refer to what Mr Fraser himself had to say in an address to a Liberal Party group conference in April 1972 when he was Minister for Education and Science. He said:

There are those who work endlessly to break down the constitutional mechanism of change by bypassing it, by advocating courses without the law. If a significant minority feels that the democratic processes are so loaded against them that they can never be successful, then that democracy has in store a dangerous and difficult time in which great tolerance and understanding would be required.

I suggest, and I submit to the judgment of the Senate, that those sorts of circumstances have been created by the Opposition in its endeavours to deal with this matter and to deny to the Government its legal right to continue its role in office. The convention to which I refer indicates that since Federation on 20 occasions when the Appropriation Bills have been discussed by the Senate the Government parties- whether they were Labor or Liberal or any other Party- have been in a minority position in this House of review. One is not able to say that in the 75 years since Federation there have not been circumstances and times of stress and tension when the majority group in the Senate, in the considered judgment of that group, could not have exercised the sort of immature decision that is apparent and has been apparent during the last several weeks in respect of the Appropriation Bills currently before the Senate.

The Liberal Party has made a political decision, and of course in making that decision it has relied upon its judgment and what it believes to be the popular will. It is interesting to note that when Mr Fraser made his momentous decision, which I agree received endorsement by his Party and by honourable senators opposite, he said that there was a call throughout the land for the removal of this Government. It is with some significance therefore that we find that subsequently the Opposition had to spend $120,000 in inserting full-page advertisements in newspapers throughout Australia to justify delaying the Appropriation Bills last week.

Of course, it is significant also that prior to that decision having been made by this great man of principle, Mr Fraser, and prior to honourable senators opposite meeting and making their decision, the Liberal and Country Parties had in fact booked space on all the television and radio stations throughout Australia in the expectation that an election would be held between now and Christmas. When the Labor Party was confronted with the likelihood of an election taking place it endeavoured to make some bookings on television and radio stations in order to present the policy of the government of the day. But it found that the Liberals had organised so far ahead and in such a way as to prevent any other major grouping from being able to get access to television viewing times. Yet when those bookings were made Mr Fraser was still saying that he was considering all the Bills.

After the Opposition had made the big decision and spent all this money on television it went out to the streets with its rallies. It tried to shape public opinion in its favour. We are aware of how Mr Fraser spoke to all the newspaper proprietors. We are aware of how he endeavoured to marshal them behind his point of view and his decision. But we are also aware that public opinion did not respond, that the call was not there, that there was no support for the proposition. I am told that a public opinion poll which is currently being held shows that something like four out of five people in Australia are appalled at the tactics used by the Opposition. It can only be said as far as the Opposition ‘s actions are concerned that there has been a miserable response to the Opposition’s breaking of the convention, to its endeavours to deny to a legitimate government the right of economic management of this country.

Of course, many people have expressed themselves on these matters. If I have time I shall quote some people to indicate how the thinking members of our community want the Government and the Opposition to act responsibly. We do not want to get ourselves into the position where government will be ruled by gallup polls. We have seen in many other countries what grabs for power mean. We saw what happened in 1967 in Greece when the colonels seized power. We saw what happened in 1 973 when the generals seized power in Chile. I do not think that it is very much different from this savage grab for power by using blatant numbers in this place to achieve the same sort of result- to deny the very legitimacy of the Government which has been twice confirmed in the polls. Leaders in other countries in their lust for power have raped the constitutions of those countries and it has been to the detriment of those countries and of the people in those countries. It seems that Mr Fraser will surely go down in history as the only leader of a political party who tried to conceive government with a premature ejaculation, because that is what will happen. He will be defeated. The Government is not going to go under. The Australian people will not surrender the support for the Government which they have elected twice in 3 years. Mr Fraser must learn to be less anxious, less impatient. He must learn to curb his insatiable urge for power. He must learn the lessons that brought about the defeat of Mr Snedden. The Constitution quite specifically provides the safety valve which Opposition senators have been talking about both in this place and in other places in recent times. It provides for an election every 3 years. It is in the interests of stability and well being that that provision is in the Constitution. No country can take such ravishes as have come from the Opposition in recent weeks. In the interests of democracy they must be withstood.

Ever since the Whitlam Government has come to power the conservatives have used every opportunity to delay the Government’s legislative program. We have suffered a great deal of obstruction of that program over the last 3 years. The Opposition parties have refused consistently to accept the umpire’s decision, and they talk glibly now- even people like Senator Cotton do so- about letting the people decide. The people decided in 1972. The people decided in 1974. There is no evidence to suggest that the people want an election. In fact, the contrary is the situation.

Let us look at who was responsible for the situation in 1973 and 1974. It was Mr Anthony, that maverick from the bush, who sought in the first instance to con Mr Snedden into denying Supply in 1973, but that hump was overcome by the Government. Mr Snedden did not take the plunge in 1973. Then in 1974 he was persuaded by the Leader of the National Country Party to take on the Government and to set in motion the process of denying Supply. What happened? The very gentleman who conned the Liberal Party into making that very blatant grab for power was the very person who undermined Mr Snedden. During the election campaign we heard the stupid statements he made about petrol prices and for which he traduced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), the newspapers, economists and people generally. He was the one who helped to undermine that grab for power from Mr Snedden in 1974. It was Mr Snedden who was shot down in flames by Mr Anthony. Of course, it is the same Mr Anthony who began the public campaign when Mr Fraser was saying: ‘No, I believe that a government which has a majority in the lower House, a government which enjoys the confidence of the lower House, shall have the right to govern. I will not succumb to the mistakes of my predecessor’. He finally succumbed to the entreaties of Mr Anthony.

Of course, Mr Anthony has set in motion the processes which have put the Senate in the front line of power politics in this country. At the same time as that political situation was created the National Country Party was strengthening its organisation in Queensland and made the decision to contest the elections in Tasmania, thus undermining the very Party with which it claims to be in coalition. This is something like the chickens coming home to roost, as far as Mr Fraser is concerned. He, and indeed the Opposition parties, have fallen for Mr Anthony’s 3-card trick.

Mr Fraser is quite adept at putting into practice the principle of undermining people and institutions. We know the part that he played in creating difficulties for the Holt Administration. We know what Mr Gorton has said repeatedly about the back stabbing of Mr Fraser. We know some of the statements that were made when Mr Snedden was under challenge. Mr Fraser went on record as saying that he was not involved, that he had absolute trust, respect and loyalty for his leader, that he was not involved in the first putsch against Mr Snedden. His colleague, Mr Staley, became his public apologist. He was the one who said: ‘I did it all. Mr Fraser had nothing to do with it’. The plain fact was that in a very short space of time Mr Fraser undermined Mr Snedden to the point of winning the leadership of the Liberal Party. It is said that we ought to abdicate government- the conservatives in this country are saying that the Senate ought to have the right to force us- and hand it over to the Opposition. It is said that there ought to be an election, that this House of review ought to make the running in relation to this issue.

It is very interesting to note that the British Parliament, which is based upon the Westminster system, saw fit many years ago to take steps by a decision of both Houses of Parliament to take away from the House of Lords its right to deny the lower House, the people’s House, the passage of legislation relating to financial matters, because it was necessary to remove the instability in the British parliamentary system. It is very interesting to note that at this very moment in England the Conservatives, or the peers as they are called, in the British House of Lords are considering whether to force a constitutional crisis in respect of government legislation- not Supply Bills, because the House of Lords has surrendered that right. The House of Lords has taken the view that it should not have the right to throw out of office a constitutionally elected government.

At the moment the British House of Lords has before it 2 Bills, the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill and the Community Land Bill, both of which are opposed by the Conservative Party. In the interests of good government, in the interests of stability in government, in the interests of appreciating that the will of the people is to be found in the lower House, the Conservatives in Britain are at this moment trying to find a formula which will enable that legislation to pass. Even if they have to amend it, they will not reject that legislation. Yet the conservative forces in Australia are endeavouring to use every avenue, every means, every tactic, at their disposal not only to reject Bills which are part of the legislative program of the Government but also to deny the Government the financial means to carry on. To a degree they are able to succeed temporarily in that process. I give the warning to the Opposition that, because of the very nature of this House, because it is elected on the basis of proportional representation, governments in the future will have to hope that death takes a holiday. They will have to hope that the older members of the Senate will see out their 6 year term of office and that the younger members are not involved in an accident which will in some way change the fundamental balance of the House of review.

I find it very interesting to refer to what was said yesterday by Senator Walsh when he was speaking about what Mr Menzies, as he then was, had said in respect of an article that appeared in the newspapers just recently. It is an interesting comment for Sir Robert Menzies, as he now is, to make in 1975 because it denies every word that he wrote in an article in 1968 which appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph. I hope that the Senate will afford me the opportunity which it afforded to Senator Rae who had that statement incorporated in Hansard. I will seek leave at the end of my remarks to incorporate in Hansard what Sir Robert Menzies had to say in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of Monday 1 1 March 1968. It indicates the sort of behaviour patterns and tactics which are being applied in this crisis we are currently facing. At that time, of course, Mr Menzies, as he then was, was referring to the fact that the Opposition parties, including the Australian Democratic Labor Party and the independents, had a majority in the Senate. He said:

The Senate command of government by a party in a minority in the House of Representatives would be absurd. It would be a falsification of popular democracy.

Of course, he was talking about the difficulties the Government found itself in at that time. He went on to say:

The purpose of this article is to examine the powers and the authority of the Australian Senate.

This is an important and topical matter, for in the new Senate the Government will not have a majority in its own right, though it was, little more than a year ago, given by popular vote, a very large majority in the House of Representatives; a majority which, in the normal course, it will continue to have for the better pan of the next two years.

It is as if Sir Robert Menzies was writing of the period today, except, of course, that this Government cannot be said to have a large majority in the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, it has a workable majority. One could be forgiven for thinking that Sir Robert might have been writing about today’s situation. After setting out and explaining the powers of the Senate, Sir Robert went on to comment:

In the end result, the Senate has a full power of rejecting any Bill. This means that if a government with a clear majority in the House of Representatives presented its Budget to Parliament and then brought into the House of Representatives financial measures to give effect to that Budget, and had them passed by the House and sent up to the Senate, a hostile Senate could legally reject them. This of course, would create an impossible situation and would make popular government unworkable. ( Quorum formed)

Before that unnecessary interruption I was drawing attention to the fact that Sir Robert Menzies had said that whoever commands a majority in the House of Representatives forms a government and has the right with his colleagues to govern. This position is not really in dispute. So one finds it difficult to comprehend how it was that this geriatric politician, 10 years out of active politics, could be persuaded to come out of retirement and dictate a statement, as was suggested in a newspaper he did, completely and diametrically opposed to that article to which I have referred. That is why I seek leave of the Senate to have it incorporated in Hansard so that it may stand in stark contrast to the statements which Senator Rae inserted in Hansard only a day or two ago. Of course, the same Sir Robert Menzies spoke on another occasion in respect of the matter of 1 932 to which Senator Walsh made reference yesterday. I think this is relevant to the debate before us because the Opposition parties are suggesting that the reasons for their grab for power are because the Government has not got a majority in the electorate. Sir Robert said:

For a newspaper to urge a double dissolution because in its opinion the Government has lost the confidence of the electorate is a mere impertinence.

I want to refer to statements by other conservative persons. I find it interesting that a former Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, would say:

The problem of preventing the Senate from inhibiting and frustrating government can be solved by constitutional amendment, firstly, to deprive the Senate of the power to reject Supply for if it is to defeat a government it should do so on specific measures, not on general grounds of dislike.

I think it has been proved in the debates both in the Parliament and outside the Parliament that the Budget alternatives which the Opposition parties have put forward do not constitute an alternative Budget or an alternative economic program for the Australian people. Mr Hamer put his remarks on record on 18 February 1974 when the matter was being mooted by the Liberal Party at that time and when the Liberal Party was being led by the nose by Mr Anthony of the National Country Party. Mr Hamer had this to say:

Such a precedent could well render Australia ungovernable. Governments frequently have to make hard decisions which will be unpopular in the short term in the hope that their beneficial long term effects will be apparent before they have to face the electors. It would be outrageous if a government when it took such a hard decision could be forced into an election at the whim of minor parties in the Senate.

The disastrous effect would not be that there would be many elections but rather that hard but necessary decisions would not be taken. Of course, as has been said by the Prime Minister time and time again in this last week or so, by making decisions to amend, delay or reject the Appropriation Bills we are placing an elected Government into a twice yearly crisis position. Whatever the political climate may be, no government could be expected to carry out its program if every May and October of each year it were subjected to these sorts of pressures by what can only be described as an irresponsible, politically motivated Senate determined to grab power for power’s sake. When Mr Holt was Prime Minister he made the following statement on 10 May 1967:

It is one of the most firmly established principles of British parliamentary democracy that a House of review should not reject financial decisions of the popular House. The terms of the Commonwealth Constitution reflect this principle.

Of course it can be argued that the Constitution has 2 attitudes on this matter. It is open to interpretation. But I think the matter should not be determined in a legal way but rather on the moral question of whether a government enjoying support in the popular House should not have the right to see out its proper term. I find it rather sad and regrettable that the only worthwhile authority that has been produced by the Opposition to justify its very immoral decision of last week was Sir Robert Menzies, whom it brought out of retirement. The Opposition’s attitude towards the rest of the Government’s legislation in the intervening period has indicated that it is on a course to make parliamentary democracy unworkable in this country. The only authority that it can resurrect to justify these attitudesthese immature and undemocratic attitudesis obtained by bringing out a person whose whole political career can be shown to have contained errors of judgment.

I well recall Sir Robert Menzies’ praise for Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s. I well recall the reaction of the Labor movement to his decision to send pig iron to Japan. I well recall his support for the appeasement policies of Mr Chamberlain. I well recall how he was disgraced and defeated in the immediate war years by defections within the conservative parties. I can well recall how he endeavoured in 1951 to take away the fundamental rights of Australian citizens- he tried to establish the principle that a man was guilty and had to prove he was not guilty. We all know the great referendum campaign and the High Court judgments with which the Australian Labor Party was associated to retain democratic rights in this country.

We all recall that in 1949 he was elected to put value back into the pound. He was the man who said in 1954 that we had 3 years to prepare for war. Senator Walsh yesterday ably presented the case to show how Sir Robert Menzies lied to the Australian Parliament- if parliamentary language does not permit that term, I shall use the word ‘misled’- in respect of Australia’s involvement in Vietnam in 1964. If Sir Robert Menzies’ statement is the only justification that the Opposition parties can produce- if he is the only person of any substance to support them from their side of politics- then it indicates how little ammunition they have to defend the decision that they have taken. It proves how out of touch with the electorate they are. In the ensuing days and weeks it is clear that despite those who say that they do not want to see the issues decided outside the Parliament, these issues are going to be decided outside the Parliament. Mr Fraser has been associated with statements that the minority should not be denied its rights and that he does not want to see these issues determined in the streets. But it is precisely in the area of public opinion that this matter will be determined. The Opposition parties have made another gross error of judgment in that connection.

One only has to reflect that if they had not been so impatient in April and May of 1974 in acting on their judgment that the electorate was against the Government, then it would have been a lay-down misere for them to have had the election which would normally have taken place in a month’s time. What a serious miscalculation the Opposition parties made in judging that the people supported them and that they did not have any faith in this Government. In the normal sequence of events, without creating the conditions which now have placed parliamentary democracy in peril and without creating the public furore and concern that exists now within the Australian community, the Opposition would now, according to its judgment, be ready to assume the political and economic management of this country. But the Opposition erred before and it is erring again. It is denying the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. It is denying a right of government which has been written about by all of the legal and constitutional writers and all of the defenders of democracy. Sir Isaac Isaacs and other eminent constitutional lawyers have constantly placed before the Australian people the need to see the Senate as a House of review and not as a House bent to bring down the elected government.

We of the Australian Labor Party welcome to our ranks people of the calible of Senator Steele Hall and Senator Bunton- people who are exercising a fundamental faith in the democratic processes in rejecting this savage grab for power which has been a characteristic of the Opposition since 1972. 1 recall my first experience in the Parliament in 1971, some 4 years ago. Parties were then somewhat similarly divided. My recollection is that there were almost even numbers for the Labor Party and the coalition parties with the Democratic Labor Party and I think Senator Townley occupied a balanced position between the Opposition, which was then the Labor Party, and the Government parties. I can well recall the manner in which Senator Murphy accepted his responsibilities in this place in terms of the Government’s legislative program. I recall the degree of co-operation that was extended to Sir Kenneth Anderson by the Labor Party. True, the Labor Party from time to time did seek to build an alliance with the non-aligned senators for the purpose of defeating legislation and it did seek to amend the Budget and other legislation before the Senate. But the facts are, as shown in the record, that for 75 years the Australian Labor Party has never been associated in this place with any endeavours to bring down a government by way of any of its Supply or Appropriation Bills, despite the fact that we enjoyed on occasions a majority in the Senate. It is an indictment of the Opposition parties that they should use this stratagem at this point when in fact all the evidence points to a recovery in the economy and to the Australian Government being able properly to govern this country in the interests of the Australian people.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted for the incorporation in Hansard of the document sought to be incorporated by Senator Gietzelt? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Daily Telegraph, Monday, March 1 1, 1968

THE AUSTRALIAN SENATE

Senate command of government by a party in a minority in the House of Representatives would be absurd, says Sir Robert Menzies. It would be a . . .

The purpose of this article is to examine the powers and authority of the Australian Senate.

This is an important and topical matter, for in the new Senate the Government will not have a majority in its own right, though it was, little more than a year ago, given by popular vote, a very large majority in the House of Representatives; a majority which, in the normal course, it will continue to have for the better part of the next two years.

There are some observers (including some Senators) who tend to exaggerate the constitutional authority of the Australian Senate. They find some support for this view in the prominent and powerful position of the United States Senate.

But comparisons with the position in the United States are not very helpful.

True, in that country they have a Congress (as we have a Parliament) made up of a Senate and a House of Representatives. But the United States Senate has, in public acceptance, and by virtue of certain special powers, a status and authority superior to that of the House.

There are four reasons for this which make any comparison with the position of the Australian Senate misleading.

The first is that the American Senate, though it cannot originate a Bill for raising revenue, may make amendments exactly as it could with any other type of Bill. In this respect, its powers exceed those of the Australian Senate.

The second is that the American President may refuse to sign a Bill which has passed both Houses, in which case he returns the Bill, with his objections.

If, after reconsideration, the originating House again passes the Bill by a two-thirds majority, and the other House does the same, the Bill becomes law. This means that the Bill so vetoed by the President does not become law unless twothirds of the Senators vote for it.

The third reason is that the American Senate has special authority on certain very important matters.

The President, as President, has a wide power, unique in my knowledge of democratic constitutions, to make treaties by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur’.

When one remembers how treaties with other countries, in modern times, affect the national economy at home and the whole structure of relations with and obligations to other nations abroad, one sees how powerful is the position of the Senate in America.

In the same way, the United States Senate controls the appointment of ambassadors, judges of the Supreme Court and a series of public officers.

The fourth, a most fundamental reason, frequently overlooked by those who concentrate on the similarities of the two constitutions, is one to which I made a brief reference in an earlier article. 1 shall now elaborate the point. lt is that in Australia we practise the system of ‘Responsible Government’. Indeed, it has been judicially declared that it is emobodied in our Constitution by necessary implication.

Under that system Ministers sit in and are responsible to Parliament; the Cabinet may be displaced by a vote of the

House of Representatives (not the Senate) and therefore holds office at the will of the House of Representatives.

In the United States, the President (in whom is vested the Executive power) cannot be removed from office by a hostile Congress, unless he is removed from office ‘on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’.

In short, and except for the most improbable circumstances, neither the American Senate nor the American House of Representatives, can make or break a government; only the people can do this, every four years at a Presidential election.

In the United States the political heads of the Department, that is those who hold office under the President, do noi sit in Congress.

So attached were the founders of the American Constitution to the principal of the ‘separation of powers’ between legislature and executive that section 6 of that Constitution expressly provides that ‘no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in Office. ‘.

This is the complete opposite of our Constitutional provision, which- in section 64- lays it down that ‘ no minister of state shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives ‘.

I now leave the field of comparison, and come right back home.

It is, in fact very important that we should understand the position of our Senate, for, in the present and probable state of Federal politics, there will inevitably be an almost chronic risk of tension between the two Houses.

The strict Australian Constitutional position is that, except as to ‘money Bills,’ that is those which impose or reduce taxes or appropriate moneys, the Senate has equal power with that of the House of Representatives, in respect of all proposed laws.

There are clear Constitutional provisions about money Bills. As to these, the Australian Senate:

cannot originate a taxing Bill or an appropriation Bill;

cannot amend a taxing Bill, or a Bill appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of Government;

cannot amend any Bill so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

But it may return to the House any Bill which it cannot amend, with a request for amendment.

Such a request may be agreed to by the House; in which case the Bill is amended accordingly, or it may be rejected; in which case the Senate may change its mind, or there may be a deadlock between the two Houses; possibly, under rare circumstances, leading to a double dissolution.

In the end result, the Senate has a full power of rejecting any Bill.

This means that if a government with a clear majority in the House of Representatives presented its Budget to Parliament, and then brought into the House of Representatives financial measures to give effect to that Budget, and had them passed by the House and sent up to the Senate, a hostile Senate could legally reject them.

This, of course, would create an impossible situation, and would make popular government unworkable.

But these comments must be studied against the background of a much broader consideration.

What are the true purposes and proper functions of the Senate?

Should it really exercise its undoubted powers in such a way as to control or frustrate the policies of a government with a popular majority and mandate in the House?

To answer these questions, it is necessary to look at certain basic and historical facts.

The draftsmen and founders of the Australian Federation, familiar as they were with colonial ( to become State) patriotisms and sometimes sharp differences of policy, devised a Constitution which provided for a Senate made up of an equal number of senators from each State, and a House of Representatives elected by individual constituencies and therefore representative, not of States but of people.

This, of course, did not involve equality of State representation in the House. Quite the contrary. In the present House of Representatives, having regard to State populations, there are 46 members from New South Wales, 33 from Victoria, 18 from Queensland, 1 1 from South Australia, nine from Western Australia, five from Tasmania, and one each from the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

Whoever commands a majority in the House forms a government, and has the right with his colleagues, to govern. This proposition is not really in dispute.

In its own publication (Australian Senate Practice, written by the highly qualified Mr J. R. Odgers) the position is accurately set out:

The Senate, as a second chamber, plays no part in the determination of which political party, or group of parties, shall form the government’.

The Governor-General issues a commission to form a government to the leader of the party (or coalition of parties ) commanding a majority in the People’s House of Representatives the House which represents the people on a population basis, the House which represents in its most recent form the public opinion of the country, and the House which has the greater financial powers. ‘

I have just quoted the States’ representation in the House of Representatives, which, on the democratic basis of popular voting, represents overall public opinion.

I emphasise one aspect of the State figures. In the Senate, as I have pointed out, the three smaller States, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania could, if their senators voted as a State team, defeat a proposal supported by the senators from New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.

But in the House of Representatives, 25 Members (South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania) could never defeat 85 Members from the three larger States.

Falsification of popular democracy’

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.

To sum up, the case against any attempt by the Senate (an attempt which I must regard as most unlikely) to control government policy can be readily stated in a few propositions.

Under the Commonwealth Constitution, the President of the Senate has a deliberative vote, but no casting vote. If the votes on any motion are equal, the motion is defeated. In short, with every senator voting, a vote of 30-30 is a negative vote.

If the Senate functioned (as a few people still maintain) as a States House, and a matter arose, which was regarded as having a special and particular reference to one State, or some States, and all the senators from a State decided to vote together in the special interests of their State, then it is clear that any three States acting together could defeat the measure concerned, even though all of the senators from the other States supported the measure.

But such issues would be very rare; for most legislation in the Commonwealth Parliament is of general application, and not directed to States as such.

In all such general matters, the clear fact is that the Senate has become a party house, senators from each State (except for one recent exception in Tasmania) being elected on party tickets, and therefore becoming members of the parliamentary parties, adhering, broadly, to their party policy.

It would be very rarely that a Liberal senator or a Country Party senator, or a Labor senator, would feel himself free to vote against giving effect to a measure propounded by his own party in the House of Representatives after a general election at which his party had been chosen, perhaps by a large majority, to carry on the government of Australia on the basis of its electoral policy.

If these propositions are right- as I am sure they are- then the practical limits of Senate authority becomes clear.

Otherwise a Senate opposition whose party had just been completely defeated at a general election, would be in command of the government of the nation.

This would be absurd, as a denial of popular democracy.

The propositions I have stated might be regarded as truisms, but for one recent event. For the first time in Commonwealth political history, the majority Government party in the House of Representatives has elected a senator to be its leader and Prime Minister.

True, he did not continue to be a senator, a vacancy in the House of Representatives having provided a gateway of entry into that House.

The result is, that which to my mind is essential, that the Prime Minister should be in and accountable to the House of Representatives, will be a principle preserved.

The result is that the first time, a serving senator of admittedly great ability has been chosen as Prime Minister must inevitably tend to increase the significance of the Senate and strengthen its hand in any conflict with the Lower House.

What seemed to be regarded by most people at the time as a fairly normal matter may turn out to be a quite remarkable and crucial event in our constitutional history. -by Sir Robert Menzies

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Cotton’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 Cotton’s 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.

Senate adjourned at 5.6 p.m.

page 1462

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Inquiry on Privacy (Question No. 708)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When did the Committee of Inquiry on Privacy last meet.
  2. 2 ) When is it anticipated that it will next meet.
  3. 3 ) On how many Bills has it advised the Government.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

  1. 1 ) The Committee of Inquiry into the Protection of Privacy last met on 20 November 1973.
  2. The membership of the Committee was specially constituted for the purposes of reporting on the measures that should be adopted to protect the individual privacy of persons affected by the then proposed Government Health Insurance Programme. It was not intended that the Committee as then constituted should undertake further inquiries. No decision has been taken on the reconstitution of the Committee for the purpose of further inquiries into matters affecting privacy.
  3. The Committee has not advised the Government on any Bills. The Committee’s second interim report made recommendations to the Government on legislative and other means that should be adopted to protect the individual privacy of persons affected by the then proposed Government Health Insurance Programme. That report was tabled in Parliament on 7 March 1974 and the Health Insurance Bill (No. 2) 1975, presently before Parliament, is based on the recommendations of the Committee.

Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australia Ltd (Question No. 839)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the exact amount paid to Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australia Ltd of Hobart by way of grant for assistance to retain employment.
  2. What amount of assistance did the Government originally state would be made available.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Manufacturing Industry has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. ) The Agreement between the Australian Government and Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australia Ltd provides that the Australian Government will reimburse the company in respect of certain costs incurred as a result of the company retaining in employment up to 468 employees at the company’s Risdon Works for a period up to 6 months from 10 March 1975, pending the placement of these employees in alternative employment. An amount of $347,910 has so far been paid by the Australian Government to the company under the Agreement, and a further and final amount of $35,745 has been claimed by the company. This further claim is currently being examined by the Department of Manufacturing Industry.

The Government did not state a specific amount of assistance to be available under the Agreement. An amount of $650,000 was appropriated in 1974-75 and a further amount of $180,000 is provided in the 1975-76 Appropriation Bill. The total amount paid to the company will be considerably less than was initially estimated. This is because of the considerable success achieved by the Department of Labor and Immigration in finding alternative work opponunities for the employees who otherwise would have been retrenched on 10 March 1975.I must acknowledge the considerable assistance and co-operation of the company and the unions concerned in carrying out the Agreement.

Cultural Attaches (Question No. 840)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice;

  1. 1 ) To which Australian overseas Missions are Cultural Attaches presently posted.
  2. When were they appointed.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. Cultural Attaches (or Cultural Counsellors) are at present attached to the Australian embassies in Jakarta, Tokyo and Peking.
  2. An officer was first appointed as Counsellor (Cultural) in Tokyo on 1 4. 1 . 1 966. The present occupant of this position took up duties on 4.2. 1 975.

An officer was sent to Jakarta as Counsellor (Cultural) on 10. 1. 1 974, and to Peking as Cultural Attache on 2.4. 1 975.

An officer served as Cultural Attache in Paris from 1 947 to 1967 when his duties were broadened to include all UNESCO matters.

Daylight Saving (Question No. 848)

Senator Rae:

asked the Special Minister of

State, upon notice:

  1. What estimated savings have been made by (a) governmental authorities, (b) private firms, (c) organisations and, (d) others, since the recent re-introduction of daylight saving around Australia.
  2. Could the Minister provide a breakdown by each State and Territory since 1965.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Australian Government has not made any estimates of savings so far as its activities are concerned. Nor is it aware of any estimates made by or about other governmental authorities, private firms, organisations, or others.

Unpublished Documents (Question No. 869)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, 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.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

See the answer provided by the Minister representing the Prime Minister on 2 October 1975 (Senate Hansard, page 932).

Unpublished Documents (Question No. 880)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Foreign 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.

Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

I have nothing to add to the Prime Minister’s answer to a similar question by the honourable senator (Senate Hansard, 2 October 1975, page 930).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19751023_senate_29_s66/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant