Senate
25 February 1977

30th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 443

PETITIONS

Roads

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 266 citizens:

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

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide SO per cent of all funding for Australia s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5, 903m of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

Petition received and read.

Roads

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present 2 petitions, similar in wording, from 36 and 47 citizens, respectively, as follows:

To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petitions of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth:

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide SO per cent of all funding for Australia s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903 million of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth’s share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

Petitions received and 1 petition read.

Metric System

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 23 citizens:

To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 1 8 citizens:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

Subscribe to the view that the Australian Broadcasting Commission belongs to the people and not to the government of the day, whatever political party.

Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into A.B.C. Programs.

Develop methods for publicly funding the Commission which will prevent the granting or withholding of funds being used as a method of diminishing its independence.

Ensure that any general enquiries into broadcasting in Australia which may seem desirable from time to time shall be conducted publicly and that strong representation of the public shall be included within the body conducting the enquiry.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Roads

Senator WALSH:

-I present the following petition from 101 citizens:

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

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long term policy should be to provide SO per cent of all funding for Australia s roads.

That at the minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903m of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.
  2. Commonwealth government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide 50 per cent of all funding for Australia’s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associatons for the allocation of $5, 903m of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-8 1, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

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

Petitions received.

Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme

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

That the Commonwealth Government restore the Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme immediately for the benefit of those people who live away from the seaboard.

Your petitioners believe that the matter is urgent and your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Senator Sheil.

Petition received.

Australian Legal Aid Office

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 grave concern is expressed about the Government’s intention to dismantle the Australian Legal Aid Office which is providing efficient, readily available legal aid to all communities in Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will undertake a full national enquiry as proposed in 1975 by the present Attorney-General, as a matter of urgency.

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

Petition received.

page 444

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 444

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: RATE CONCESSIONS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory urgently investigate the case for pensioners and low income earners in the Northern Territory to receive concessions on general rates, electricity, sewerage and water charges in line with those concessions already offered by many local authorities in Queensland and in other States of Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– I acknowledge the honourable senator’s question. It may be that the question would be more properly directed to the Minister for Social Security. However, that part of it which does affect the authorities under the management of the Minister for the Northern Territory will be referred to him.

page 444

QUESTION

TASMANIA: ANTARCTIC BASE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Science: Has any progress been made with the acquisition of property in Tasmania for the new Antarctic base? I ask the question at this time particularly in view of previous questions and in view of the advertising for sale of the H. Jones & Co-IXL property in Hobart.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– The Government announced early in 1976 that the headquarters of the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science would move to Hobart. I am sure that when that work is put in hand it will be to the advantage of that particularly important State. A number of honourable senators have taken a great deal of interest in this important matter. On 2 occasions I have looked at the sites for a new headquarters in Hobart and, indeed, with the Minister for Administrative Services I have looked at the IXL site. I noted in the Press yesterday that it is now to come up for auction. I should imagine that this is the important matter which prompted the honourable senator’s question. I think it is best for me to reiterate that the Government’s attitude is that the headquarters of the Antarctic Division will move to Hobart. I have been in touch constantly with the Department of Administrative Services attempting to evaluate sites in and around Hobart as well as the Kingston site which at present is held for the headquarters of the Antarctic Division. Prior to Christmas I announced that within the first 2 months of this year I would announce where the headquarters would be located. I expect to make the decision before the end of this month.

page 445

QUESTION

POVERTY DATA

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister for Social Security give an assurance that the processing of poverty data from the 1976 census will not be affected by further cuts in the already reduced allocation to the Australian Bureau of Statistics? As this was the most complicated census survey in our history does she not agree that it would be an intolerable waste of money if the poverty data were not available for proper social planning to be effected?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

-I agree with the honourable senator that the data from the census is of vital importance to the Department of Social Security and to other departments which provide personal services. I can give the assurance that I am treating this matter as one of priority. I need the information not only with regard to poverty but also with regard to programs for aged and handicapped people. I have been exerting whatever influence I have to see that there will be an examination of these statistics and that they will be related to our programs.

page 445

QUESTION

MEAT TENDERISING

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I direct a question to the Minister for Science. I have seen reports of a new meat tenderising process recently developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Can the Minister give the Senate some details of the process and its implications to meat producers?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Questions have been asked of the Minister for Science so regularly that I do not know whether I have the full information for the honourable senator. I am sure that honourable senators will have noted that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has been assisting primary industries as well as consumers in this country in relation to developing a more acceptable meat product. Scientists from the Division of Food Research, which is the meat research laboratory, have been testing methods which use electrical stimulation to improve the tenderness of carcasses. I know that honourable senators opposite get quite excited when this type of information is given. The CSIRO has shown that the use of low voltage stimulation of meat carcasses prevents muscle shortening. That is the major cause of toughness in meat. The shock is directed into the carcass through electrodes a few minutes after slaughter. The voltage used in the CSIRO experiments is within the safety limits specified by the State electricity authorities. The electrical stimulation speeds up rigor mortis whilst the carcass is still warm. If those honourable senators who have no interest in primary industries laugh in the way they are laughing now the rural industries will recognise the difficulty it has in getting the Opposition to realise the problems concerning export.

This matter is important. This is a major breakthrough for the community, I think the work done by Australian scientists who come within the ambit of my portfolio is a wonderful achievement. Returning to the queston asked by Senator Thomas, the shock is applied while the carcass is still warm. It brings about a softness of the natural muscle and that is largely preserved. This is a very important step. The question asked by Senator Thomas relates to a most important issue. The meat tenderising process will establish Australia as a leader in the field of quality meat exports.

page 445

QUESTION

SHARK MESHING

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Science aware that a report in the Australian Financial Review dated 6 December 1976 stated that Dr George Heinsohn, Senior Lecturer in Zoology at James Cook University, called for a study of the effects upon the marine environment of shark meshing, in view of the possible ecological effects of the killing of large numbers of sharks? Has the Minister given consideration to adopting Dr Heinsohn ‘s suggestion or, in fact, has a study been commenced by the Minister’s Department? If the Minister has not given consideration to Dr Heinsohn ‘s suggestion, will he agree to do so and later to inform the Senate whether a study will be made using the research facilities of the Department of Science?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I do not think that the matter raised in the question falls within the responsibility of my Department. I believe that the question would probably more properly be directed either to the responsible State department, or perhaps to the Minister for Primary Industry in this Parliament. If the question related to a research project- perhaps Dr Heinsohn is suggesting that there should be more research on the matter- it might well be a matter that falls within the authority and responsibility of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. I take the honourable senator’s question on board. I shall see whether the question as it relates to fisheries falls within the responsibility of my Department.

page 446

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYED PERSONS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to a series of articles appearing in today’s Australian relating to the unemployed and the Commonwealth Employment Service. The article raises a number of very serious matters. I ask: Has the Minister noted the claim that 141 000 people registered as unemployed voluntarily resigned from their jobs and, further, that complaints continue to be made by employers that they are unable to find staff to fill vacancies? Secondly, has the Minister noted the charge in the newspaper article that many thousands of New Zealanders are coming to Australia and receiving unemployment benefits? As these and other charges seem to reflect a very serious social and moral problem in addition to the serious economic problem, can the Minister indicate any steps that the Government might undertake to resolve these serious issues?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have not seen the article to which Senator Davidson refers, in the Australian this morning. However, it does appear that the article makes reference to several matters which already have been the subject of a considerable amount of publicity and discussion, both inside and outside the Parliament, and also the subject of some questions raised in this Parliament. For instance, the claim that a number of people who are now seeking work voluntarily left their previous jobs was the subject of a question directed to me yesterday by Senator Tehan. I endeavoured to answer the question as best I could. I do not think that I need to repeat what I said then. Certainly the experience of a great many employers is that they are finding difficulty in obtaining suitable employees for job vacancies. Senator Lajovic drew to my attention this week an advertisement by the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales in which Mr Wran publicised the vacancies- in many cases for inexperienced people- within that Commission. It does seem that the newspaper article to which Senator Davidson referred relates to matters which are of public concern and which are already matters of public discussion and debate. As to the specific question asked by Senator Davidson, the Government has set up an inquiry into the Commonwealth Employment Service, headed by Mr John Norgard. That inquiry has very wide terms of reference. The Government attaches great importance and priority to this inquiry. It is looking forward to an early report from Mr Norgard which, we believe, will deal with most of the matters that have been raised in this series of questions.

page 446

QUESTION

WAGE INDEXATION

Senator WALSH:

-I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he can reconcile the Treasurer’s answer to question on notice No. 1608 given to Senator McLaren yesterday, in which the Treasurer denies having claimed last November that full wage indexation and especially the September quarter’s 2.2 per cent increase had destroyed the Government’s previous economic strategy, with an extract I will quote from a Press statement of the Treasurer dated 28 November 1976. The extract reads: . . against the background of the obvious reluctance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to recognise the need to award lower increases in wages, highlighted by the recent decision to pass on the whole of the September quarter consumer price increase, it had become increasingly clear that there was little or no chance of restoring competitiveness of Australian industries by purely domestic policies.

I repeat Can the Minister reconcile that statement with the Treasurer’s answer yesterday to the question on notice?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-It might surprise all honourable senators to learn that I do not carry around in my head a total register of answers and replies to questions by all and sundry in the Senate or anywhere else. Nor do I carry around in my head a register of newspaper articles. Constructions such as the one referred to usually are shown to be totally false. In order to demonstrate that I will get a proper answer for the honourable senator.

page 446

QUESTION

SECURITIES INDUSTRIES

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I refer to this morning’s newspaper reports that the New South Wales Attorney-General is threatening to legislate for further controls over the securities industry. In the light of abuses revealed by the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange and the clear need for co-ordinated national legislation in controlling securities markets in each of the States and in order to avoid the exploitation of legal loopholes by interstate companies, is this threat likely to make more difficult the Minister’s earnest efforts to obtain agreement between the States which he has undertaken since July 1 976?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-It so happens that I did hear what the New South Wales AttorneyGeneral said on AM. I do not know whether the remarks were the same as reported in the newspaper. I listened with great interest to what

Mr Walker was saying about the matter. It confirmed what I have said in answer to a number of questions in the Senate directed to me as Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs about legislation on a national basis to control the securities industry. I was very pleased to note -

Senator Georges:

– It has taken too long.

Senator DURACK:

– We know that Senator Georges always says the same thing whenever I answer questions. He always interjects in the same vein. He and I could get a record of this; it would always be the same. But what pleased me about Mr Walker’s comments on AM this morning was the fact that he is recognising the need for co-ordinated legislation by the national Government and State governments on this matter. I understood him to say that he would proceed with further State legislation only in the event that co-operation was not achieved. As I said the other day, it is the wish of this Government to achieve a co-operative arrangement with the States whereby this Parliament and the State parliaments will legislate to regulate the securities industry and the activities of companies which are operating on the national market.

There is to be a meeting of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and the responsible State Ministers next month. They will be discussing what I think undoubtedly has been further progress in negotiations which have taken place. I hope and the Government certainly hopes that we will be able to achieve an agreement so that there will be uniformity in this matter and States will not continue to have different laws on the matter. Certainly it would be most undesirable for New South Wales or any other State to embark upon new and further laws of their own and thereby exacerbate the problem.

page 447

QUESTION

TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Education aware of the serious deficiencies that exist in certain areas of technical and further education in Australia, especially in terms of the buildings, accommodation and facilities on older technical education campuses? In the light of such deficiencies as are apparent at such an institution as the Sydney Technical College, will the Minister give favourable consideration to implementing the recommendations of the Technical and Further Education Commission of August 1976 and increase public expenditure in this area?

Senator CARRICK:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– My Government and I are very much aware of what has been in relative terms the neglect by all governments- Federal and State- of technical and further education over the years and of the urgent need for improvement in that field. The guidelines laid down and executed for this year gave an earnest of our intentions in that regard. Our technical and further education funds were increased by Vh per cent. We have indicated in setting up the co-ordinating commission in the post-secondary sphere that by bringing technical and further education in alongside colleges and universities we are developing an intended co-partnership to focus a more significant light on the technical and further education area. We will be giving that kind of focus, that kind of preference, to technical education in our policies for the future.

page 447

QUESTION

REFERENDUMS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate able to say how many referendum proposals have been put before the people in Australia since Federation and how many have been accepted? Perhaps he could also advise the Senate when the last referendum proposal was accepted and what it concerned. As there are still 40 minutes to go in question time, if he does not have the information available perhaps his staff could have it available before the end of question time.

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I do not carry that information around in my head, but if the honourable senator looks in, I think, the Parliamentary Handbook, of which he receives a free copy each Parliament- he has no doubt received a number since he became a member of this chamber- he will find the information quite clearly set out.

page 447

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to the platform of the Liberal Party of Australia, which says that the Liberal Party believes in full employment. I also refer him to the election promise of December 1975 that a Liberal government would reduce the level of unemployment by 200 000. In the light of those 2 matters, I ask: What is the Minister really trying to say regarding the current unemployment figures and the questions which have been asked of him about employees who leave their jobs voluntarily and who are unable to find other jobs? Is he saying that it is now a part of this Government ‘s policy that people should not leave their jobs voluntarily? I want to be quite clear about this because very vague answers have been given by the Minister in replies to previous questions.

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Government is not saying that and I am not saying that. I am simply referring to matters which have been canvassed recently. One matter concerning those who have left their jobs voluntarily related to a statistic provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That is the authority for that statement. I do not think that the honourable senator is challenging that. I have been simply referring to certain statistics and to certain facts, and saying that these are matters for consideration. When one looks at the total figures concerning registered unemployed one sees that they have some important relevance to the conclusions which might be drawn and which are being drawn by Senator Button and the Opposition about the total figures for registered unemployed. What I am saying is that all these matters are being investigated by the inquiry conducted by Mr Norgard. That is the substance of what I have been saying in relation to these matters.

page 448

QUESTION

CORPORATIONS: COMMONWEALTH POWER

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. It refers to constitutional alteration. Has the Minister considered the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review which reported in 1959 unanimously in favour of legislation to give the Commonwealth power over corporations, untrammelled by the limitations in the present Commonwealth power, which would enable a uniform companies Act and Federal legislation effectively controlling the securities industry? What is the attitude of the Government to that proposal for constitutional reform?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The Joint Committee on Constitutional Review reported in 1958 and 1959. There has been a great change in the interpretation of the Constitution by the High Court during that period. There has been a fundamental change by the High Court in the interpretation of the provision of the Constitution in relation to the corporations power, which is the matter raised by Senator Wright, in a case known as the concrete pipes case with which I am sure Senator Wright is more familiar than I and certainly more familiar than most people would be. Now the attention of the AttorneyGeneral and his advisers would be directed primarily at the ramifications of that case. Certainly it has considerable relevance to the question asked about controlling the securities industry and the conduct of corporations. The AttorneyGeneral’s consideration will be directed more to that, I feel, than the matter which Senator Wright raised. However, I will certainly pass on the question to the Attorney-General and endeavour to obtain a more detailed answer for Senator Wright.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Does not the Minister representing the Attorney-General recall that the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review for the alteration of this power expressly recommended legislation that did not authorise this Parliament to regulate the trade and commerce of corporations, which is the effect of the recent interpretation of the High Court? Is this not an instance in which constitutional review is more properly done by referendum than by High Court interpretation?

Senator DURACK:

-I will add that additional point to the matter which I will refer to the Attorney-General.

page 448

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT: EFFECT OF INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of a statement attributed to the Prime Minister recently that apparently deplored the trend to replace men with machines, presumably because this would further worsen the unemployment postion? Will the Minister not agree that the 40 per cent investment allowance introduced by this Government does the very opposite to that which the Prime Minister suggested should be done? Will the Minister clarify exactly what the Prime Minister means? If there is a contradiction between the effect of the introduction of the 40 per cent investment allowance and what the Prime Minister wishes to see, will the Government discontinue the 40 per cent allowance?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The Leader of the Opposition has an advantage over me. I have not seen any statement on this matter attributed to the Prime Minister. I do not know whether it is alleged that he made such a statement in a speech or in answer to a question. I have not seen it and therefore I am unable to clarify what the honourable gentleman believes to be some inconsistency.

200-MILE FISHING ZONE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign

Affairs. What is Australia’s attitude to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone for off-shore areas? Does Australia intend to await the results of the Law of the Sea discussions in the United Nations before making any final decision on the 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone including the 200-mile fishing zone which already has been claimed by both Russia and the United States of America and some other countries?

Senator WITHERS:

– A number of countries have made or are in the process of making unilateral declarations of resources or fisheries zones in advance of the conclusion of the Law of the Sea Convention. Countries which have taken decisions to that effect, or have introduced or passed special legislation, include Papua New Guinea, Iceland, Mexico, France, Norway, Denmark, India, Canada, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– What about Switzerland?

Senator WITHERS:

-No, they have a Senate to protect them. The Government believes that Australia’s long term interests would be best served by the achievement of a widely supported multi-lateral convention which included provision for a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. While the concept of the exclusive economic zone is widely supported in the Law of the Sea Conference there is still no agreement on the precise balance of rights and obligations of states in the exclusive economic zone. The Government believes that we should not at this stage seek to pre-empt the outcome of the negotiations by making a unilateral declaration. Nor does it believe that the circumstances which led to unilateral action by certain Northern Hemisphere countries to protect the depleted fisheries resources apply at the present stage in Australia’s region. At a South Pacific forum meeting on the Law of the Sea in October last year, member states confirmed their intention to establish 200-mile exclusive economic zones at appropriate times and after consultation with one another. The Government recognises that developments could take place in our part of the world which might require it to re-examine the need for legislative action. The situation will be kept under review.

page 449

QUESTION

WHITE PAPER ON MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Senator GEORGES:

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and refers to questions asked by the

Leader of the Opposition about the White Paper on manufacturing industry. The Minister will recall that those questions were asked before Christmas. What has happened to that White Paper? Is it true that Cabinet has instructed that White Paper be rewritten? Why has this been necessary? If Cabinet has taken such a decision, why does it view with such little concern the interest in this paper and the need for the manufacturers of Australia to know in which direction the Government is heading so that they can plan for the future?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator suffers from observing the financial witchdoctors every morning. The facts are that the original draft of the White Paper was delivered by me in the middle of November. As the honourable senator would well know, devaluation intervened and is was necessary to recast a great part of that White Paper because of devaluation and because of the change in the exchange regime. If the honourable senator refers back I think he will find that I commented on that matter- at least I hope I would have done so.

Senator Georges:

– Yes, you said you would have it in a fortnight.

Senator COTTON:

-I do not think I did. Equally, if I said that I was wrong, was I not? A lot of work has been done. By about the fourth week in January the White Paper had been recast and there had been a re-examination of the various aspects with a view to Cabinet considering the matter. When Cabinet looked at it the other day we all agreed that it would benefit by more input on some extra areas and that is what is happening now. There is no question of it being pulped and there is no question of it not being done properly. I think the honourable senator would acknowledge that in the construction of a matter such as this it is very important to be as accurate as possible in order to try to predict, as far as one can, what ought to be done. It is necessary to examine the problem very carefully. That has been done. It is an objective document prepared very thoroughly and precisely and it does paint a scene of difficulty and problem. One would expect it to do so. It represents an endeavour to examine possible solutions and, quite honestly and fairly to get an objective position which is as bipartisan as possible because we are concerned with an Australian and not a political problem. This problem has been accruing for a long, long time. If I just mention that the document is now the product of 3 1 1 submissions of detailed and careful examination honourable senators will be able to appreciate the problem.

No one of the constructions, no piece of evidence, no useful criticism, no useful contribution came from any financial writer whatsoever.

page 450

QUESTION

EDUCATION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a queston to the Minister for Education. On 1 January 1977 the Federal Government commenced the transfer of powers of State-like nature to the Northern Territory. Many responsibilities have been transferred. In view of the recommendatons of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Northern Territory relating to the transfer of powers, what are the present situation and future plans for the transfer of repsonsibilities in regard to education?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government indicated that it desired to move the Northern Territory to statehood over a period of approximately 5 years. In consequence of that goal the Government has set up a series of co-ordinating programs to provide steadily for the transfer of various powers and for the ultimate assumption of powers. In respect of education, the first step of course has been to get greater liaison and coordination between the Northern Territory division of my Department and all other Departments within the Northern Territory, but notably the Departments of the Northern Territory, Aboriginal Affairs and Health. These Departments will work within a co-ordinating atmosphere of interdepartmental relationships to develop plans consistent with the transfer of powers in a time scale as indicated.

In parallel with that, my Department is in close contact with the parliamentary members for the Northern Territory. As far as possible we will keep them informed and seek their views on matters relating to the Northern Territory. I remind the honourable senator that the Northern Territory, along with the Australian Capital Territory, will be observer members initially- ultimately when the Northern Territory becomes a State it will be a full participant- of the Advisory Commission on Inter-governmental Relations, the composition of which I hope may be announced in the immediate weeks ahead. Steps similar to this are being taken throughout the Northern Territory to provide total working liaison.

page 450

QUESTION

INDONESIA: USE OF AUSTRALIAN SABRE AIRCRAFT

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: Has the Minister any knowledge of the use of 4 ex-Royal Australian Air Force Sabre jets that were given to Malaysia by Australia and are now in East Timor in use by the Indonesian Air Force? Did the Government ask for or receive any guarantees that these gift Sabres would not be used in East Timor? Further, has the Minister any information relating to the use of Nomad aircraft by the Indonesian armed forces in East Timor?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I shall seek the information for the honourable senator.

page 450

QUESTION

PROPOSED AMALGAMATION OF THE BUREAU OF ROADS AND THE BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to the proposed amalgamation of the Bureau of Roads and the Bureau of Transport Economics. Is the Minister aware that local government has greatly appreciated the independence of the Bureau of Roads? Does the Minister agree that the resulting co-operative consultation and effort demonstrates cooperative federalism at its best? Can the Minister say whether or not the proposed new body will be established by legislation in a similar manner to the way in which the Bureau of Roads was established or will it be absorbed into a federal departmental structure?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think Senator Lewis accurately reflects the viewpoint of a cross-section of local government when he mentions the appreciation of the work which the Bureau of Roads has done over the years and the very good liaison which exists between it and local government bodies. I support that diagnosis. The Commonwealth Government has made it clear that in bringing together the 2 bodies- the Bureau of Roads and the Bureau of Transport Economicsthere will be no loss of any existing functions. That includes the ability of full and free liaison. Obviously there will be some gain because the second body is of very great significance. The Government has given that undertaking with regard to future functions and responsibilities. I am not aware of the legislative situation. I shall seek the information and let the honourable senator know.

page 450

QUESTION

TOWRA POINT NATIONAL PARK

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. As the New South Wales Government has withdrawn its challenge to the validity of the action of the Whitlam Government in acquiring Towra Point for nature conservation purposes, will the Australian Government use its own National Parks and Wildlife Service personnel to manage this region or will it utilise the similar facilities operated by the New South Wales Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I think this is the second question asked on this matter by Senator Mulvihill in recent days. My recollection is that in my previous answer to him, acting upon advice given to me, I indicated that the previous Government had taken steps to acquire the land but that the New South Wales Government had intervened by High Court action. As I understood the situation, on the advice given to me, it remained inert, the New South Wales Government having taken that step. It may be true- I was not so advised- that there has been a withdrawal of that action. The advice I have is that the matter still lies with the New South Wales Government as to whether it intends to withdraw completely. I may be wrong in my interpretation; but I understand that the position is not quite as clear at this moment as Senator Mulvihill is saying. Nevertheless, I shall take note of that matter and clarify it. As there is some delay in the process, the Commonwealth and New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Services are working closely together to collect information on which to base the management of the area. I think that is the essential thrust of the honourable senator’s question. This information is obviously relevant in deciding how best to administer the area. On the technical side, for the purposes of information I shall find out and let the honourable senator know.

page 451

QUESTION

NEPEAN AND HAWKESBURY RIVERS: POLLUTION

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, concerns fears which have been expressed publicly in the western suburbs of Sydney about the river systems in that area. Is it a fact that a study conducted recently by a hydrologist, Dr Wolanski, predicted increasing pollution over the next 20 years of the Nepean and Hawkesbury river systems in outer Sydney? Is it claimed that this pollution will result from the discharge of effluent from planned residential development for 600 000 people in the Camden and Campbelltown areas? Is the Minister able to indicate what information is available to confirm or corroborate these fears? What positive action can the Federal Government take to ensure that there is adequate monitoring of the state of the rivers and that there is proper planning of development and proper protection of these valuable western suburbs waterways?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-As to the first aspect of the question asked by Senator Baume, yes, I have had my attention drawn to considerable publicity directed to the suggestion that an inquiry conducted by a Dr Wolanski had indicated a real threat to the Nepean and Hawkesbury river systems which are major river systems in the Sydney general development area, particularly if the trends of population continue over the next 2 decades as normally projected. The threat of course would be heavily underlined if there were developments in Camden, Campbelltown or areas of that nature. It is of major significance to all those interested and concerned in an environmental way that there should be monitoring, planning and above everything else the avoidance, the prophylaxis necessary.

I have not seen Dr Wolanski’s report. I will draw the attention of my colleague, the Minister in the other place, to it and ask him to look at it. I will see whether copies can be made available to honourable senators. I will certainly try to get a copy for myself because we need it as a starting point. In general, all sewage treatment, effluent treatment and matters of that nature are State matters and therefore must be primarily the responsibility of the Wran Government. Nevertheless I do not abdicate responsibility in the area. The Commonwealth Government has accepted responsibility for supplementary funding for sewerage works and other matters. Last year it provided to the New South Wales Government for its Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board $ 19.7m.

I think the importance of the honourable senator’s question lies in its general thrust- the need for planning at both Commonwealth and State levels ahead of trends in order to preserve the vital ecology, the vital waterways and the vital river systems, because once they are polluted the way back has enormous difficulties. I will raise the matter with the Minister. I will seek the report itself and I will certainly ask that it be thoroughly examined.

page 451

QUESTION

STATEMENT ON TARIFFS

Senator McLAREN:

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement in Melbourne on Monday on the effects of lower protection for Australian industry and his belief that lower tariffs would accelerate the trend towards capital intensity. Can the Leader explain the mechanism involved in that process, namely, the intermediate steps between lower tariffs and the replacement of labour with machines.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I thought I answered a question on this subject a while ago. I have not seen the statement, report or anything else. I have been far too busy reading what Mr Cameron has been writing to Mr Whitlam.

page 452

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs concerning developments in the New Hebrides. Can the Minister say what progress has been made towards independence for the New Hebrides? Can he indicate whether Australia is considering establishing representation in Vila to ensure that Australia is fully informed of developments in the New Hebrides and that Australia’s interests and citizens in the area are fully protected and have direct access to Australian Government representatives?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-According to my briefing note the New Hebrides National Party, now renamed the Vanuaaku Party, has called for certain changes in the structure of the Representative Assembly. These include the establishment of a ministerial system of government and a committee of parties to examine the electoral system. The British and French governments issued a statement on 17 February stating that they will spare no effort to ensure that the evolution of the New Hebrides takes place in an orderly and democratic way in accordance with the priciples of self-determination. They see no objection to this Party or any other political groups examining ideas for a more appropriate electoral system, and the 2 governments would welcome a delegation from the Representative Assembly at a meeting of Ministers in the near future to discuss the modalities of procedures towards self-government which could lead to independence. The Australian Government welcomes these statements as indications of orderly political developments in the New Hebrides. The question of Australian representation in Vila is being considered along with representation in the rest of the Pacific countries.

page 452

QUESTION

STATEMENT ON TARIFFS

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask Senator Withers a question following Senator McLaren’s question concerning the alleged statement by the Prime Minister. Will he ascertain from the Prime Minister whether he made the statement which was attributed to him? Does he realise the implications of that statement for manufacturing industry particularly? If he does, will he obtain the text of it in the next week while we are in recess and so give the Prime Minister a chance to rationalise the obvious contradiction between his statement and Government policy, so that we can have a clear indication of the Government’s policy in respect of this matter?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I shall seek the information.

page 452

QUESTION

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) ACT

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: Is it not a fact that under the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act the official Yes and No cases on a referendum proposal have to be authorised by members of Parliament who vote for or against the referendum Bill or Bills in the national Parliament? Does the Minister agree that under the Act a No case will be distributed by the Chief Electoral Officer only if members of the House of Representatives or senators vote in the Parliament against one or other of the referendum proposals? As the Minister responsible for the operation of the Act, does he know which vote in the Parliament is taken by the Chief Electoral Officer as fulfilling opposition to a referendum Bill? In view of the spurious arguments of some of his coalition colleagues who intend to oppose the referenda in the electorate but who say that their votes in this place for the measures are simply to allow the people a chance to vote on them, will the Minister give an undertaking that their votes for the measures under these circumstances will not be used in support of the official Yes case to be delivered to each elector?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I do not think that it is for me to give legal opinions on the interpretation of an Act of this Parliament. I invite the honourable senator to read the sections of the Act for himself.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I ask a supplementary question. The last part of my question did not seek any legal advice. I asked: Will the Minister give an undertaking that the votes of those people for the measure under the circumstances outlined will not be used in support of the official Yes case?

Senator Wright:

– It is a matter of registration, not legal opinion.

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not need the advice from behind me. I shall not give any undertaking on that matter. It will be a matter of Government policy to be decided at the time.

page 453

QUESTION

ENERGY SUPPLIES TO EDUCATIONAL BUILDINGS

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education and I preface it by saying that since educational buildings in the Commonwealth and States are a major consumer of energy for heating, air conditioning, lighting and power purposes, has any thought been given to the future use of alternative sources of energy in such institutions?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is true that the Departments of Education in Australia are massive builders of schools, colleges and universities and, therefore, massive consumers of energy for various uses. It does behove us in the future in our building planning to think ahead to see whether we can use alternative energy sources. I am happy to refer to one significant development in the Australian Capital Territory- the Wanniassa College and the community centre associated with it. I think this is the first building construction plan which allows and caters for the use of solar energy as a supplementary source of energy. Whilst these are small beginnings I think they are significant. The Wanniassa College and community centre will cost the Australian taxpayer a little matter of $7.7m. It will be the first school building in the Australian Capital Territory to use solar energy as a supplementary energy source. It is scheduled to commence operation at the commencement of 1979 and the community activities facilities will be completed a month or so later. The design incorporates a central pedestrian mall of some 100 metres in length. It is proposed to utilise the large amounts of glass in the mall roof to house the solar energy collectors. The energy from this source will supplement the main oil-fired plant and, for the delight of residents of Canberra I say, will be used to heat the indoor swimming pool as well as being used in connection with the more usual facilities. During the last few days questions have been asked of me and in the Press relating to heating and cooling problems in schools. I have drawn attention to the fact that we are looking at heat exchange pumps in order to get a better heating and cooling system in schools. In the future planning of the Charnwood and Tuggeranong high schools it is envisaged that an attempt will be made to involve solar energy as a supplementary source of energy to the heat exchange pumps.

page 453

QUESTION

FARM MACHINERY PURCHASES: ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for

Business and Consumer Affairs. There have been constant reports of farmers in the Shepparton area of Victoria being induced to spend very large amounts of money on farm machinery on the promise by the salesmen of interstate contracts for the farmer for his product. Can the Minister tell me what the Government will do to investigate these matters and, if necessary, to pursue charges of fraud or conspiracy or misrepresentation against the salesmen concerned and to obtain compensation for the victims?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the matters which Senator Melzer has raised in her question. I shall certainly pass on the question to the Minister whom I represent. However, I should point out that we have a federal system of government in Australia. There is a tendency for questions to be asked of me, representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, as though the Minister whom I represent and the Federal Government are the only agencies in Australia which can investigate consumer complaints and, indeed, enforce the general laws governing, in this case, alleged fraud. The fact of the matter is that State agencies under State laws are, and have been over the years, primarily responsible in these matters. I think that in many cases, and this sounds very much like one of them, the complaint should be taken to either the State police or the State consumer affairs organisations rather than to the Federal organisation.

page 453

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM

Senator WRIGHT:

-My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services, calling upon his responsibility for the administration of the Representation Act which provides for the members of Parliament who are entitled to join in a No case on a constitutional referendum. I ask the Minister: What practice is followed under that Act for determining which members of Parliament are entitled to formulate the No case?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator referred to the Representation Act. I assume he means the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act. I thought the honourable senator would know of his own knowledge what happened some years ago. I am calling on my own knowledge of what happened 3 years ago when I helped prepare the No case. Whilst I have administrative oversight of this matter, I should remind the honourable senator that the Chief Australian Electoral Officer is an independent statutory officer. He is not subject to my direction and, even if he were, I would not subject him to it.

Senator Wright:

– I did not ask about that; I asked about the practice.

Senator WITHERS:

-He is an independent statutory officer and the honourable senator ought to inquire of him of his practice.

Senator Wright:

– Have Ministers ceased to accept their responsibility to answer questions in this place?

Senator WITHERS:

– I answer questions in relation to my Department on matters for which I am ministerially responsible. I do not really need any lectures from the honourable senator either.

Senator Wright:

– No lecturing, just seeking information.

Senator WITHERS:

-I will seek the information for the honourable senator. As I understand it, those who wish to vote one way or the other come to an arrangement amongst themselves as to who will prepare the case. As I recall the last occasion the then Leader of the Opposition, the Right Honourable Bill Snedden, and I, together with the Right Honourable Doug Anthony, got together and prepared the No case. It was then signed by a number of us. Before the Chief Australian Electoral Officer would accept it he had to be satisfied that, according to the division lists, the signatures on that No case were those of people who had voted No. I am not the whip for the honourable senator’s No group. If Senator Harradine wishes to prepare one case, the honourable senator another, Senator Wood another and somebody else another, I shall not act as some sort of arbitrator on which ought to be the official No case. If those honourable senators cannot get together and act to put together a single case, they should not come to me to be the referee.

page 454

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: CONSUMER PROTECTION

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General inform the chamber of the progress of the 2 consumer protection ordinances for the Australian Capital Territory, the Manufacturers Warranties Ordinance and the Misrepresentation Ordinance, on which the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs reported to the Senate in December 1976? In particular, can the Minister give some firm indication as to when the Ordinances will be implemented?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Those matters are certainly within the responsibility of the Federal

Government and the Attorney-General whom I represent. I shall pass the question on to him and endeavour to obtain an early answer for Senator Ryan.

page 454

QUESTION

INDONESIAN ELECTIONS

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the fact that the Indonesian Government has decided to have a general election in the near future. In an endeavour to ensure that the people living in village situations do not come into contact with foreigners, the Government has decreed that all foreign personnel, including those working on aid programs, will be confined to city areas. I ask: In view of the Indonesian Government’s decision, what action will be taken to recall all Australian personnel working on aid programs outside city areas whose time will Become completely unproductive until after the elections are held?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I shall seek that information for the honourable senator.

page 454

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Senator SIBRAA:

-Does the Minister for Social Security agree that the Australian Assistance Plan was responsible for the initiation of some of the most innovative programs in the history of Australian social welfare? Is the Minister aware that the regional councils which constitute the AAP throughout Australia are in serious financial difficulties? In view of this state of affairs, will the Minister agree to a continuaton of Federal funding for the Plan beyond 1 July 1977?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– In the present Budget, the Government announced support for the Australian Assistance Plan as an interim stage so that State governments would be able to assume the Plan if they wished to do so. The Government has no intention to provide funds for the Australian Assistance Plan in future years as it was made clear when presenting the Budget for this year that States had been given additional finances to enable them to determine those programs which they wish to assist in the future. I am aware that there are regional councils which are in difficulties. I am aware also that some States are making decisions with regard to the future of those regional councils and the type of community development plan in general. I am aware that Victoria has advanced considerably its own planning with regard to this type of activity. I have been advised by the South Australian Government that about May of this year some decision will be made on this matter by it. I hope that other State governments will give assistance to community development through continuation of regional councils or in some other way that might be more appropriate in their own States.

page 455

QUESTION

WORKERS ON CHRISTMAS ISLAND

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: Have the Government and the British Phosphate Commission been advised by the Union of Christmas Island Workers that, following the holding and carrying of a referendum by its members, that organisation will refuse to work with any new guest worker recruits arriving on Christmas Island from outside Australia after 16 March next? Has the Government also been advised that the Union will agree to the recruitment of new workers from overseas on the basis only that those people are eligible to enter mainland Australia at the conclusion of their period of employment on Christmas Island? Does the Government intend to continue its policy of recruiting guest workers from overseas countries for work on Christmas Island? If so, what consideration is the Government giving to the decisions that have been conveyed to it by the Union of Christmas Island Workers following the carrying of the referendum?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think the first thing that ought to be said is that Government policies on Christmas Island will be determined by the Government and not by that trade union. Australia’s immigration policies will be implemented by the Government and not under threat from any union.

Senator Georges:

– Come on; they are not threatening. They are giving good advice.

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes they are; they are threatening to do all sorts of things. But, they will not get away with that. The major point is that this is basically an industrial matter between the British Phosphate Commission and an industrial group. We are involved administratively with only a small number of people in the administration and police force. I think there are some 12 policemen there. I reiterate that the Government will determine policies on the island and not a trade union. We are prepared to seek the views of the trade union. We have no objection to that.

Senator Georges:

– That is all they are giving you.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, Senator. They have told us that they will not do this, they will not do that and they will not do something else. I remind the Senate that at each superphosphate factory on the Australian mainland there is still 14 months’ supply of phosphate rock. I think that the island workers ought to remember that.

Senator Georges:

– What are you doing now?

Senator WITHERS:

-I am saying that it is no use them trying to threaten me.

page 455

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That unless otherwise ordered the Senate at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 8 March 1977, at 3 p.m., or such other day and hour as may be fixed by the President, or in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 455

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill returned from House of Representatives without amendment.

page 455

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS) BILL 1977

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 24 February.

Clause 3.

Section 9 of the Constitution is altered by omitting the second paragraph and substituting the following paragraph:

The Parliament may make laws for determining the times and places of elections of senators. ‘.

Upon which Senator Wright had moved by way of amendment:

Add to the words proposed to be substituted the words: provided that elections of senators in all States and Territories shall be held on the same day and at the same time as general elections of members of the House of R epresentatives’.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I remind the Committee that the title of this Bill is the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill and it purports to be a Bill to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections. It has been pointed out in debate by several honourable senators that that title misdescribes the Bill. With regard to clause 3, the only provision that the Bill makes concerning elections is to state that this Parliament may make laws for determining the times of elections of senators, whereas the Constitution, presently unamended, states that the State Parliaments may make laws for determining the times of elections of senators. I have offered the Committee an amendment to fulfil the title of the Bill. If the operation of the Bill is simply to ensure simultaneous elections for the 2 Houses, I suggest that it should be so expressed in the Bill. The suggested amendment simply takes up the title of the Bill and says that if that is the genuine purpose of the Bill, let it be expressed in this clause so that any laws that this Parliament may make under the new power to legislate for the times of the elections of senators shall ensure, as the title says is the object of the Bill, that the elections of the 2 Houses shall be held simultaneously.

I hope that if the Bill is genuinely for the purpose stated, and only that purpose, this amendment will be adopted. If that is the only object of the Bill, and if the amendment were adopted, there would be no need for any other provisions in the Bill which dissolved half the Senate every 3 years. Parliament would have power just to make laws for the times of Senate election, ensuring that those elections were held at the same time as House of Representatives elections. I submit the amendment to the Committee.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept this amendment. As I understand it, the effect of the amendment would be that when a Senate election was held for half the Senate, an election for the House of Representatives would be held at the same time. In other words, the House of Representatives elections would be tied to Senate elections, rather than Senate elections being tied to House of Representatives elections. I understand that that is the object of the amendment.

Senator Wright:

– The object of the amendment is to express the purpose of the Bill.

Senator DURACK:

– I am not sure whether that is the object of the amendment; that is certainly the effect of it. The terms of senators would remain fixed, as provided already in the Constitution. Senator Wright has already asked the Government to postpone clause 2 which deletes the fixed term for senators. Certainly if those fixed terms remain in the Constitution, the only way to give effect to this amendment would be for a House of Representatives election to be held every 3 years at the same time as an election for half the Senate. That amendment would be an absolutely fundamental change in the Constitution. Honourable senators have been talking about profound changes and so on being made to the Constitution by this Bill but if House of Representatives elections must be held at the same time as Senate elections, that is, virtually at fixed times, then we are facing a fundamental change in the Constitution. The whole system of responsible government is founded upon the ability to dissolve the House of Representatives on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day or in the event of some crisis occurring in that chamber. Therefore any tying of elections for the House of Representatives with fixed terms with Senate elections, which is the effect of Senator Wright’s amendment, would be a fundamental change in the Constitution and it is not one which this Government certainly is proposing or would propose.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

– I hesitate to enter into a debate which traditionally is the preserve of lawyers but I think a couple of comments have to be made on what the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) has just said. If this amendment were the only one being proposed his comment would be justified but there are before the Committee in respect of other clauses a number of amendments which are not consistent with the position that Senator Durack just put forward. Senator Wright, as I understand it, is trying to make the point that the present Bill does not necessarily ensure simultaneous elections, and that is important. He is putting forward an amendment which would ensure simultaneous elections. As I said, if we consider only this clause and only this amendment then the amendment would indeed have the effect that Senator Durack has just put forward on behalf of the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott). But that is clearly not the intention of the amendment. There are a number of other amendments which are to be debated. There are some machinery difficulties in taking the Bill clause by clause but it would be quite wrong to suggest that this amendment ought to be rejected because it will have purely the effect suggested by Senator Durack. I think it is important that it be made clear that that is not the intention of the people who will support this amendment.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– If I may comment on this amendment, I understood that the intention of this amendment is to ensure that elections for both Houses be held at the same time and to write this provision into the Constitution. As I understand the proposal, which is in the original Bill, it is so highly unlikely that the elections would be held at different times in a situation where following the elections the members of the Senate would take their seats at the same time as the members of the House of Representatives.

I suppose one can conceive a crazy situation in which it was decided to have an election for the

House of Representatives one week and an election for the Senate a week or so later. I imagine that would be most unpopular with the Australian people if it did happen. I think it is so inconceivable that the amendment becomes unnecessary and that in fact the substance of the amendment put forward by the Government in this amending Bill is simultanous elections. Obviously the whole purpose of it is to bring elections for both Houses into line as was the practice years ago. Although this leaves with the Paliament the right to make laws in respect of the date and timing of the elections it is obvious that no Parliament in its right senses would contemplate having anything like a weeks difference or something like that in the holding of the elections. I therefore suggest that the amendment is unnecessary in any event.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I think this debate, which is already starting to open up in relation to the matter of amendment to this Bill, requires that we go back and look at the consideration which has been given to the Bill and to the provisions which we have been debating albeit in a somewhat curtailed way. I go back to the 1973 Australian Constitutional Convention and the speech at that Convention by Senator Ivor Greenwood, the then shadow AttorneyGeneral, the then Opposition or Liberal and Country Party spokesman on matters to do with the law. At that Convention Senator Greenwood said:

To synchronise the elections so that they would both take place on the one day-to compel that course of action by constitutional amendment, would be to weaken the effectiveness of the Senate because there would be a tendency for the Senate and the Senate’s interests to be submerged . . .

He went on to make some further comment. He finished up by saying- and this is the pertinent part:

On the other hand, also as I said earlier, there are certain fallacies and lack of logic in the arguments in support of these matters which can be most usefully exposed by the working committee.

His argument, and the then Opposition’s argument, was that it should be considered by a committee. Eventually it was referred to a committee. What did that committee report? At the Australian Constitutional Convention in Melbourne in September 1975 the report of the committee on the synchronisation of elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives said as follows:

The Committee had before it a recommendation that the Constitution be amended to provide for the synchronisation of elections of members of the House of Representatives and Senators. Also before the Committee was a recommendation that the Parliament be empowered to decide whether such elections should be brought into permanent alignment.

The committee had resolved to defer consideration of these recommendations in light of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1974, which related directly to this matter and for which a referendum was held on 18 May 1974. The committee has subsequently been unable to report on this matter.

It is quite clear that because there was a referendum the Committee just did not do anything about the matter. So it has never been considered by a committee.

Senator Missen:

– What about the 1 976 Convention, which adopted the same proposal?

Senator RAE:

– If Senator Missen -

Senator Walters:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I apologise for interrupting my colleague. I do not believe that the motion has been seconded. Is debate permitted before it has been seconded?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) No seconder is required in the Committee stage.

Senator RAE:

– I should be grateful if my colleague and friend, Senator Missen, would allow me to make my own argument, because the next matter to which I was coming was the 1976 Convention. I think that he might at least have given me the credit of recognising that I might deal with the matter sequentially. I had got to the 1975 Convention at which time, I pointed out, Convention Committee D did not consider this matter.

In 1976 the most disgraceful performance, to the eternal disgrace of the concept of a Constitutional Convention, took place. What happened when this matter came on was that Mr Lionel Bowen, the Labor Party’s spokesman on matters of law, made a speech in which he did not deal in any way with the effects or potential effects of this proposal on the Senate. He talked about only the aspects of the importance of saving cost or whatever it might be by holding elections for both Houses together. He spoke for some time. The seconder of the motion did not speak to it at all. Then there was some debate on an amendment related to whether State Governors or the Commonwealth should issue the writ. A few bits and pieces were discussed in this somewhat desultory debate on the matter. No consideration was given to the real question of the details of the Bill or to such questions as are raised by the amendment which has been moved by Senator Wright. In looking at the Constitutional Convention, to be most generous, approximately 1600 words were spoken in relation to the whole of the matter, other than the question of casual vacancies and the question of who should issue the writs. I repeat: Only approximately 1600 words. In other words, the whole lot, every word spoken in the consideration of this matter by the Convention, could have been reported in 2 columns of a newspaper. That is claimed to be the real consideration and the basis upon which we should accept this Bill be put through the Senate without alteration. It is so full of holes, as will be demonstrated no doubt by Senator Wright and others during the debate, that it does need proper consideration. It needed it in 1973 and that is why it was referred to a committee. It was never considered by a committee and quite clearly it was never considered by the Constitutional Convention in 1976, other than on the most superficial basis. The Convention considered only those matters which were unrelated to the real issues which we have had raised before this chamber. I just wish to make those points in support of the consideration of Senator Wright’s amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veteran’s Affairs · LP

– I wish to intervene to deal with the very extravagant attack on the Constitutional Convention discussion which has just been made by Senator Rae. He described it as a disgrace. Apparently it was a disgrace for this subject to be discussed by a Convention at which were present, as I said last night, not only the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Commonwealth Government but also the Leader of the Opposition and other leading members of the Opposition, together with a number of State Premiers of both political parties and representatives of parties from State parliaments as well.

The motion on simultaneous elections had been circulated well before the Convention commenced. There must have been the fullest opportunity for all of those representative people to consider it. The motion moved by Mr Lionel Bowen at the Convention included a reference to the writs being issued by the Governor-General rather than by the Governor of the State. Sir Eric Willis, on behalf of the then Liberal-National Country Party Government of New South Wales, moved an amendment to delete the words ‘Governor-General ‘. But that was the only criticism that was made of the substance of the motion during the debate. Mr Maddison, who was also a member of the then Liberal-National Country Party Government of New South Wales, supported the amendment. As I have said, representatives of all political parties and all governments in Australia were in attendance at the Convention, and the only dispute that occurred was in relation to the amendment moved by Sir Eric Willis. That amendment was carried by 49 votes to 39 votes. If the matter had been exciting the attention of such a group of people to the extent to which Senator Rae feels that it should have done, I would have thought, for instance, that some major federalist would have spoken against it. Surely Sir Eric Willis, for example, must be particularly concerned about the future and the power of the Senate. The Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, was at the Convention, as was Mr BjelkePetersen.

Senator Button:

-And Dick Hamer.

Senator DURACK:

-Mr Hamer was there. None of those people were moved to get up and express any criticism whatsoever of the motion. The only exception was the point raised by Sir Eric Willis, namely, that the motion provided for writs to be issued by the Governor-General. Sir Eric moved an amendment to the effect that the writs for a Senate election should be issued by the Governor of the State. That, of course, is preserved in this Bill. A remarkable consensus was revealed on this subject at the Convention. I think it is a grave reflection on a great number of political leaders in Australia to talk about those proceedings as a disgrace.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition will not support the amendment which has been moved by Senator Wright. The fundamental reason for that is that we regard it as being unnecessary. I want to say one or two words about what has been said in support of the amendment. It has been argued in support of it that the measure before the chamber has not been given adequate consideration over the years. I find it surprising that that allegation should be made by people who now apparently are going to support this amendment. They have given the Opposition no opportunity at all to consider adequately the amendment which they now propose.

Senator Wright:

– Has it not been circulated?

Senator BUTTON:

– It has been circulated this morning.

Senator Wright:

– It was circulated last night.

Senator BUTTON:

-Well, late last night. But the point remains the same. If one is to consider at this stage the sorts of proposals contained in all of these amendments, I still make the claim that we have not been given adequate notice of them. That could have been done some weeks ago by those people who are concerned about these proposals. The Opposition will not support them. I have indicated that the essential reason why we cannot do so is that we regard them as being unnecessary. I might say that I have some respect for the elegant drafting done by Senator Wright and the intention behind some of the proposals but that is not sufficient to justify the Opposition in supporting them.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I do not desire to repeat what the Minister has said. He admirably answered the propositions made by Senator Rae. Senator Rae, when 1 interjected during his speech, suggested that I should do him the courtesy of hearing his chronological discussion of this matter. I then waited to hear what he was going to say about the 1976 Constitutional Convention proposal. What he did not mention- I think that this ought to be in the record- was the resolution which the Convention carried in October 1976. That resolution stated:

That this Convention recommends that the Constitution be amended, in terms of the Constitution Aleration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill that was submitted to referendum in May 1 974 so as to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections.

I merely point out that that resolution could not have been more specific. Whatever dissatisfaction Senator Rae may feel about the fact that there was not more debate. This resolution indicates satisfaction by the members of the Convention. They voted on a matter which was so certain and which is, in essence, the proposal before the chamber today. I think it is a pity that Senator Rae did not mention that this was the final result of the Convention discussion.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I wish to correct a statement I made during my last intervention in the debate. I referred to Sir Eric Willis speaking on behalf of the New South Wales Government at the Constitutional Convention. At the time of the Convention last year he had lost government. He was there in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition and was speaking on behalf of the New South Wales Liberal Party.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to reply to what Senator Button said. He said that these amendments had not been circulated until this morning. They were circulated among Opposition members last night and among Government party members as early as Tuesday morning. That is insufficient time, I agree, but that arises from the fact that the proponents of the Bill announced it for the first time last Tuesday is a week ago. Therefore, when Senator Button said that there should have been a week’s consideration of the amendments he proved our complaint that the Bill has been brought on precipitately, precluding proper consideration. I wish to say- I shall not repeat this in proposing the amendment- that the Bill claims to be aBill to ensure simultaneous elections. The fact is that this is a Bill to ensure that half the Senate shall be dissolved every time there is a House of Representatives election. It has been made quite clear that the person who decides within the constitutional period of 3 years when a House of Representatives election shall occur is the Prime Minister. Both constitutional writers and practice indicate that there is no real limit upon that man’s judgment to require a dissolution of the House. Therefore, if this Bill goes through he would have the same power to make a request for a dissolution of half the Senate. It is that undermining of the power of the Senate that we find so difficult to reconcile with a true description of this Bill, which is described as one merely to ensure simultaneous elections.

In fact, in operation this is not a Bill for simultaneous elections but a Bill to cause simultaneous dissolutions of the House of Representatives and half the Senate. This amendment will test the proponents of the Bill as to whether the true character is indicated by the caption ‘simultaneous elections ‘. The amendment adopts that caption as being true and asks that a provision be inserted in the Bill in terms of my amendment, that is, that elections of senators in all States and Territories shall be held on the same day and at the same time as the elections of the House of Representatives. If this amendment is rejected, I hope that nobody will complain of advocacy that the purpose of the Bill has been misleadingly mis-stated.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– In 1974, words similar to what Senator Wright has just said moved senior members of the then Opposition, who are now members of the Government, to say that the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill should be opposed because it was a direct attack on the powers of this chamber and would substantially transfer power from the States and from the States’ Houses to the Executive Government. Let it not be forgotten that those words were said. I do not propose to go over all that was said by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) in his second reading speech. But I am still waiting to hear from the Government supporters why this extraordinary sommersault has taken place. I have heard no reason for this change in attitude. I have heard one excuse, but no reason.

Senator Chaney:

– I take a point of order, Mr Chairman, with reluctance because I do not wish to engender any ill will in this debate which will slow the debate. I simply take the point of order that the comments of the honourable senator do not appear to. be relevant to the clause we are debating. I remind the Committee that we have a large number of amendments to consider and a limited timetable. If we redebate the second reading we have little chance of giving the amendments proper consideration.

Mr CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Your point of order is noted, Senator.

Senator HARRADINE:

– The reason I am raising this matter is the very reason that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs gave for his support for this clause. He said he supported the clause because the Constitutional Convention had endorsed it. That is the only excuse that has been bandied around this chamber for the last 3 days. I am about to bury that red herring because it is beginning to stink. If the reason for us to support this particular clause of the Bill is that the Constitutional Convention endorsed it-

Senator Missen:

– There is only one reason.

Senator HARRADINE:

– All right! The first thing that Senator Missen said in this debate was that all of these wise men sat down at the Constitutional Convention and carried this proposition. They also carried the proposition to break the nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Why does the Government not come forward with that proposal? That is what the Constitutional Convention decided to do. Honourable senators know the effect that would have on the smaller States. They would be absolutely swamped. Honourable senators also know what such a move would do to this chamber. I support the proposition that was outlined by Senator Wright in his quite objective and unemotional manner. Although I am not legally qualified- Senator Button is- I join with Senator Button in commending Senator Wright’s draftsmanship. It incorporates what I believe the majority of honourable senators want, that is, presumably, simultaneous elections. As I mentioned, from a political point of view I do not mind simultaneous elections because 1 was returned with 2 quotas at a simultaneous election. The point is-

Senator McLaren:

– You did not have 2 quotastell the truth.

Senator HARRADINE:

- Senator McLaren said I did not have 2 quotas. I had about one-half of one per cent off 2 quotas, if he wants to know. Sometimes it is important to have a half senate election, not in conjunction with an election for the Government, where the people can express their opinion about the performance of the Government. That is the only reason that the

Government is pursuing this matter. Government supporters are absolutely terrified of going to the people in a half Senate election in mid 1978. They are absolutely terrified because apparently they feel that their programs will not rein in inflation and reduce unemployment. The people of Australia ought to be absolutely terrified about that prospect. They ought to be given an opportunity of expressing their opinion about the performance of the Executive Government without having to resort to the ultimate sanction of throwing out the Government. Perhaps the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs or Senator Missen will be able to explain to me why, if they want simultaneity, the Government creates diversity in the question of the issue of the writs.

Senator Missen:

– Diversity?

Senator HARRADINE:

– Yes, diversity. The Government has created diversity. I notice that this matter relates to the next clause so I will leave this matter until then. Maybe the Minister will be able to tell us why the Government has created that diversity.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I do not know whether Senator Harradine was present at the beginning of the Committee debate when I gave the reason why the Government is opposed to this amendment. Senator Harradine says that the only reason given by the Government is that the amendment is not in accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Convention. That certainly is not the reason. I have already stated in the Committee debate thai the Government is opposed to this amendment because it means that the House of Representatives would be tied to the fixed term of Senate elections and therefore would completely destroy our system of responsible government.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I would like to say a few words in response to what Senator Wright has said in putting forward his arguments in respect of his amendment. I understood Senator Wright to say that he was not happy with the present system where the Prime Minister has the right to call an election when he thinks fit.

Senator Wright:

– That is the core of our complaint.

Senator McLAREN:

-That is the core of the honourable senator’s complaint. But the honourable senator did not go on to say that he is trying to preserve the right of this chamber to force the House of Representatives to the people every 6 months. Senator Wright would like to do that whenever the Labor Party has control of the House of Representatives and there is a Liberal majority in this place. Honourable senators opposite proved that in 1975. All they have to do is refuse to pass Supply every time it comes into this chamber and then they can force the House of Representatives to an election while they sit pat in this place. Why should that be? This chamber should have to go to the people every time it forces the House of Representatives to an election. The people of Australia have to be made aware of the effect of the amendment moved by Senator Wright. The whole purpose is to preserve the power of the Senate to force the House of Representatives to an election every time there is a Labor Government in that place and it docs not have the numbers in this chamber.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-That speech without doubt contained the most misguided statement of all the misguided statements we have heard. This amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the powers related to a double dissolution.

Question put

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Wright’s amendment) be added.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 12

NOES: 46

Majority……. 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 4.

The Constitution is altered by omitting sections 12 and 13 and substituting the following sections: - “ 12. ( 1 ) The Governor of a State may cause writs to be issued for elections of senators for the State. “(2) The writs shall be issued within fourteen days from the date on which the places to be filled became vacant. “ 13. ( 1 ) Subject to this Constitution, the term of service of a senator expires upon the expiry or dissolution of the second House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after he was chosen or, if there is an earlier dissolution of the Senate, upon that dissolution. “(2) As soon as may be after the first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution of the Senate, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes. “(3) In the case of each State, where the number of senators to be divided is an even number the number of senators in each of the two classes shall be equal and where the number of senators to be divided is an odd number the number of senators in the first class shall be one more than the number of senators in the second class. “(4) Sub-section (1) of this section applies to senators included in the first class, but the term of service of senators included in the second class expires upon the expiry or dissolution of the first House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after they were chosen. “(5) Where, since the election of senators for a State following a dissolution of the Senate but before the division of the senators for that State into classes in pursuance of this section, the place of a senator chosen at that election has become vacant, the division of senators shall be made as if the place of that senator had not so become vacant and, for the purposes of section fifteen of this Constitution, the term of service of that senator shall be deemed to be, and to have been, the period for which he would have held his place, in accordance with this section, if his place had not so become vacant. “(6) In the case of a senator holding office at the commencement of this section-

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-This clause proposes to introduce into the Constitution 10 paragraphs, only one of which, fortunately, I consider to be material for my purpose. The operative provision is in proposed new section 13 sub-section ( 1) which states:

Subject to this Constitution, the term of service of a senator expires upon the expiration or dissolution of the second House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after he was chosen or, if there is an earlier dissolution of the Senate, upon that dissolution.

The present provision in the Constitution is that the term of a senator is for 6 years and that can be abbreviated only by the provisions of section 57, namely a double dissolution. I emphasise the essential safeguards in the double dissolution procedure inasmuch as Senator Durack, the Minister in charge of the Bill, last night put it forward as enabling dissolution of the Senate almost with as much ease as this Bill does. That indicates a fundamental lack of appreciation of the constitutional safeguard of section 57 which provides that if the House of Representatives sends to the Senate a Bill which fails to pass and after an interval of 3 months the Bill comes again from the House of Representatives and we again fail to pass it, then, and then only, there may be a dissolution of the Senate, accompanied by a simultaneous dissolution of the House of Representatives. It is quite obvious there that the dissolution of the Senate depends upon action within the Senate, action which creates a difference or deadlock with the other place. If, after deliberating for 3 months the other place, the House of Representatives, considers the proposal important enough, it can submit it again to the Senate and if the Senate, by its own action, thinks that the rejection of the measure is so important and rejects it again, it knows full well that it is only just then to argue the issue before the country and have a simultaneous election upon the matter.

But that is not the end of section 57. If, after the election, the Senate comes back upheld in its stand upon an equal vote in each State with equality of numbers in this chamber, but if Sydney and Melbourne, with their 79 votes out of 125, prevail in the House of Representatives, the Representatives view can be established only if there is a majority in a joint sitting. That is where the relative numbers of the Senate and the House of Representatives become vital. A statement of that position shows how glib and irresponsible it is for any Minister of the Crown to suggest that the facile provisions of this Bill can be equated in any form with section 57. This Bill says that the term of any senator expires not on a fixed time, not after 6 years, but after there have been 2 dissolutions of the House of Representatives. That shows that it is vital to consider the importance of the interval between the 2 dissolutions.

There are those who say that the GovernorGeneral would not grant a dissolution. In the years 1900 to 1960-1 have not been able to get the later figures- the House of Commons was dissolved on 3 occasions when it had gone more than 5 years, on 2 occasions when it had gone more than 4 years, on 4 occasions when it had lived more than 3 years, on one occasion when it had lived 2 years, on one occasion when it was only one year old and on 4 occasions it did not last for one year. I ask leave to incorporate this table in Hansard for the information of the people and the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WRIGHT:

-The records for the Federal Parliament since 1900 show that 19 parliaments lasted over 2 years. On looking at the record I should think that they averaged 2 years and 8 months, or something like that. There were 6 occasions when they lasted only between one year and 2 years. On one occasion the Parliament lasted for 7 months. That shows how Senator Martin’s argument yesterday and my argument yesterday apparently completely went over the head of the Minister and the chamber. We pointed out what would happen if the Senate were put in the position of being dissolved at the same time as the House of Representatives is dissolved. The present authority is to the effect that it is almost impossible for the Governor-General to get circumstances in which he can refuse a dissolution if he is advised by the Prime Minister that a dissolution is necessary. He can explore the House to see whether any alternative Prime Minister can get the confidence of the majority of the House. However the Prime Minister, supported by a majority of the House of Representatives, can get a dissolution upon request. That is the modern conclusion of most of the political commentators and that, on long political experiencenot merely the last 3 years- is obviously the danger in this.

Then we come to the great danger that has overtaken Parliament in the last 70 years where the predominance of the Prime Minister over the House of Representatives by reason of the Cabinet system can control the House. We had an example last week par excellence where the great majority of members of the Liberal and National Country Parties went with the Prime Minister simply because it was a proposal that had been presented to them by him within the last 12 hours. Few of them had independent judgments. The Prime Minister is enthroned with the Cabinet and is supported by the great bureaucracy with all its knowledge and all its power and all its control of public money. We do not know who that man will be. It was Whitlam a year ago when we feared the situation; it is Fraser today when we have confidence that he will not abuse the situation; but other Whitlams are on the horizon. To put this chamber at the beck and call of the Prime Minister going to Government House to dissolve us whenever he likes- it may be twice within a short interval- is a danger to this House and its structure and strength. Therefore I move amendment No. 5 in the following terms:

At the end of proposed new sub-section 13(1), addProvided that this sub-section shall have effect only if an interval of not less than one year shall occur between the expiry or dissolution of the first and second House of Representatives referred to in this section.

This amendment will inject into the Bill a medium measure of safeguard to repeated dissolutions of the House of Representatives at the beck and call of the Prime Minister taking with it at the beck and call of the Prime Minister of the day this chamber. I ask that those people who are genuinely concerned for the strength of the Senate to give support to this proposal.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am constrained to observe that it is very interesting to find Senator Wright, this great exponent of consistency and honesty, expressing the view that the GovernorGeneral is bound on all occasions to act on the advice of the Prime Minister. We did not hear any such sentiments from Senator Wright or from anyone opposite during the events of October and November of 1 975.

It is also interesting to find him quoting in support of his argument the practice in the British House of Commons. The contrast between the action of the British monarchy and her Viceroy in Australia is a very startling contrast. The monarch in Britain for more than a century and a half has never presumed to act except on the advice of her Prime Minister. But that unfortunately in recent history is a precedent and tradition that has been torn up by our own Viceroy. It is notorious that the Governor-General disregarded and swept aside the advice of his Prime Minister and ignored a majority decision of the House of Representatives on 11 November. These are events about which we heard no complaints from this sanctimonious Senator Wright. But he is not even right about -

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! Senator, I would not like you to pursue those remarks.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Chairman, I bow to your wishes. I would like Senator Wright to make a thorough study of the attitudes of this Governor-General who has shown such a tender regard for the interests of Senator Wright’s Party over the recent period. Senator Wright will find that there are even limits to the favours which he can expect from Sir John Kerr.

I ask the honourable senator to have a look at a very detailed speech which Sir John Kerr made to, I think, the Indian Law Society on a visit to India a couple of years ago and in which he enunciated his view of the powers and duties of the Governor-General in Australia. He made it crystal clear that he did not consider that the mere wish or request of a Prime Minister was sufficient to oblige him to grant an election merely because it suited the convenience of the Prime Minister. If Senator Wright is concerned with the learned writings from which he has quoted and if he is so devoted to the statistics which he has given us in support of the proposition that a Prime Minister can have an election any time he wants to, I can supply the honourable senator with a copy of this speech by Sir John Kerr. It should put at rest any notion which Senator Wright has that even a Sir John Kerr will grant a Malcolm Fraser an election any time he wants one.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– Something which was said by Senator Wright simply must be replied to. He used a number of examples and suggested that we look at the Australian statistics. He referred to the British House of Commons, where the situation is very different from here because there are no State parliaments and no State elections.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And there is a constitutional monarch.

Senator MISSEN:

-We will not go into irrelevant details. Let us look at the situation in Australia which Senator Wright cited. He suggested that we look at the number of occasions on which the House of Representatives has sat for less than 3 years. He said that, therefore, the Senate periods may be reduced. The argument is very much on the other foot. Why were some of those sittings of the House of Representatives so short? Partly, they were short in order to keep within the provision which applies at the present moment so that there could be simultaneous elections in fact. Before we got .completely out of kilter in 1963, under the present provisions a number of elections were kept as simultaneous elections by dissolving the House of Representatives after a shorter period. In other words, the present provisions have reduced the House of Representatives period.

One example was given by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in 1959 in paragraph 238 of its report. The Committee referred to action taken in 1 929 and then to the fact that 2 years later the House of Representatives came to an end. The report stated:

It was only because the twelfth Parliament was dissolved 2 years later that the next election for senators was able to be held simultaneously with the election for members of the House of Representatives.

The Joint Committee referred to the premature dissolutions of the House of Representatives just to keep elections simultaneous. Therefore, the figures Senator Wright has given are arguments not for his amendment but for the proposal of the Government to bring Senate elections into alignment with House of Representatives elections. So, the argument does not serve him; nor does it suggest that in the future we will have so many of these short terms for the House of Representatives. It is more likely that it will go for the full 3-year term.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-The Committee is indebted to Senator Missen for his remarks which have refuted the argument put forward by Senator Wright. I am indebted to him because he has pointed out to the electorate at large that in order to keep the elections in kilter in years gone by people who had been elected to the House of Representatives on the understanding that they would have a 3-year term in most cases had their term of office cut short. Much was said here yesterday by Senator Wood and again today by Senator Wright to the effect that senators, having been elected to this place, should be assured that they can see out their term of office of 6 years. Both Senator Wright and Senator Wood and all the honourable senators who are supporting themthe other ten on today’s division, although I should exclude Senator Harradine because he was not here in 1975-had no thoughts in 1975 of trying to preserve the right of honourable senators to see out their full term of office.

I instance my own case and that of many other senators who are in this chamber now and who were elected at the 1970 elections. We went on the payroll on 1 July 1971, and our term of office should not have expired until 30 June this year. I will cite my own case. There are many others the same. I have had to face 2 elections since taking my place, and as yet I have not served 6 years in this Parliament. Why did Senator Wright and Senator Wood in 1974 and 1975 not try to preserve the rights of those citizens elected to this Parliament at the 1970 elections? Senator Wright did not do so because of expediency. His sole purpose in not trying to preserve those rights at that time was to unload the Whitlam Government. That is what he wanted to do. He wanted to use this chamber as a bludgeon to get rid of the Labor Government. That is the whole purpose of his now trying to defeat the referendum proposal put forward by his Government. He is criticising his own Government. Over the years we have heard from his side of the chamber of divisions in the Australian Labor Party, but never have there been divisions in the Labor Party such as we are witnessing in this chamber this week between 1 1 honourable senators opposite and their elected leader. What I have said is the whole reason why honourable senators opposite are trying to build a case to oppose this referendum proposal. I am sure that if the electorate at large is properly informed of the real reasons behind their opposition to it it will pass the proposal with an overwhelming majority.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! I draw the Committee’s attention to the point of order taken a little while ago about honourable senators making speeches more applicable to the second reading stage and not directing their remarks to the clause concerned. The Chair has great difficulty because the Committee is dealing with a clause that proposes to insert a new sub-section 13 (1) dealing with the term of service of senators. I have to allow a little latitude, but I ask all honourable senators to try to assist me so that we can get through the program this afternoon.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– It is of no use for Senator McLaren to try to put words into Senator Wright’s mouth. At no stage did Senator Wright say that senators should all serve their 6-year term. The amendment specifically says that should the Senate reject or fail to pass a proposed law already passed by the House of Representatives it can be called on by the Prime Minister to face the people. At no stage did Senator Wright say senators must serve their 6 years. It is just ridiculous for Senator McLaren to put words into Senator Wright’s mouth. Senator James McClelland also tried to put other words into Senator Wright’s mouth. At no stage did Senator Wright say that a Governor-General would at all times take the advice of the Government. He just said that should the Prime Minister seek to go to the people the Governor-General would abide by that decision. In point of fact, in 1975 we had just that position. The GovernorGeneral would have been pleased if Mr Whitlam at that stage had wanted to go to the people. Because he refused to go to the people, the Governor-General eventually insisted that he do so.

The proposed amendment points out exactly what the main crux of my objection to the legislation is. Senator Wright’s figures prove that four times a government in the House of Commons has served for less than 12 months. As I said yesterday, it is highly unlikely that this would happen in our country, but it was highly unlikely also that any government would attempt to deceive the Loan Council and attempt to deceive the Governor-General.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. You have made it quite clear during the currency of this debate that the sort of propaganda upon which Senator Walters has now embarked is not relevant to what the Committee is considering. She should be asked to get back to what we are discussing.

Senator WALTERS:

-Mr Chairman, on that point of order, I am talking about the occasions already introduced into the debate on this amendment by Senator Missen as those thought to be highly unlikely.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In answer to the point of order raised by Senator James McClelland, I have made a plea to the Committee and have indicated the wide area over which debate on this clause can range. I ask all honourable senators to try to co-operate with the Chair.

Senator WALTERS:

-Thank you, Mr Chairman. This amendment does stop complete manipulation of the Senate by the Prime Minister of the day. It cannot be just for some disharmony in the lower House, the House of Representatives, that he calls the whole of the Senate out along with him. The Senate must first reject some proposed law- its rejection of that proposed law surely will show the colours of the government, the type of legislation it is prepared to have passed and the type of legislation that this chamber is prepared to knock back-before the Senate is taken to the people. I support the amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

-The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment for the simple reason that it does not ensure simultaneous elections, which is the purpose of the Bill.

Senator Rae:

– The Bill does not do that either.

Senator DURACK:

– We can argue about that. However, for reasons which could occur from time to time as a result of political crises sometimes the House of Representatives would be dissolved in less than a year and if in such cases half the Senate were not dissolved at that time the 2 Houses would be out of kilter and we would have for a long period ahead the sorts of problems which we had between 1963 and 1972. The basic political argument is why should the Senate be brought out if there is a crisis in the House of Representatives. The fact is that the Senate is part of the political system in the country and if there is a political crisis in the House of Representatives obviously the Senate will be effected by it. Honourable senators, as members of Parliament, as members of political parties and as members of the community will be part and parcel of that political crisis. Obviously such a crisis would be due to some political instability at the time, some major division not only in the Parliament but also in the general community, and the Government’s view is that in those circumstances the Senate should not be immune from participating in the resolution of that crisis by the electors.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I support this amendment because I feel that it will improve the legislation proposed by the Government. I fully support the legislation and wish to make that clear. I am conscious of the fact that consideration is being given to this legislation today as a result of a determination by the Constitutional Convention at which representatives of the 3 tiers of government throughout Australia, irrespective of party affiliations, were present. At the same time I am aware that Australians are sick of too many elections. I felt a lot of concern about certain comments made in the debate yesterday and the day before. Senator Button said that he was very pleased that perhaps this legislation would erode some of the powers of the Senate. Last night, after Senator Chaney had said that one of the great aspects of the Senate was that it was a States’ House with equal representation of the States irrespective of population, Senator James McClelland asked: ‘Why should that be so’. I am concerned that there is in the legislation a risk that we could be at the whim of an executive which took control. If there is this risk and when one hears the attitudes of the Opposition which is opposed to the Senate, one must express concern as I am doing.

I feel that it is a good idea to have this provision for a 12 months period between elections because it puts a stay on the executive for those 12 months and gives some protection to the Senate. Whilst I support the concept of simultaneous elections I feel that this provision for a stay of 12 months is a good safety provision and I support the amendment.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) has not answered the query that I raised in addressing myself to the previous clause. In attempting to amend the Constitution to provide for simultaneous elections, why has the Government, either deliberately or unwittingly, got out of kilter the writs for those elections? The Committee is dealing with clause 4, which seeks to alter section 12 of the Constitution to provide inter aiia that the writs shall be issued within 14 days from the date on which the places to be filled become vacant. In the current provisions of the Constitution the period is 10 days, and I do not know if the Minister has any explanation for that. To save the time of the Committee, I would be happy if the Minister could explain it now and then I will raise a couple of other points.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I have been waiting for Senator Harradine to raise this matter. I thought that Senator Harradine was going to raise this matter at the conclusion of the debate on the amendment. The reason for the new provision is that the Constitution has always provided that the writs are to be issued by the Governors of the States rather than by the Governor-General. The Constitutional Convention debated this matter and, as I have said, took the view that the writs should be issued by the Governors of the States. The provision of additional time, extended from 10 days to 14 days, is simply to enable all the Governors to be advised of the need to issue the writs. There is no danger that that will not happen because the new sub-section (2) provides that the writs shall be issued. The Governors of the States cannot refuse to issue them. The arrangement has worked perfectly satisfactorily for 76 years, and the Government does not see any danger in leaving it as it is.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I want to comment on the matters raised in the recent debate by saying that, if one looks at some examples of what might possibly occur, bearing in mind what has happened in Australian politics in the past, and at the sorts of things which might precipitate a House of Representatives election, one would have to agree that to have this absolute provision in the Constitution is undesirable. There have been splits in political parties in Australia. For example, in the 1950s the Labor Party split into 2 parties and in the 1960s the Liberal Party in South Australia split into 2 parties. In that situation, for example, if a government fell because it had simply lost its majority in the House of Representatives and the Parliament had to be dissolved, it seems to be axiomatic that there ought also to be an election for the Senate so that the voters would have an opportunity to have the representation in this chamber reflect the new political alignments which had occurred. If that were not possible and if there were a long period where old political alignments which were no longer relevant in any sense to the political life of the country were persisted with in the Senate, I think this chamber would be a very odd animal indeed. It would simply not be workable in such circumstances. I believe that other circumstances could easily be predicted where the Senate would not be workable. I think that this amendment simply cannot be supported. It would tie us down to a quite intolerable situation in some circumstances.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-The speciousness of the argument just put by Senator Chaney is seen in the fact that what he was talking about was this chamber reflecting the new political attitude as a result of a changed allegiance or structure in the political party system in Australia following a split. To achieve that there would need to be a double dissolution. We are talking about a half Senate election. I simply make that comment in relation to what Senator Chaney said and leave it at that. The real question with which we are concerned is the power to dissolve this chamber. I want to bring the Committee back to that. Senator McLaren has made it patently obvious that he has not got to first base in understanding that. Whilst I do not suggest for a moment that the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs (Senator Durack) does not understand, I am still waiting to hear what he has to say about this aspect of it, the real issue. The matter was debated in 1973, 1974 and 1975 so vigorously, so regularly and so convincingly by members of the Liberal and National Country Party- and we won a referendum- but still we cannot get a solitary word as to what it is that has made the 180 degrees about face either necessary or desirable.

The Constitutional Convention did not discuss this proposal in any detail. It does not matter how many people were at the Convention nor who they were, the fact is that the matter was not discussed. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of debate have been recorded in Hansard on this matter in 3 years. Numerous people who were at that Constitutional Convention had participated in debates on this matter in both of the Houses during those years. Issues were raised and considered in those debates. Firm attitudes were taken by various Liberal and National Country Party members. Yet the only conclusion one can reach is that when the matter came on at the Constitutional Convention, by some strange form of osmosis there was a transmutation between the thoughts of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal and National Country Party and there was no necessity for any debate whatever even to explain to anybody- for anybody even to raise a question- about all the things that had been put up in the preceding 3 years. I simply repeat, let us get back to the real issue, the one that concerned people previously and the one that still concerns us- the question of the transference to the executive of the day of the power to dissolve this chamber, without confrontation, without deadlock and without good reason, and what that would do to the strength and independence of this chamber. They are the questions. Those problems could be alleviated somewhat by the proposal put forward in the proposed amendment of Senator Wright. I should like to hear some debate on that real issue instead of some statements saying that the Constitutional Convention said something ought to be done. The Constitutional Convention did not debate it, its committee did not consider it and-

Senator Missen:

– It reached a conclusion.

Senator RAE:

– As Senator Missen said, it reached a conclusion. I would have loved it to be a reasoned conclusion, obvious to those who read the transcript of proceedings, rather than something which one can only conclude was worked out behind closed doors.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

- Senator Rae mentioned earlier a vote which was taken somewhere else. I should like to put it on the record that the vote to which he referred had nothing to do with this Bill. I should like to put a question to Senator Wright or some of his supporters. I ask them to explain how, if, the amendment proposing the addition of words to the proposed new section 13 ( 1 ) is agreed to and if a premature election for the House of Representatives were to be held, say within 12 months of the original election for the House of Representatives, but because of the amendment Senator Wright proposes no Senate election was held simultaneously with that House of Representatives election, what provision or provisions would determine the term of a senator or the date of the next Senate election.

Senator Wright:

– I shall tell the senator later.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I take up the point raised by Senator Rae. I thought that last night in reply to the second reading debate I covered the ground. I do not know whether Senator Rae heard-

Senator Rae:

– I heard every word.

Senator DURACK:

– I put up arguments other than that the Constitutional Convention had agreed to this proposal. We are not just promoting that reason. We have good reasons for the proposal. I summarise them again: They include the convenience and practicality of not having elections for half the Senate separate from the election for the House of Representatives so that a situation arises in which there is an election for the national Parliament roughly every 18 months. This is a situation which occurred between 1963 and 1972 when no less than 7 elections for the national Parliament or some part of it were held in a period of 9 years. That is the sort of situation that develops when elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate get out of kilter as occurred in 1963. I think everybody agrees that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Speakers in the debate last night did not deny the desirability of having simultaneous elections and everybody’s preference for them. Most of all, they did not deny the electors’ preference for them.

Of course, the other subsidiary reason why we should have simultaneous elections is the added cost of having additional elections which amount to an extra cost of approximately $5m every 3 years. Those are the basic reasons which I advance to support the Government’s view and the reasons why it is bringing forward this measure. The only argument against it is the one that was put forward in the debate last night, namely, whether the legislation will weaken the Senate. I have my reasons for not believing that it will weaken the Senate. I have not heard reasons here today, as I have not heard them for the last 3 days of this week on which we have been debating the subject, as to why it will weaken the Senate.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-We have been asked not to indulge in second reading speeches. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) has replied to a thoughtful contribution to the debate by saying that he has not understood the opposition to the Bill and by repeating, I think in a misleading fashion, some of the figures that were cited by him last night. This idea that there must be 7 elections in the next 9 years is completely false. All members of the Liberal Party of Australia, including Senator Durack, said to a man 2 years ago that this alteration to the Constitution was unnecessary to achieve simultaneous elections. It only requires the House of Representatives to have a premature dissolution to synchronise its elections with the Senate at a time stipulated by the Constitution. But it is completely misleading to put that forward as necessitating an undue number of elections in the next 9 years. Senator James McClelland injected into the debate a discussion about Sir John Kerr’s attitude to the dissolution in 1975. 1 beg to point out that Sir John Kerr was concerned with a Prime Minister who was refusing to recommend a dissolution. It was a question as to whether the Governor-General had power to ask for a new Prime Minister who would recommend a dissolution so as to enable an election to take place to avoid mal-administration and to ensure that the Government could get parliamentary funds to carry on.

Senator Grimes:

– You are getting to the bottom of the barrel now.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am mentioning this only for the purpose of distinguishing that instance which Senator James McClelland put forward. It is no authority whatever for making an assumption on the basis that the Governor-General would have power to refuse a dissolution requested by the Prime Minister on a political ground.

Let us suppose that a declaration had just been made to support the Vietnam war. Would the Prime Minister not be justified in saying that that is a decision of the greatest import and saying to His Excellency, the Governor-General, ‘I believe it is appropriate that the people should have the right to say whether they confirm it’? Would the Prime Minister not be justified in doing this in relation to any major issue, whether it be a Suez confrontation, a general strike or any other political circumstance that may be brought forward?

It might be even on the basis of indexation of the basic wage. The Prime Minister can put forward such propositions to the Governor-General and the Governor-General is in no position whatever to refuse the Prime Minister’s advice on political grounds.

Senator Harradine:

- Senator James McClelland would prefer our prerogatives to be preserved by the Governor-General rather than m the Constitution.

Senator WRIGHT:

-That is quite right. That shows that the Minister has not yet understood the position that under this legislation it is within the decision of the Prime Minister, who is the creature mainly of the majority from Sydney and Melbourne, in practical politics, to go through the form of asking the Governor-General for the dissolution. It is for the Prime Minister, who is the elected nominee of the majority from Sydney and Melbourne, to advise the Governor-General that an election is required and to send half this Senate to the people. That is entirely inconsistent with the previous Constitution and should not be altered without a deliberate understanding. The Minister professes that he has not accepted the understanding himself; whether he agrees with it is another thing. But the danger to this Senate is that the Prime Minister, who will be elected substantially by votes from Sydney and Melbourne, will have power to dissolve half the Senate. All those arguments to which Senator Chaney and Senator Durack cling for the purpose of supporting this Bill, saying that our security is in equal numbers go by the board. It does not matter whether there are equal numbers for each State if Sydney and Melbourne can dissolve half the Senate.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

- Senator Wright has not responded to my request to explain, if this amendment which he is proposing should be carried, what provision or provisions, if any, will determine the term of a Senator. Since he has failed to comment on this, I presume that there are no provisions. If that is the case, I fail to see how any responsible person could vote for the amendment which he is proposing. As someone who is very much a layman in these matters, I am astounded that someone who purports to be professionally competent, like Senator Wright, could put up such a proposal and expect it to be taken seriously but not respond to the question which I have put.

Senator Wright:

– Let me say that it is a highly complicated textual matter which one cannot enter into at all adequately in a debate under such constraint.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I wish to gain clarification on a minor matter in relation to the issue of the writs. I pointed out that the provision seeks to change the period within which the writs can be issued. At the present time section 32 of the Constitution provides that the writs for the House of Representatives must be issued within 10 days from the expiry of the House of Representatives or from the proclamation of a dissolution thereof. Currently under the Constitution also, the writs for the Senate must be issued within 10 days. The position now, if I understand it correctly, is that in the proposed legislation the date of expiry will be the same. In other words, so far as the Senate is concerned, the expiry date will be the expiry date of the House of Representatives. Currently, it will be on the third anniversary of the first sitting which, in normal circumstances, would be a Tuesday. Currently, of course, the writs for the House of Representatives can be issued within 10 days and the polling day, as well as the return of the writs, depends on the date of the issue of the writs. Theoretically, the writs can be issued on the Saturday following the Tuesday expiry date for the House of Representatives and the writs for the Senate can be issued on the following Saturday. Can the Minister give an undertaking to the Committee whether, under this legislation, it is entirely impossible for the elections to be held at separate times, on one Saturday following the other.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– It is possible under the electoral laws for polling to take place on different days.

Senator Button:

– A sort of pigs-might-fly possibility.

Senator DURACK:

-That is right. It may be that because of flood or fire an election is postponed from one Saturday to the next.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That has happened.

Senator DURACK:

– It has happened under the electoral laws. What is important is not so much the date on which the writs are issued but what is contained in the writs- what the writs say about the polling date, the date for the return of the writs and so on. An election is not something that just happens on a particular day. It is a process which involves nominations, the issue of writs/the polls, the return of the writs and so on. It is something that takes place over a period of months. All these tilings do not necessarily have to take place at the same time but obviously from a practical point of view everybody tries to achieve concurrence particularly on the polling day itself. I see- and the Government sees- no reason why we would not be able to achieve concurrence on the polling day for both the Senate and the House of Representatives including such things as the return of the writs and so on as has been achieved in earlier years. There could be an exception when, as I have said, for a particular reason a poll could not take place on the particular day in a particular place and it may have to be postponed. But broadly speaking and as a practical matter this Bill together with the supplementary legislation that is contemplated will achieve simultaneous elections.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I briefly reply to the suggestion by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) that this legislation is necessary to achieve simultaneous elections. That seems to remain the basis upon which it is put-that the Bill is necessary to achieve simultaneous elections. I would like to quote just several people who are apparently involved in support for this Bill and to repeat my surprise at no explanation having been given for the change in attitude. On 17 March 1974 the present Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, in an election statement said:

The referendum is quite unnecessary. If Mr Whitlam wants simultaneous elections all he has to do is to pull out the House of Representatives with the Senate.

And so it goes on. The elections can be brought on together. Mr Lynch in a debate in the House of Representatives said:

In short, the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill is not simply unnecessary but also is cunningly deceptive in its intent.

That was a repeat of the expression to which there has been considerable reference by various speakers during the second reading debate about what was said by Senator Withers and numerous other people in this chamber on numerous occasions- that it is just simply not necessary to have this referendum to enable simultaneous elections to be held. Yet we are treated to this load of- this argument as being only one of the reasons along with the changed circumstance of the Constitutional Convention having considered it. I reiterate, the Convention did not, on the face of it, give it any real consideration at all.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Wright’s amendment) be added.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 13

NOES: 45

Majority……. 32

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I propose to move the amendment which has been circulated in my name, the purpose of which is to replace proposed new section 13 with a different new section 13. 1 regret that Senator Wright’s amendments were not acceptable to the Committee, and I hope that my foreshadowed amendment will meet with the approval of Government senators and of the Committee. Despite what has been said by my colleagues in attempting to rebut those of us who have objections to this measure, I still hold firmly to the view that the dangers inherent in it are as real today as they were m 1975 when members of the Liberal and National Country parties in this chamber displayed their total opposition to it. Together with Senator Wright and other honourable senators who have supported him, I do not oppose the principle of simultaneous elections as such. However, we do object to and see grave consequences in the adoption of that principle providing any Prime Minister or Executive with unbridled power indiscriminately to dissolve the Senate. Senator Durack sees no threat at all in this measure and he has indicated his confidence that a future government is not likely to use that power. I do not share his confidence that Mr Whitlam would not take the Senate to the people at frequent intervals if he could see that by doing so it would enhance his chances of abolishing the Senate and of socialising Australia.

I would not be confident also that a Prime Minister of the character of Senator Keeffe, who is Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, would not use that power to achieve his goal of abolishing this House. He has admitted that he is in this place only to witness the abolition of this chamber. If I were Senator Durack I would not be confident either if Senator McLaren, by some horrific turn of fate, became Prime Minister, because he has the same objective. Only last night Senator McLaren revealed by way of interjection his view that the sooner we are rid of this place the better, or words to that effect.

The amendment I propose is based on the Constitution Act of South Australia, although modified in the hope that the Government would be prepared to compromise and accept my amendment as a reasonable proposition. The amendment seeks to provide for a minimum interval of 18 months between simultaneous elections. I would really like to see a longer period provided for because I feel that it is quite wrong, in the concept of the Senate, that if the House of Representatives should go to the people purely for the purpose of gaining a political advantage it could force half the Senate out at the same time. For the benefit of the Committee I shall read parts of the proposed new section which I wish to amend.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! The Committee is about to suspend its sitting for the lunch break. Senator Jessop, you have circulated an amendment which is not in the recognised form and I suggest that during the lunch period you might re-word your amendment so that it meets the requirements of the Committee. I understand that it has been agreed on both sides of the House that the Committee should resume at 2 p.m. instead of 2. 1 5 p.m.

Senator Wright:

– In order to meet the Government ‘s constraint of 5 o ‘clock.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do not want Senator Wright interrupting with that type of interjection.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– Before the suspension of the sitting my attention was drawn to the fact that my amendment did not conform with Committee procedure. That has now been corrected. I move:

Leave out proposed section 1 3 ( 1 ) to (6), insert,

( 1 ) Subject to this section a term of service of a senator expires upon the expiry or dissolution of the first House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after the senator has held office under that term for 3 years or, if there is an earlier dissolution of the Senate, upon that dissolution.

As soon as may be after the first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution of the Senate, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes.

In the case of each State, where the number of senators to be divided is an even number the number of senators in each of the two classes shall be equal and where the number of senators to be divided is an odd number the number of senators in the first class shall be one more than the number in the second class.

Sub-section (1) of this section applies to senators included in the first class, but the term of service of a senator of the second class expires upon the expiry or dissolution of the first House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after the senator has held office under that term for eighteen months, or, if there is an earlier dissolution of the Senate, upon that dissolution.

Where, since the election of senators for a State following a dissolution of the Senate but before the division of the senators for that State into classes in pursuance of this section, the place of a senator chosen at that election has become vacant, the division of senators shall be made as if the place of that senator had not so become vacant and, for the purposes of section fifteen of this Constitution, the term of service of that senator shall be deemed to be, and to have been, the period for which he would have held his place, in accordance with this section, if his place had not so become vacant.

In the case of a senator holding office at the commencement of this section-

if his term of service would, under the provisions in force before that commencement, have expired on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-eight, his term of service shall expire upon the expiry or dissolution of the first House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after he has held office under that term for eighteen months or,

if his term of service would, under the provisions in force before that commencement, have expired on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and eigh ty-one, his term of service shall expire upon the expiry or dissolution of the first House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after he has held office under that term for three years, or if there is an earlier dissolution of the Senate, upon that dissolution.’.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I rise to support the amendment of my colleague Senator Jessop because I believe that we who are now opposing these measures are being consistent in our stand. We took a similar stand when the former Government proposed the same type of measure. The people of Australia who supported us when we voted against the proposal at that time can see that we are being consistent. Therefore, it is appropriate that I stand firm on this matter and support my colleague. We have opposed these measures in a number of ways. I and my colleagues are saddened that Senator Wright’s amendments were not accepted by the Government. I hope that the Government will now see fit to accept what we are now proposing. It was a lesson to all of us here today when Senator Wright brought to our attention some of the facts concerning what has happened in the past. My concern with what is happening now is that power will be put into the hands of a Prime Minister so that he will be able to take this chamber to the people whenever he sees fit to do so. This has been proved conclusively. On 5 occasions since 1914a Prime Minister was able to take the House of Representatives to the people in under 2 years of the life of the parliament of the day.

I do not think that anyone in this chamber or in Australia would be naive enough to believe that the only reason why that was done was that the Prime Minister of the time wanted to bring the elections for the 2 Houses together. I certainly am not naive enough to believe that I am not naive enough to believe that that would be the reason in the future. I have strong feelings about this measure and I am standing in my place to support the amendment proposed by my colleage Senator Jessop.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition will oppose this amendment. In speaking in the second reading debate on this Bill we expressed the view that one of the advantages of the simultaneous elections provision would be that this chamber would more adequately reflect at a more recent date the views of the electors. There was some discussion in the course of the debate about situations which arose in which honourable senators elected anything up to 5 years previously acted to effectively obstruct or dismiss the House of Representatives. We regard the amendment as unnecessary and unreal. It reflects a chronic anxiety state in the mover, Senator Jessop, rather than any real need for amendment to the Bill before the Committee.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

-The Government opposes the amendment for the same reasons as I gave when opposing the amendment of Senator Wright. This amendment has the same effect except that it provides a guaranteed term of 18 months after a conjoint election between the House of Representatives and the Senate, whether it be a half Senate election or a double dissolution, whereas Senator Wright’s amendment guaranteed 12 months. I gave the reasons for our opposition to the guarantee of 12 months. Naturally, we would be opposed to a guarantee of a longer period which, in this case, would be 18 months. Briefly, the objection is that the acceptance of this amendment, as with Senator Wright’s amendment, would mean that in some circumstances the 2 Houses would get out of kilter and simultaneous elections would not be able to be ensured. In that respect, the amendment seems to the Government to be quite contrary to the purpose of the Bill.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Whilst I can see and have at all times accepted the argument in favour of the convenience and the reduction in cost of holding simultaneous elections, that makes simultaneous elections desirable but not essential. I, therefore, ask again that people reconsider the instances where they are prepared to say that elections must be held simultaneously or the instances where they are prepared to take a stand and make simultaneous elections as practicable as they can without making simultaneous elections absolutely essential. One must go back to the real issue. That is: Should a Prime Ministerany Prime Minister, of whatever party- the chief of the executive government, be able to take half of the Senate to an election at his whim and at any time that he choses, as opposed to at any time that the actions of that chamber have lead to a deadlock or confrontation?

To take a totally cynical view, as I think was mentioned during the second reading debate on this Bill, in 1973 it would have been perfectly possible for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitiam, with a relatively high state of euphoria after opening the Treasury doors and spending the money that had been accumulated for quite some time by careful and good economic management, to have obtained a majority in the Senate had this proposed legislation been in force. At that time he had a good deal of community support. He did not have a majority in the Senate, but if this proposal had existed in the legislation he very easily could have obtained a majority by the arbitrary exercise of the power which this Bill proposes to give a Prime Minister.

Senator Grimes:

– What would have been wrong with that in principle, disregarding your prejudices?

Senator RAE:

– In principle it would mean the destruction of the bicameral system. If we accept the bicameral system, we accept the desirability of having a different basis of tenure in each of the 2 Houses, which has a historical basis that I do not think has yet been shown to be wrong. If one

House is merely to be a reflection of the other House, we might as well not have the second House unless we give it some entirely separate function. As I indicated yesterday when speaking to this Bill, I would be very happy to see the community debate what it considers the role of the Upper House ought to be. I do not for a moment deny that that is a matter to which we ought to be giving consideration.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Do you object to one House cutting short the term of another? Why did you not object to that in 1 975?

Senator RAE:

-No. I thought I had just explained the situation. I shall explain it again for the benefit of Senator James McClelland. I said that I did not see any advantage in having a second House- in retaining a bicameral system and having the Senate- if the decision of when one half of the membership of that House is to be put to an election is to be made at the whim of the chief of the executive government -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But the life of the other House should be at the whim of this House?

Senator RAE:

– May I finish without interruption? Then, if the honourable senator wishes to interrupt, by all means let him. I am saying that this decision should not be made at the whim of the Executive without there having been some basis of confrontation or deadlock between the Houses. The situation of confrontation or deadlock is provided for already in section 57 of the Constitution, relating to double dissolution. My short answer to Senator James McClelland s point is that the Senate cannot in any way nominate the day on which the House of Representatives will go to an election. Not in any way can it do that. What it can do is to get into a deadlock situation which has to be resolved in compliance with certain procedures set out in the Constitution. This Bill proposes to give an entirely different power to the House of Representatives or to the chief of the executive in that House. Entirely at their whim- as early as they like or after a matter of months- they can nominate a day for an election. It may be, as has been indicated by other speakers, that there are other reasons that will cause that power to be exercised which are nothing to do with the Senate. They can be related to internal disputes in the House of Representatives or in the government party there. They can be related to things which are nothing to do with the position or actions of the Senate within the Parliament.

I am asking for consistency. I am saying that until such time as we have had a fully reasoned debate about the proper role of the Senate and have come up with some reasoned decisions as to what that role should be, let us not destroy the Senate by stealth. I believe that the action being taken does effectively destroy the Senate by stealth by giving to the executive government of the day the power to be able to make threats to a Senate, however innocent that Senate may be in its actions. This proposal gives power to the Executive Government to change the balance of power in the Senate by its own whim. There are a number of other things which in the Committee stage I cannot debate in detail. I get back to the essential reason why I support Senator Jessop’s amendment. There should be some limit of time to prevent arbitrary action of the Executive. As a matter of fact I do not particularly like Senator Jessop’s amendment. I just think it is better than what is proposed in the Bill. I do not think the Executive at its whim ought to be able to take out half the Senate between 18 months and 3 years of its term.

I do not know what the answer is. I would have liked the Constitutional Convention to have a proper debate about these matters, these real issues, that are raised here. Had a committee of the Constitutional Convention discussed this matter, considered it properly and come up with a reasoned view we may have had some basis upon which we could consider it. At the moment all we are given is this totally superficial reason of cost and convenience and the fact that the Constitutional Convention discussed it. We know that the Constitutional Convention did not discuss it all. Anyone who looks at the transcript of the Constitutional Convention will see perfectly clearly that the matter was never given any consideration by that body.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australia

– The main inconsistencies rest in Senator Rae’s arguments. He has said and reiterated a number of times during his speech that one of the greatest evils is that this House may be a reflection of the public opinion exhibited in the lower House. Yet within 18 months he voted twice for double dissolutions which, of course, are the extreme example of getting the same thought in this House as in the lower House. The honourable senator’s practical vote in this House is just the opposite of the argument he has just now put to the Senate. Nothing will give a better result of the Senate being a rubber stamp of the lower House than a double dissolution. The honourable senator has avidly supported that concept. I go not into the merits of doing so; at the moment I just say that he has. He has ensured on 2 occasions that this House is a rubber stamp of the lower House, and that was the exact result of the elections.

Senator Chaney:

– Only one out of two.

Senator Walters:

– He will exaggerate.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Yes, I withdraw that. I do not exaggerate on such things. A further point is that the amendment would give the Senate the right without any penalty to do what it liked for 18 months. Add to that the thought which has been uppermost in the minds of those who are promoting the argument.

Senator Jessop:

– That is untrue.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am told by my legal adviser that that is the case.

Senator Rae:

– Well, he is wrong.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– We will rest on that. The thought uppermost in the minds of those who are supporting the amendments in opposition to these referenda is that all the base political motives exist in the lower House and all the noble motives exist here. That may be a view of ourselves at this moment. I will not argue with that point. It is quite easy to visualise a future Senate being composed of people who will deliberately interrupt the good government of Australia. No one can say that cannot happen.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It did happen.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am not going into the past nor will I comment on present individuals. We know that in future at some important occasion in this nation’s life that will happen. Apparently we will deny by this amendment and our general attitude the right of a leader of an executive government to get the Senate to face the people on the issue on which it is obstructive. Why should not an executive government ask for an endorsement of its policies? If it is wrong, the Senate will be proved right by the vote. The only thing that I can see that will satisfy the opponents of this sensible measure is lifetime appointment to the Senate, and that I would oppose. That is the tenor of what they want. They say that the Senate is right and always will be right and that executive government is the enemy of Australia. That is about the only major aspect of the argument they are putting. I contend that is the opposite of the case. Senator Rae twice voted for a procedure which makes this House a rubber stamp. Yet he argues that it is the worst vice of the referendum. I believe his argument fails on that point.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I would not have risen but for that last contributiona bucket of rubbish. From whom? It was from Senator Steele Hall of South Australia who has a track record in politics of recently coming under cover with the Liberal Party, having tried to destroy it for 3 years.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! I do not think the honourable senator should continue in that vein.

Senator WRIGHT:

-He asked what is wrong in ensuring that this place should be a rubber stamp of the House of Representatives. He emphasised his argument -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is not what he said.

Senator WRIGHT:

-What did he say?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He said that the argument of Senator Rae and the actions of Senator Rae made it a rubber stamp. He did not advocate that it should be a rubber stamp. Why don’t you listen?

Senator WRIGHT:

-I am indebted to the honourable senator for a proper statement of the position. If the Prime Minister of the day can take half this House to the country at any time he thinks is politically opportune, any study of the structure would convince any objective student that that makes this House a rubber stamp of the executive government unless the people at a joint election divine the situation so as to return to this chamber sufficient numbers who will stand against the executive government when reelected.

Senator Steele Hall knows that those are the very words that were used by Senator Withers, Mr Snedden and Mr Lynch when they prepared the no case in 1974. The truth of that proposition would not be debunked, in the mind of anybody who wanted confidence in a politician, by the statement of Senator Steele Hall. Then he said that Senator Jessop ‘s amendment would enable the Senate to do just what it liked for 1 8 months. That is demonstrably false. Only a person infantile in the constitutional interpretation of this Federation could put it forward. Section 57 has always provided that if a proposal is rejected by the Senate and, after an interval of 3 months, it rejected again, the executive government can advise a double dissolution and can go to the country. It would be absurd- it amazes me that the proposition can be put forward- that Senator Jessop ‘s amendment should remove from the Constitution that provision.

Compressing myself to the utmost brevity, the last thing is that Senator Steele Hall sits down with the false misrepresentation of the motives, purposes and arguments of us who oppose these constitutional alterations, saying that we are seeking lifetime appointments. That glib, oily, easy political humbug that you get on the hustings by a politician who can produce nothing but noise, never two sentences of consecutive arguments, who is known for having produced all the vindictiveness in his endeavour -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Wright, you must not disparage another senator.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I will not stand here and have my motives interpreted as seeking -

The CHAIRMAN:

– You must not disparage another senator.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I accept that direction.

Senator Keeffe:

– I take a point of order. I believe the honourable senator is using this debate to carry on a political vendetta against one of his own colleagues. I suggest that he come back to the clause that is before the chamber at the moment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I have already asked Senator Wright to take certain action and I am sure he will do so.

Senator WRIGHT:

- Mr Chairman, I am answering the argument that emanated from Senator Steele Hall that our motive and purpose is to secure lifetime terms for senators. That is demonstrably false. No such case could be advanced by any honest mind with even a preparatory knowledge of the interpretation of the Constitution.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-I am surprised that senators from the small States, and Senator Steele Hall comes into that category, are opposing this amendment. It has been pointed out today that by what is proposed a Prime Minister will be able to take the States House to the people along with himself. He already has great power in the House of Representatives through the large vote available from New South Wales and Victoria. Let us remember that the combined vote of the representatives of New South Wales and Victoria is 79 while that of the small States is 45. What would happen if a Bill is put forward which is detrimental to one of the small States? Take Tasmania, where we have only 5 voices in the House of Representatives. If that State’s vote were defeated a Bill could be passed which would be detrimental to our small State. What happens if the Senate is taken to the people a short time after election? The Prime Minister primarily is elected by the 2 largest States and he would have power over this States’ House. He could determine when this House should face the people and I believe that this is one of the points that should be considered in this amendment.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I believe it is necessary to reply to what Senator Wright said a few minutes ago. The amendment we have before us was put before us at short notice.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:
Senator MISSEN:

-Well, to my mind last night is short notice and it is short notice to the mind of any other sensible person. We know that at the Constitutional Convention considerable time was available to consider this matter and a definite recommendation was put. That recommendation is before the Senate. The amendment Senator Jessop moved has been criticised by Senator Steele Hall and I rose to support that view. If one looks at this amendment one cannot be absolutely certain what its effect will be. It is quite specific in its terms, however. It says that in the case of a senator holding office at the commencement of this section, whose term of office expires in 1978, the term of office shall expire upon the expiration or dissolution of the House after he has held office under that term for 18 months. If he has to hold office until 1 98 1 it shall expire after 3 years. I think it is a very reasonable conclusion to say that that probably is an infringement and a restriction which would be imposed upon the opportunity to have double dissolutions under section 57 which bring senators to an election before their time. If that means what it says a senator shall have an assured office for 18 months if he is a short term senator and 3 years if he is a long term senator. Therefore, as a recent amendment of the Constitution, surely it will cut across the ability to have a double dissolution.

That is my interpretation of this amendment. I believe it to be correct. The amendment has not been examined thoroughly enough to enable one to say whether or not that interpretation is correct. But that is my honest belief. I would not for one moment support an amendment like that when we have before us a specific recommendation that has been known and discussed for some years and which makes sense. This amendment of Senator Jessop ‘s is highly dangerous and possibly interferes with the existing provisions of the Constitution.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australia

– I do not want to lengthen the debate; I want only to say a few words. It would seem to me that Senator Wright is under some misapprehension as to just what I said earlier. To make my position clear to him I say that in general terms I would view his position on this and his advocacy of the supremacy of the Senate in the form in which he wants it, as such that his priorities are ordered. The number one priority for him is the retention of the present powers of the Senate; and the number 2 priority is what is good for the public and for the good of government in Australia. I have seen this position held adamantly by other people in another upper house in another place. It is something that is ingrained after a number of years in some people and is honourably held. But I believe it is a very mistaken view. It is one which greatly harms the evolution of a parliamentary system to suit the population which itself changes over the decades. But I say to Senator Wright that that is as I view his position, shorn of details: His number one priority is the Senate; his number 2 is the people of Australia.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-The whole thrust of the argument being put forward by the senators who instigated and supported this amendment is that they object to the Prime Minister in the other place having the right to bring this House to the people. They then retain for themselves the right to send the House of Representatives to the people at anytime they wish. As I said earlier today when I was talking to this clause, if this Senate so desired the House of Representatives could be sent to the people every 6 months. Every time a Supply Bill was introduced the Senate could send the House of Representatives to the people. But the Senate itself would not have to go to the people.

Senator Rae in reply to my remarks said that I had not got to first base and tried to confuse my statement with the argument relating to a double dissolution. Senator Rae would well know that if Bills to lay the foundation for a double dissolution had not existed, when the Senate refused Supply in 1975 the only House that would have gone to the people would have been the House of Representatives and there would have been no grounds for a double dissolution. That is the very right that Senator Rae, Senator Wright, Senator Jessop and Senator Wood are now trying to preserve for themselves. They are attempting to place this place in a position of very high importance in the eyes of the people.

I think it is clear from the number of people who have been in the public gallery today that the public of Australia does not place much importance on this House. We have been debating this measure for 3 days and we have been on the air for 2 days out of the three. How many people have been in the gallery to take an interest in what is going on? The majority of people in this country do not even know that the

Senate exists. Only a handful of people are trying to put this Senate on a very high pedestal when in fact the people at large could not care less about it.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I will ignore what has just been said by Senator McLaren because it is not worthy of reply. I would like to reply to Senator Missen and Senator Hall and suggest that apart from completely ignoring the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution, Senator Missen forgot to read my amendment in full. If he had done he would have seen at the end of my amendment words that I had inserted deliberately, namely:

  1. . or if there is an earlier dissolution of the Senate, upon that dissolution. ‘

I think that answers his question.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-I think that I should reply briefly to Senator McLaren because of the very, very foolish statement he made. In speaking of the Senate in very disparaging terms he said that hardly anybody in Australia would know of its existence. This is a reflection upon the people of Australia. After all, the people have to go to the polls to vote for the Senate. With this in mind, how could any sane sensible person say that the people of Australia do not know that the Senate exists? That is absolute nonsense. The wild and woolly statements which have been made in support of the Government ‘s case indicate how little argument those supporting that case for these referenda really have.

Question put.

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. H. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 13

NOES: 45

Majority……. 32

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I have 3 more amendments to clause 4. By arrangement with the Minister in charge of the Bill, I seek leave to move them together and to have a vote on one of them as a test.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted and that procedure will be followed.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I move:

At end of proposed new sub-section 13 (1), add ‘: Provided that this sub-section shall have effect only if the Senate has rejected or failed to pass a proposed law already passed by the House of Representatives’.

At end of proposed new sub-section 13 (1) add ‘: Provided that this sub-section shall have effect only if the Senate has within the preceding period of one month rejected or failed to pass a proposed law already passed by the House of Representatives imposing taxation or appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government’.

At end of .proposed new sub-section 13(1), add ‘: Provided that this sub-section shall have effect only if the Senate has within the preceding period of one month rejected or failed to pass a proposed law already passed by the House of Representatives imposing taxation or appropriating revenue or moneys’.

It will be remembered that the present safeguard of the Senate against premature dissolution in section 57 is a time factor of 3 months with which we dealt on the 2 previous amendments that were negatived by this Committee; but the other factor is that we seek to ensure that the dissolution follows only from a difference with the House of Representatives. In other words, we seek to make it clear that the Senate shall not be dissolved because of some internal squabble in the House of Representatives.

Therefore, my proposal is that the new provision contained in the Bill should apply provided that it ‘shall have effect only if the Senate has rejected or failed to pass a proposed law already passed by the House of Representatives’.

That would make the concession to the Government that one refusal to pass a proposed law already passed by the House of Representatives would give the House of Representatives the right to call a half Senate election. At present such a proposed law has to be rejected twice, with an interval of 3 months. Surely anyone who does not agree with that proposition is out to destroy the Senate utterly. I remind the Committee that Senator Button, in the course of the second reading debate, said: . . and we - that is the Australian Labor Party- do have a very strong view that the powers of the Senate should be delimited at every opportunity. These are the basic reasons why we will be supporting the legislation.

The next amendment provides that the new provision ‘shall have effect only if the Senate has within the preceding period of one month rejected or failed to pass a proposed law already passed by the House of Representatives imposing taxation or appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government’. I need not recall it to you, Mr Chairman, but for the sake of clarity it should be understood that that is an endeavour to bring to attention of the Government the significance of the Bills that this Senate may reject but may not amend. If the Senate rejects a Bill that it may not amendnamely, one imposing taxation or one appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government- this amendment would give the Government the immediate right to dissolve the House of Representatives and half the Senate.

The final amendment is a variant of that and states that the new sub-section proposed by the Government ‘shall have effect only if the Senate has within the preceding period of one month rejected or failed to pass a proposed law already passed by the House of Representatives imposing taxation or appropriating revenue or moneys’. It will be seen that we have endeavoured to accommodate ourselves to the legislation being steamrollered through the Parliament by taking up the significance of money Bills, so called. Realising that the Constitution gives the Senate the power to reject them as well as any other Bill but to amend only such money Bills as impose taxation or appropriate moneys for ordinary annual services as distinct from Apopropriation Bills that appropriate money for capital works, that brings to the attention of the Senate the significance of these money Bills. One amendment proposes a half dissolution of the Senate if the Senate rejects a non-amendable Bill. Another proposes a half Senate election if the Senate rejects any money Bill in the sense that I have indicated.

Unless the Government is intent upon adopting the strong view of the Australian Labor Party, as put by Senator Button, that the powers of the Senate should be delimited at every opportunity, which is the basic reason the Opposition is supporting the legislation, there is no intelligible reason why any one of these amendments should be refused.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Wright, the Committee allowed you to move 3 amendments and to debate them together. On which of these 3 amendments do you wish the vote of the Committee to be taken?

Senator WRIGHT:

-I wish the vote to be taken on the second amendment.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

- Senator McLaren, when talking on the previous clause said -

Senator Cavanagh:

– He has not spoken on this clause yet.

Senator WALTERS:

– It applies to this clause also. He said that it was our desire to stop a Prime Minister taking us to the people and that we were quite willing to send the House of Representatives to the people any time we like without having to go ourselves.

Senator McLaren:

– That is quite right too. That is the whole purpose.

Senator WALTERS:

– I am glad Senator McLaren just interjected because it has made it clear to everybody listening and to those in the public gallery that Senator McLaren, either through complete ignorance or -

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Walters -

Senator WALTERS:

– I am not being rude.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Walters, please address your remarks to the Chair.

Senator WALTERS:

-He said it either out of complete ignorance or is deliberately misleading the Senate. Frankly I do not know which, but if he will turn to the Constitution, a copy of which he has in his desk before him, and will read clause 57 he will see that it states:

If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or tails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate ana the House of Representatives simultaneously.

That is, not just the House of Representatives but the House of Representatives and the Senate simultaneously. It is no use saying that we will send the House of Representatives to the people but we will not go ourselves. We go ourselves at the same time. What we are objecting to is that the Prime Minister in another place will take away the independence of the Senate. He will be willing to send us to the people due to some private disharmony in the House of Representatives.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– It is quite obvious that Senator Walters deliberately tried to confuse the issue and to misrepresent me when she quoted section 57 of the Constitution. She talked about the Senate refusing to pass legislation or not having the right to amend certain legislation and that if it does a double dissolution can be held. What I was saying was that the Senate has the power in regard to Supply, and that the coalition parties exercised that power in 1975 when they would not even vote on the Bill. For that reason they were able to force the properly elected Government to the people, and they will still have the right to do that if this amendment is carried. That is the whole purpose in what honourable senators who are supporting this amendment are trying to do. It is no good quoting the Constitution in part and trying to fool the people outside. The more they talk about it the more those honourable senators confuse themselves. They will never extricate themselves from the argument they are trying to put forward to fool the people. As I have said, the whole purpose of their exercise in moving this amendment is to retain in this place the right to sack a Prime Minister, yet they do not want to give him the right to bring out the Senate at the same time. That is the whole purpose of this exercise.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I can see that Senator Walters is not satisfied by that explanation so I would like to clear it up for her, if she will just listen. In the crisis of November 1975, if there had been no stockpiling of Bills which would lay the ground for the application -

Senator Walters:
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Will the honourable senator listen to me? The situation could arise, as Senator McLaren has pointed out, that the Senate should choose to refuse Supply. It gets that opportunity every 6 months. That situation could arise where there was no stockpiling of Bills to satisfy the provisions of section 57. As a matter of fact, Sir Garfield Barwick, in a decision which he gave a month before he told the Governor-General that he could do what he did, said precisely that it was not possible to stockpile Bills for the purpose of having a double dissolution when it suited a government. A situation could easily arise where there was no section 57 situation, but if what the Governor-General did in November 1975 is good law then the Senate does get the opportunity twice a year to dictate to the House of Representatives that it shall go to the electors, and not necessarily go itself. If the honourable senator asks some authorities she will be told that that is the case.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I would not have risen but for the fact that 2 Labor speakers have purported to answer Senator Walters. I draw the attention of the Committee to the actual proposal before it, which is to the effect that this automatic half Senate dissolution incorporated by the Government’s proposed new clause should take effect only if the Senate has rejected or failed to pass a proposed lawany proposed law- already passed by the House of Representatives. That completely gives the go-by to all that Senator McLaren and Senator James McClelland have said. The effect of this amendment is to enable the government of the day, if it has had a measure rejected in the Senate which has been passed by the House of Representatives, to operate this Bill and have a half Senate election and a House of Representatives election at the same time. It can do that at any time that the Senate rejects any measure that has already been passed by the House of Representatives.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-I was going to point out what Senator Wright has already pointed out, namely, that apparently some of the people who commented before were not precisely certain what amendment was being discussed. Senator Walters obviously was not certain because she was talking about the double dissolution provisions of section 57 of the Constitution. Senator Wright has correctly pointed out that these amendments deal with something additional to that.

In effect Senator Wright said that it is perfectly reasonable that the Senate at any time of its choosing should be able to force an election in the House of Representatives and have half the Senate go to the polls. If it is perfectly reasonable that the Senate should be able to precipitate an election, surely it is perfectly reasonable that the entire Senate face the electors and be judged on its actions. Apart from that important objection to the amendments that Senator Wright has moved, it is apparent, as Senator Missen has said, that the amendments have a number of technical defects, not the least of which would be that if they were to be accepted- of course they will not be; they will be thrown out as they deserve to be- conceivably there would be no provision determining the term of a senator or when the term of a senator would expire. Senator Wright’s obfuscation of a couple of hours ago drew attention to the fact that he does not know the answer to this aspect.

Senator Hall touched on the fact that many people, almost all of them on the conservative side I think, who are elected to this Senate appear to acquire delusions of grandeur about the Senate’s importance and their importance as senators. I think there is an underlying reason for this. It is a well known fact that a position in the Senate, as I mentioned yesterday, is a compensation or a consolation prize awarded by parties to people who cannot win seats in the House of Representatives or a sinecure for superannuated party hacks of which several examples can normally be found on the other side of the chamber.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– I have not spoken on these amendments on behalf of the Government. Unfortunately most of the debate on them has been irrelevant. The specific amendment being considered certainly goes a long way to meeting the problems and would provide for the situation where the Senate, by its action, precipitates a political conflict or crisis between the Houses. However the amendment does not ensure simultaneous elections occur at all times. If there is a situation where it is necessary for half the Senate to go to an election and there is not a rejection or failure to pass any proposed law submitted to the Senate by the House of Representatives of course according to Senator Wright’s amendment there would not be a situation in which simultaneous elections would be possible. This situation is particularly likely to arise under our Constitution, as we discovered with the provisions relating to a double dissolution. After a double dissolution, because of the peculiarities of the Constitution as to when the terms of senators start, the 2 Houses get out of kilter. This amendment would not get over that problem. I come back to the point I have been making over and over again: This Bill is designed to ensure that there will be simultaneous elections to avoid the excessive number of elections that have been occurring over the last 10 years or so in the national Parliament. That is the purpose of the Bill. This amendment will qualify seriously the purpose of the Bill. For that reason the Government must oppose it.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Wright’s amendment) be added.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 12

NOES: 46

Majority……. 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Casual vacancies).

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I have nothing to offer on this clause. It will be remembered that casual vacancies is the subject of the next Bill and, therefore, I offer no argument to this aspect of the Bill.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Very briefly, for my own edification and the edification of others who may be interested, I ask why clause 5, which deals with casual vacancies, is in the Bill entitled Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill when the Senate also has before it a Bill entitled Constitution Alteration (Senate

Casual Vacancies) Bill. There may be some good reason, but I would like to hear it.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– The reason is provided in clause 6 which provides that this clause does not take effect if the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) Bill is passed.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Title.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I move:

Leave out all words after ‘Constitution’, insert ‘to provide that upon each occasion when the House of Representatives expires or is dissolved one half of the Senate shall be dissolved’

I have circulated the amendment to honourable senators. The title of the Bill, which was branded as a fraud and was stated in 1975 to be an exercise in deception by the party to which I belong is reprinted in this Bill. It states that the title is to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as elections for the House of Representatives. I wish that to be deleted. I abstain from further argument and to assist the Government with its steamroller tactics in order to pass the Bill within the time constraints, I do not wish to have a division on this matter. If the Minister indicates that the Government does not accept the amendment and every honourable senator who has voted yes remains silent, so as to indicate concurrence with the Minister, then it will be on record that this had been denied by the Committee. This is a statement of fact as to the true nature of the Bill.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I just cannot let go the last comment about the Government steamrollering this legislation through the chamber. This legislation has been before us for the whole of this week. It was introduced into the Senate last week. We spent all day yesterday on it. We are having a special sitting today solely devoted to it and the other Constitution alteration Bills. We had a debate on matters related to them on Tuesday evening. We commenced this debate on Wednesday evening. I completely reject on behalf of the Government any suggestion that it has been steamrollered through this chamber. It is manifestly not correct.

As far as the amendment to the title of the Bill is concerned, the Government does not accept the amendment because it believes that the title it has given to the Bill-‘ … an Act … to ensure that Senate Elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives Elections’- is an accurate description of the purpose of the Bill and what the Bill actually seeks to achieve.

The change proposed in Senator Wright’s amendment is not in fact accurate because it says one half of the Senate shall be dissolved’. That is not the correct description. It should be ‘the term of one half of the members of the Senate will expire’. It will not be a dissolution of the Senate.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I remain quite unable to find out why it is that although in 1974 Senator Durack and the others who are supporting this Bill in its present form prepared and put out a No case which called the title of the Bill deceptive they now say that the title is not deceptive. Have any changes been made? If they have not been made, how is it that it was deceptive in 1 974 and it is not deceptive in 1 977?

Amendment negatived.

Title agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: That the Bill be reported.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– Regrettably the Committee has not seen fit to accept the amendment proposed to this Bill. Although I have demonstrated my personal opposition to it and tried to persuade the Government and the Senate that there are dangers in it, it is obvious that the weight of numbers is such that the majority of honourable senators seem to be in favour of it. I have decided now to leave it to the good judgment of the Australian people to make a final decision on this issue. However, I would like to say that the debate that has taken place in this Chamber seems to me to epitomise the independence of the Senate and the true spirit of this place.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is shown by the brawling in the Liberal Party. We have hardly been able to hear you.

Senator JESSOP:

– Labor Party supporters say that we are brawling. I think that is an indication that there is a certain amount of jealousy on their part because we on this side of the chamber have the right and the privilege- indeed the duty on occasions- to disagree with the Government. In so doing we have enabled a contrary view to be put for the benefit, the education and the information of the electorate. That is a duty we have fulfilled and I commend the people on this side of the chamber, both those who have spoken against the Bill and those who have spoken in favour of it, on the constructive way in which they have tried to help the people of Australia.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I too will not be opposing the Bill in the final vote. I have not found that the reasons for the legislation have been sufficient. I do not accept that it is sufficient reason to say that there are too many elections. I do not accept as sufficient the reason that elections are costly. What does concern me and what has not been explained is that limiting elections by legislation is the first step on the road to having no elections at all. There are now only 24 democratic countries left in the United Nations and I would not want to see that number come down to twenty-three through Australia being the next one to drop off the list. I do not like the legislation, but I will also allow my constituents to show their own feelings.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed: That the report of the Committee be adopted.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I move:

This amendment to the motion that the report of the Committee be adopted is currently being circulated to honourable senators. The purpose of my having moved this amendment at this stage is to reflect the debate that has taken place thus far. How often during the debate we have heard supporters of the Government’s proposals say of the amendments of Senator Wright: ‘Yes, they have merit and have been well drafted, but we have not had time to consider them ‘. The purpose of my amendment is to enable them to have just that time. Time would have been available had the Government not ridden roughshod over Standing Orders with the support of the Australian Labor Party, contrary to what this Government did in 1974.

Senator Withers:

– Oh, wait a minute; 50 senators wanted Standing Orders suspended.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I remind the Leader of the Government that what I am doing nowthat is, proposing that the matter be referred to a select committee- was supported by him in 1973 in the same situation. I quote from the debate at that time. Senator Withers had this to say about the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1973:

This Bill is not all about whether the 2 Houses ought to come together for election on polling day; it is much deeper than that. I believe that the Senate would not be doing justice to itself if it voted at this stage either for or against the Bill. The Bill has very long term implications for the Senate and for the Constitution as such because it does not deal with something which will be temporary; it deals with something which will be written into the Constitution.

I agree with those thoughts which were expressed so succinctly in 1973 by the present Leader of the Government in the Senate in 1973. I also believe that the people should be given a chance to participate in the formulation of pro- 0posals that go to them.

Senator Button:

– Stunting again.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Oh, no; this is an attempt to give the people an opportunity, which they have not had thus far, to participate in the formulation of the proposals that will go to them. Would the honourable senator deny them the right to do that? They have not had that right thus far. They did not even know about this proposal until last week. We did not know about it until last week. We did not know about the situation until -

Senator McLaren:

– Where were you last week? You were not here.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I think Senator McLaren might be sorry for having made that interjection if he knew where I was last week. The people of Australia have not had the opportunity to participate in the formulation of any proposals that are likely to be put to them. It should not be forgotten that the purpose of the proposals that are to go to the people is to change the ground rules upon which members of this Senate are elected and upon which their terms of office are established. In other words, the purpose of the proposals is to extend the term of office of every member of this Senate. What would the people say about that? Why should they not have the opportunity to say: Perhaps there is some merit in the proposal, but why should not the referendum be held simultaneously with the next half Senate election and thus save a great deal of money?’?

We have heard the lawyers in the Senate arguing to an fro, some for and some against the proposal. There are other worthy constitutionalawyers outside the Senate who also have not had the opportunity to participate in the formulation of proposals designed to amend the Constitution. I put it to the Senate that, if it feels that it has not had an opportunity to discuss the proposals adequately or that it has not had an opportunity to consider fully the implications of the proposals or of the amendments put forward by

Senator Wright, it should agree to the amendment I have just moved. What will be the effect of the amendment? It will give interested organisations and members of the public an opportunity to participate in the formulation of the proposed law. I ask: What is wrong with that?

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Rae:

– I second the amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

-The Government will not accept the amendment moved by Senator Harradine which seeks to refer the Bill to a select committee. The Bill in its present form is being put forward in accordance with the decision that was taken after consideration and debate by the Constitutional Convention. So, it has been considered very thoroughly by a body outside this Senate. I have not noticed that, in fact, participation in the debate has been confined by any means to lawyers in this chamber. Plenty of other honourable senators have taken part in the debate, and they have taken part in it very effectively. In fact, I think that the lawyers have not been as prominent in this debate as people sometimes think they are in debates on constitutional matters.

The major reason why the Government will oppose Senator Harradine ‘s amendment is that the decision on this matter will be made by the people. It cannot be put to the people until 2 1 May. Three months will be adequate time for the people and these so-called experts outside the Senate that Senator Harradine is talking about to have their say about this measure. There will be no reflection in any way on the right of the people to determine the matter.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

-I feel that I have to make a brief comment about my attitude towards this motion which I did not know anything about until Senator Harradine moved it. It seems to me that the Minister has now gone full circle. Senator Harradine objected to the Senate being tied to a decision of the Constitutional Convention about which we have heard much detail from Senator Rae and others today and its validity has been challenged in a real way. As I understood it, Senator Harradine ‘s objection was on the grounds that the Convention was a preserve of lawyers in which neither we in the Senate nor the people participated. Now we are told by the Minister that since we have debated the matter here today it has been considered by people other than lawyers. The reason he gives us for accepting the proposal is that the lawyers decided on it at the Constitutional Convention.

Senator Withers:

– There were others.

Senator MARTIN:

– There might have been others. The last time the Senate considered this matter was 10 June 1975 when it was rejected. It was voted against unanimously by supporters of the present Government.

I agree with Senator Townley ‘s interjection that the issues will be put to the people but we do nothing for the status of the argument, the proposal, the referenda or the Parliament if we put any old issue just for the sake of it on the untenable grounds that the Minister has put to us in relation to the Constitutional Convention. There are other alternatives. The Government has refused to consider them seriously. If it had not been so determined to be hasty and push this measure through this week it would not be in the difficulty in which it is now. To argue that it ought to be put to public test just for its own sake should damn it from the outset.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition will not accept Senator Harradine ‘s motion and vote for it, the reasons being that we regard the motives behind the motion as suspect; the reasoning in support of it is untenable and absurd; we agree with the view expressed by Senator Durack that the people will have an appropriate opportunity to judge the issues involved.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I shall explain briefly my reason for seconding the motion because of the constraints of time of which we are all aware. I support the view put by the late Senator Greenwood in moving for a committee consideration by the Constitutional Convention in 1973. 1 support and adopt the reasons stated by Senator Withers and others in December 1973 when a similar motion to that moved by Senator Harradine was moved in this chamber and carried with the support of the Liberal and Country parties. I refer to the fact that this measure has never been considered by a committee. It was not considered or debated in detail in any way whatsoever at the Constitutional Convention in 1 976 or at any other time.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Durack) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate having divided-

In division:

The PRESIDENT:

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

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 48

NOES: 10

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 485

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION LEGISLATION

Declaration of Urgency

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

-Mr President, I declare that the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) Bill 1977, the Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) Bill 1977 and the Constitution Alteration (Referendums) Bill 1977 are urgent Bills and move:

That the Bills be considered urgent Bills.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye’, against say ‘no’.

Senator Wright:
The PRESIDENT:

– I think the ayes have it.

Senator Wright:

– Divide.

Senator Withers:

- Mr President,there is only one voice of dissent.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, there were 2 voices. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack also called. The Senate will divide. Ring the bells.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Withers) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 49

NOES: 7

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed:

That the time allocated in connection with the consideration of the Bills be as follows:

Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) Bill 1977-for the remaining stages till 4.25 p.m.;

Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) Bill 1 977-for the remaining stages till 4.30 p.m.;

Constitution Alteration (Referendums) Bill 1977-for the remaining stages till 4.35 p.m.

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That the question be now put

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 486

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SENATE CASUAL VACANCIES) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) Bill. This is an important proposal which the Opposition does not oppose. It has become important only since 1975. The procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate is laid down in section 15 of the Constitution which provides that the Parliaments of the various States shall fill vacancies as they arise. There is no provision in the Constitution for an honourable senator who had died or retired, or in some other way left this place to be replaced by a person from the same political party. From 1949 to 1975 that convention applied. The Senate will be aware that in those years Sir John Spicer was replaced in this place by Senator Hannan; Sir William Spooner by Senator Cotton; Mr Gorton by Senator Greenwood; Dame Annabelle Rankin by Senator Bonner; Senator Prowse by Senator Reid; and then, of course, in 1975 Senator Murphy was replaced by Senator Bunting and Senator Milliner by Senator Field. It is only in respect of the last two replacements that the convention which operated from 1949 was broken. If one reads the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) one sees that there is- if I might use the expression- a low key description of what happened in 1975. The Minister stated:

Nevertheless from the introduction of proportional representation in 1949 until the vacancy caused by Senator Murphy’s appointment to the High Court in 1975 the practice was observed of filling casual vacancies by the appointment of a person belonging to the same political party as the former senator.

When Senator Murphy had to be replaced this practice was questioned. Questions arose as to whether it was incumbent on the New South Wales Parliament to replace him with a member of the Australian Labor Party. There were some who felt that there was a convention which required the vacancy to be filled on that basis. But others took the contrary view.

The Premier of New South Wales at that time was the late Mr Lewis- I speak in political terms. The Minister continued:

In the result, as honourable members will well remember, the person chosen to replace Senator Murphy was not a member of the Labor Party. In choosing the person to replace Senator Murphy the New South Wales Parliament quite clearly acted within the strict terms of the Constitution. Whether it breached a convention is a matter on which opinions have, and no doubt will continue, to differ.

Similar questions arose in relation to the replacement of Senator Milliner by Senator Field. The Minister went on:

More recently, however, following the death of the late Senator Greenwood, the filling of his place followed the convention. He was replaced by a person who was a member of the political party to which the late senator belonged.

As I say, that is a very low key description by the Attorney-General of the history of replacements of retired and deceased senators in the last few years. It is a view which is seen through somewhat tinted glasses, looked upon by the Minister through the charitable mists of retrospect of 2 years. Of course, there is a less charitable view of what happened in 1975. There is a view which sees what happened as being an example in this place of pious people having their country cousins rob a bank and saying: ‘Tut, tut’, to them when they do so, but sharing the proceeds with them and then saying: ‘Look, it cannot happen again. We will have a constitutional referendum to make sure you behave yourself in future’. In wider terms one could say: ‘We should have a constitutional referendum to make sure that we behave ourselves in future’. This proposal is of particular relevance to the Government. It would never have been necessary to introduce this measure as a result of the conduct of Labor governments. But it is necessary to introduce this proposal because of the conduct of past governments. For us, it might be described as the ‘lest we forget ‘ constitutional referendum.

Senator Sheil:

– Lest we forget Gair.

Senator BUTTON:

-The honourable senator can tell me the relevance of that later but not now. There are a number of details in this proposal on which we might offer some criticism. The fact of the matter is that it is in substance the provision which was approved of by the Constitutional Convention. There is a slight difference. It is in substance the proposal which was approved of by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review of 1959, although that Committee did not see the way in which it could be carried out. It is a necessary amendment to the Constitution and one which we believe will receive the approval of the Australian people, having regard to the conduct of State governments in recent years. I commend the proposal to the Senate. It will have the full support of the Opposition. It is designed to ensure that the heirs and successors of members of this Government do not behave in the way in which their colleagues did in the past.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I support very warmly this constitutional proposal. It is essential and long overdue. As Senator Button said, it has become much more urgent by reason of the happenings of 1975 in respect of the vacanciesin New South Wales and Queensland, which were not filled by persons belonging to the same party as the deceased and retiring senators.

Senator Sheil:

– Rubbish! Field was a member of the Labor Party.

Senator MISSEN:

– Field was not a member of the Labor Party. Immediately hestood against his party’s wishes he was no longer a member and that was known to the Premier of Queensland. Time will not permit me to deal with irrelevant interruptions. Senator Button referred to a meeting of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in 1959. This Committee did not find the solution to the problem. It did not feel that this would be an important issue. It felt that people would observe the convention. The importance of this convention now, if the people approve, to be turned into law is that the proportional representation system of election must be maintained. It is important that there should be certainty about that. It is important that we know that those who vote for a certain party at a certain time can see a replacement coming from the same party as the senator he is replacing. This can be done now only by a constitutional referendum.

It is true that this matter was discussed by the Constitutional Convention last year. Fortunately the Government’s proposal goes a little further than what the Convention proposed. The Convention wanted to limit it to serious illness or incapacity, which it would be impossible to define. The important thing is not how a vacancy comes about; the important thing is that vacancies shall be filled in accordance with proportional representation and the balance of the Senate shall be maintained. Otherwise, in the future the fortunes of death or other sudden happenings may remove a couple of senators from one party and they may be replaced by people from another party, thus changing the whole balance of power in the Senate without any vote of the people.

It has been said in the Press that some areas are not covered entirely by this referendum proposal. Independents are not covered by it, but of course they are not covered at the moment. A State at the moment makes the decision that it wants to make and it is not changed. Of course the Bill refers to political parties. There is no reason in the world why political parties should not be referred to in our Constitution. The important thing is that in 98 per cent of cases we will now provide for certainty in the maintenance of representation. If the referendum is passed, we will know that a successor will come from the same party as the senator he is replacing.

The second part of the amendment, which is likewise most valuable and originates from the Constitutional Convention last year, is the provision that the person appointed to fill a vacancy shall not just fill it until the next election, when he may be thrown out and proportional representation would no longer apply in the State he represented, he will in fact now serve the balance of the term of the person who was elected originally. So a party will have the same representation, in accordance with its entitlement, for the whole of the term of the senator being replaced.

I believe this proposal has absolute merit. It is one for which I have striven and one which has been considered by Liberal Party committees over the last year. The Senate expressed itself when the Lewis appointment to fill a casual vacancy in New South Wales was made. Unanimously we said that the convention should be complied with. We in the Liberal Party have worked on and developed this constitutional amendment. Because of what it does for the people, because of the certainty it gives to government and because it is an essential and important amendment that will ensure that this Senate does not lose its significance and does not become unbalanced and outside the will of the people, I support it.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (4.0)- I rise to indicate my repudiation of this Bill. I will speak as quickly, as shortly and as succinctly as I can in order to explain the reasons that lead me to oppose the Bill. First of all, there is the title of the Bill, which is:

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure so Tar as practicable that a Casual Vacancy in the Senate is rilled by a Person of the same Political Party as the Senator chosen by the People . . .

In the debate on simultaneous elections we heard constant references to the Constitutional Convention. We were told how important it was that we accept the view of the Constitutional Convention and that any argument advanced against anything recommended by the Constitutional Convention would be invalid. The subject of this Bill has been before Committee D of the Constitutional Convention for a long time. Committee D examined it for as long and as penetratingly as it could. It came to the conclusion that the original Joint Committee on Constitutional Review on which Senator Wright sat was perfectly correct in saying that there was no possibility of getting a form of words which would meet this situation and put it beyond the risk of prejudice.

It so reported to the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention discussed it briefly to see whether it was possible to put into the Constitution something which would enshrine the concept that it should be the function of those people responsible for filling casual vacancies to be obedient to the principle; but it confessed that it was totally beyond legal expression in any form. This was agreed to by all the Government representatives who were at that Constitutional Convention and on Committee D. In Committee D it had the support of that eminent legal luminary who now sits in the High Court and once sat in the Senate; it was not possible to find an appropriate form of words.

Senator Rae:

– I hope you have a better authority than that.

Senator Sir MAGNUS COrMACK:

-I am not quoting him as aft authority; I was just saying that it was an expression of opinion. An interesting observation was made by one of the representatives of the Government at the Constitutional Convention, namely, that the resources in Canberra were of such an order in terms of legal quality and capacity that it should not be beyond the wit of the Solicitor-General s office in Canberra to provide a method by which a legal constitutional sanction could be provided in respect of the filling of casual vacancies. What came out of that discussion is this Bill, which provides that so far as practicable a casual vacancy in the Senate shall be filled by a person of the same political party as the senator chosen by the people. We are now being recommended to pass a Bill at this late hour-some of the fault for that lies perhaps with me-although it was the opinion of every person on Committee D of the Constitutional Convention and of the full Convention itself that it was not possible to frame constitutional words to do what this Bill sets out to do. On that basis I inform honourable senators that I totally reject it.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-I also oppose the Bill, because it is not necessary. The situation clearly is that the Government cannot look to the Constitutional Convention and say that it recommended that there be a referendum on this matter. The Constitutional Convention simply stated a principle and expected that those people present, including those in State governments, would take that principle back and implement it. However, nothing has been said correctly in respect of this matter as it relates to Independents. Senator Missen says that the situation of Independents will not be affected. I submit that the situation of Independents will be affected vastly. This is an attempt to take away from Independents a right which the Government is now trying to enshrine in the Constitution for a group of people on an executive of a party. That is precisely what the Government is saying. It is saying that casual vacancies ought to be filled by that party, in effect, and that is what the wording of the proposal means.

Senator Missen:

– But not the death or retirement of an Independent.

Senator HARRADINE:

– No. Let us deal with the death or retirement of an Independent and also with the question of those people who change parties in mid-stream during the term of a Senate. We have heard arguments from Senator Chaney in support of the previous proposition relating to simultaneous elections that there are switches and changes and splits in parties. If he could use that as an argument in respect of the previous proposition, why can he not use it as an argument on this occasion? Let us consider what would have happened to certain people if this proposition had been enforced earlier in the Federation. For example, let us take the case of Senator Sir Simon Fraser. He was a member of this Senate and the grandfather of the present Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, who is a sponsor of this Bill. Senator Sir Simon Fraser was a senator between 1 90 1 and 1 9 1 3. He was elected in 1 90 1 as a protectionist. He was reelected in 1906 as an anti-socialist and, as far as can be ascertained from the records, he was later a part of Deakin ‘s fusion group. Presumably the anti-socialists fused into the Deakin fusion group. What would have happened on that occasion? Under the proposed alteration, who would have replaced Senator Sir Simon Fraser? I have a long list of similar examples but because the gag has been drawn down I cannot give them to the Senate. However, there are quite a number of examples which are as ludicrous as that one when this proposition is applied.

Again, what is the definition of ‘party*? Can anybody say? Committee D, to which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack referred, could not say; nor has anybody suggested a definition of ‘party’ for the purpose of this amendment to the Constitution. After all, it is the first time that an attempt has been made to incorporate the word ‘party’ into the Constitution. For example, I ran on a group at the last election in order to get into the groupings under the provisions of the Electoral Act. If I die, is one of that group to replace me, or am I supposed to make some sort of political last will and testament? None of those matters have ever been explained. No one has been given the opportunity in relation to this Bill. It cannot be said that we should have known about it because the Constitutional Convention recommended that there should be an amendment to the Constitution. It did not, and I remind the members of the National Country Party that not only did it not do that but Mr Bjelke-Petersen firmly opposed an amendment to the Constitution thereby.

Senator Grimes:

– You approve his action?

Senator HARRADINE:

– No, I approve the principle, and I leave it to the good sense of the State Houses of Parliament, having regard to what has taken place over the last few years, to recognise the problems that have emerged because this principle has not been adopted. It is important to ensure that it is a principle and is taken forward, but it cannot be imported into the Constitution for reasons too long to go into during this truncated debate, which is only for 35 minutes. I believe that the Government and the Opposition are doing an injustice to people’s intelligence, insulting people’s intelligence, in thrusting the Bill through in this way.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I am sorry that the time allowed for this debate is shorter than I had hoped it would be. Nevertheless I am happy to be able to speak on this Bill. In politics I suppose we see a number of ironies at times. I think that perhaps it is the ultimate irony that I am able to stand here today in this chamber to support this Bill. I say that it is ironic because I was a victim of the lack of the provisions that this legislation contains. With the will of the people the Constitution may be altered so that persons of the same political party as those who have left can be appointed to the Senate in their place. Most honourable senators and I suppose many people who are listening to the broadcast of these proceedings would recall that in 1975, because of the lack of the provisions that this legislation contains, I was one of the victims of the events that happened then. More importantly, if we leave the personal aspects aside, the Australian Labor Party was the victim. But ultimately parliamentary democracy in Australia in 1975 was a victim of the lack of this legislation. I am well aware of the events that happened because I was a pawn in the big game that was carried on then. It was a game with a series of serious aspects. I was involved in it.

In the short time that is left in this debate I should like to outline some of those events of 1975. Much has been said about the filling of casual vacancies since 1949, and with much reason. Proportional representation was introduced in 1949 in the election for representatives of this chamber. But little has been said about the filling of casual vacancies before 1949. Recently Professor Joan Rydon wrote an excellent article entitled Casual Vacancies in the Australian Senate. In this article Joan Rydon outlined the history of the filling of casual vacancies, mainly before 1949. 1 shall mention a few of the things that she wrote. She outlined that the principle of appointing successors from the same political party was frequently asserted prior to 1949, but not necessarily followed. In fact if one reads the article cue sees that the majority of vacancies before 1949 were filled by people of the same political party as the holders of the seats they took. But this was almost by accident, not by design. I commend Professor Rydon ‘s article to those people who are interested in this aspect of Australia’s political history.

Of course with proportional representation it has been important that the person who replaces a deceased or retired senator should come from the same political party as the person whom he replaces. There have been 2 instances in Queensland where that principle was not followed. One of the instances resulted in a person of the same political party being appointed. Some people remember what happened in the early 1960s. Max Poulter was elected to the Senate as a senator from Queensland but before he could take his place in the Senate he died. Alf Arnell was the next candidate on the Labor Senate ticket at that election and he was nominated by the Australian Labor Party. The Premier of Queensland at the time would not accept his nomination and the Australian Labor Party finally put forward a second name, that of George Whiteside, who became a senator in this place. I will refer to the other situation in Queensland shortly.

Before I do that, let me remind honourable senators of what happened in New South Wales. The former Senator Murphy resigned. Peter Westerway was nominated by the Australian Labor Party to take Senator Murphy ‘s-place, But the New South Wales Parliament elected Senator Bunton. On 4 May last year I clearly outlined in the Senate what had occurred in Queensland. Let me just recap some of the events. There was a deliberate conspiracy in Queensland in 1975 to make sure that Bert Milliner, a former senator, was not replaced by a Labor nominee. Senator Bert Milliner died on 30 June 1975.

Few people expected that the Premier of Queensland would move in the way that he did. The filling of this vacancy involved the death of a sitting senator. It is important to remember what the Premier said at that time. He said only 2 days after the death: in the case of a death, it is logical to appoint a man from the same Party.

Yet he went on to trail his coat by saying that the Labor Party:

  1. . would have to put forward a panel of candidates from which a choice would be made.

Mr Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland, well knew at that time that I had been endorsed already as the candidate of the ALP for the next Senate election. He knew that, if he asked for a panel of candidates, the Labor Party would not accede to his request because I was the next candidate who had been endorsed by the Party.

The Party called nominations. After those nominations were called, I was nominated to the 2 sittings of the Queensland Parliament on 27 August 1975 and 3 September 1975. The person who was selected washy no means a Labor supporter. As soon as he nominated to fill the vacancy he lost membership of the Australian Labor Party. The Premier of Queensland was well aware of that. Because of this action, the Senate was stacked in 1975. When I spoke in May, I suggested that there should be a referendum to cover the situation that had arisen in this instance. I said in May last year:

Those who do care about the 1 975 incident should support any moves to have the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in relation to casual vacancies investigated further. Perhaps it may be possible to frame a suitable amendment to frustrate the will of a future maverick Premier.

Because of what I have experienced, because of what I have seen happen and because casual vacancies have not been filled in the way I think they should be, I wholeheartedly support this legislation.

Incidentally, the legislation will not allow a pseudo appointment to be made as was the case in 1975 because, as soon as the person nominated loses his party membership before coming into the Senate, the vacancy is deemed not to have been made. I suppose that a State parliament still might not fill a vacancy. There does not seem to be anything in the legislation to say that it must fill a vacancy. This legislation goes a long way towards ensuring that the Senate retains the proportional representation that was given to it by the electors at the time of the election. It has my wholehearted support.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I am sorry that, once again, we are dealing with legislation- in this case the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) Bill- brought in by this Government. In my opinion, it is even more dishonest than the previous legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. I say that quite strongly. Also, it amazes me that this Government, which has squealed so often when in Opposition about the shortage of dme for debate, nas squeezed down to practically nothing the debating time on these tremendously important Bills. This Bill deals with something which it has been pointed out by committees and others is very difficult to put into proper legal terms, yet the Government goes ahead with it. There are various difficulties about filling vacancies, including vacancies in seats which had been occupied by Independents. But the very important change is in the fact that for the first time the Government recognises the question of party in its legislation. This, I think, is a complete change. The most serious aspect of all is that this legislation is giving political parties the right to over-ride State authorities. The States are a very important part of the composition of this Constitution of Australia. It has been said before that it was only because the States agreed to have a Senate chamber that we have an Australian Parliament. Yet we are now giving power to political parties to over-ride the authority of the States. Who ever would have thought that a Liberal-National Country Party Government would do this. Having seen the amalgamations and the voting on the other side of the chamber today, I think it probably will be interpreted that a new party, the Labor-Liberal-National Country Party has arisen in Australia. The way that these parties have coalesced and the friendliness which has been shown has made me realise how people can corns together unexpectedly. There are only two or three minutes left for this debate so there is nothing much that one can say because of the way this Government is steamrollering through important legislation. I oppose the legislation and I hope that the people of Australia will be alerted sufficiently not to fall for the dishonesty and the hypocrisy of this Government on these questions.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

-Mr Deputy President, I rise to speak a few brief sentences. I want to point out some things in relation to the stand I am about to take. At the beginning of the Autumn session in 1975 I voted on a resolution in the Senate which re-affirmed the principle of appointment from political parties where that was relevant. In Queensland, after the death of the late Senator Milliner, I stated publicly in a number of parts of the State that I supported the right of the Labor Party to nominate the then Dr Colston and that I thought it was deplorable that a political party should seek to profit from the death of a member of parliament. I want to put on record, because there has been general reference to Queensland, the facts that m the State Parliament, in the actual vote on the matter of who should be nominated to this House by the State Parliament a majority of the Liberal parliamentary party voted for the then Dr Colston and, in a subsequent ballot of the State Liberal Party, a majority voted against the nomination of former Senator Field. I give no more reason than that for rising to speak, except to say that to find an outline of my view honourable senators might consult the speeches of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and Senator Harradine.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to speak upon this subject but I regret that, due to the closure that has been imposed on honourable senators without notice, I will be interrupted in one and a half minutes. I was a member of the Constitutional Review Committee which considered this subject in 1959 and reported unanimously that no formulation of words could be devised by draftsmen in the 3 years of the Committee’s consulations to give effect to this principle without invading fundamental principles which we have always held. The first is that proportional representation is not part of the Constitution. It is an Act of Parliament and its permanency depends upon this Parliament and may be altered at any time. The proper way to give representation to a successor of a vacant seat under proportional representation is to recount the votes because the votes at a single election must be represented in the proportion in which the people then voted. An empirical decision subsequent to an election for the fulfilment of a vacancy, unless guided by the recount of votes of a candidate who has already been before the people, will be invading the very fundamental principles of proportional representation.

Mr President, you are rising; I must cease my remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The time allotted for consideration of the Bill having expired, the question now is: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill, including the third reading, be agreed to.

Question put:

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 50

NOES: 8

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 492

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RETIREMENT OF JUDGES) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The time allowed for this Bill having expired, the question is: ‘That the remaining stages of the Bill, including the third reading, be agreed to’. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Senator Withers:

– Can a count be taken so that we can ascertain that there is a constitutional majority on this question?

The PRESIDENT:

– As no division has been called for, I draw attention to the constitutional requirement that this Bill must be passed by an absolute majority. Before the counting of the Senate proceeds I direct the bells to be rung.

The bells having been rung-

The PRESIDENT:

– A division has not been called for, but it is desirable that the names of those honourable senators present and agreeing to the third reading of the Bill be recorded. I think it would meet the convenience of the Senate if I ruled that honourable senators remain in their places in order to be counted. I appoint Senators Chaney and Georges as tellers to record the names of those honourable senators present and agreeing to the third reading of the Bill. I ask any honourable senator not agreeing to the Bill to so indicate so that he will not be counted with the honourable senators agreeing to the Bill.

During the recording of names-

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Mr President, is it not normal to lock the doors during a division; or is that not necessary in this case?

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not required in this case.

The recording of votes continuing-

Senator O’Byrne:

- Mr President, before the numbers are called out, would you explain how you separate the noes from the yeses or the ayes from the noes or the weeds from the oats?

The PRESIDENT:

– I announced earlier that I wished to have the names of all honourable senators recorded and I asked those honourable senators not agreeing to the Bill to indicate their disagreement.

The following names were then recorded- (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

Mr PRESIDENT:

– Order! As 57 honourable senators have agreed to the third reading I declare that the third reading of the Bill has been agreed to by an absolute majority, as required by the Constitution.

Bill read a third time.

page 493

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (REFERENDUMS) BILL 1977

Second Reading

  1. Constitution Alteration (Referendums) Bill 1 977- for the remaining stages till 4.35 p.m.

That time having passed, it now being 4.45 p.m., I submit that it is not in order for the Senate to pretend to consider this Bill. I submit that by carring this motion we have precluded ourselves from considering the Bill after 4.35 p.m. This only shows that we can tangle ourselves into our own graves. I submit that under this motion which has been carried by the Senate this business cannot be called on for debate.

I came like water and like wind I go

Into this universe and out of it I know not withers

Willy nilly blowing.

Neither Murphy nor Withers can gainsay the real meaning of language. The motion that the Senate has agreed to to gag itself is that the time allotted in connection with the consideration of the Bills be as follows:

  1. Constitution Alteration (Referendums) Bill 1977- for the remaining stages till 4.35 p.m.

That stage has gone by and I submit that neither Murphy nor Withers can override language. That means that the Senate has gagged itself.

Mr PRESIDENT:

– The point of order is not upheld.

Senator Rae:

- Mr President, just as a matter of interest and consequential upon the point of order not being upheld, could you indicate to the Senate what is the new timetable?

The PRESIDENT:

– As the time indicated in the timetable for the consideration of these Bills has expired, we can act in a certain way now.

Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Wright:

- Mr President, are you going to call for debate?

Mr PRESIDENT:

– No.

Senator Wright:

– On the point of order I submit that I am entitled to debate according to the ordinary rules of the session. Mr President, if you rule that the passage of this Bill can be commenced notwithstanding that 4.35 p.m. has passed, I submit that you should commit the Bill to the Senate without any restrictions under the resolution. The resolution cannot apply because the remaining stages of the Bill have to be completed by 4.35 p.m. Therefore if you are in order- I do not question your ruling; it is not my habit to be expelled- in calling on the business we should proceed to debate it under ordinary standing orders and I am entitled to the call. I ask you, Mr President, to hear my address to the Senate on the Bill.

Senator Missen:

– I understood that there must be a call of the Senate on this Bill. I take it that that will be held. I wonder whether it is necessary to amend the resolution to cover the time that is involved. The only point I am making is that there must be a constitutional count of the voting on this last referendum Bill.

Senator Wood:

– I feel that the point brought forth by Senator Wright in connection with the right to debate the Bill is very strong. Because the time set out in the resolution has expired and we are now commencing the debate on this legislation it appears to me that the time restriction no longer applies.

Senator Withers:

– The point of order almost gets to the ridiculous stage. For instance a guillotine could be put down well in advance so that debating time on Bills would expire at 4.30 p.m. If at 4.25 p.m. points of order commence to be taken and continue to take place for the next 30 minutes, does the honourable senator really say that the guillotine no longer applies? I submit that 4.35 p.m. having expired you, Mr President, are obliged to put the remaining question on the Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Wright’s point of order is not upheld. The time allowed for this Bill having expired the question is: That the remaining stages of the Bill, including the third reading, be agreed to.

Question put.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 52

NOES: 2

Majority……. 50

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 494

ADJOURNMENT

Voting on Constitution Alteration Legislation.

Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– In view of the fact that all the planes are delayed, and the sudden urgency being exhibited by a number of people to get away will be allayed, I take the opportunity to say that I would have liked to have had a chance to explain why I wished to vote in a particular way. It is unfortunate that events precluded me from doing so. I am sure the Government and the Opposition will be only too happy when the Senate resumes to afford opportunities to those who were caught in a similar situation to explain their actions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 5 p.m., until Tuesday, 8 March 1977 at 3 p.m., unless otherwise called together in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.

page 495

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Minting of 50c and $1 Coins (Question No. 1587)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. With respect to the Treasurer’s announcement that a’ new commemorative 50 cents coin is to be minted in Australia in 1977, and since the 50 cent coin is not currently in use in slot machines and automatic dispensing machines and thus no expense will be incurred by the business community, will the Treasurer consider an alteration to the announced size and weight of the new coin so that it is equal in size and weight to an exact metric measurement, rather than to a fraction of a metric measurement, in order that Australia can have at least one coin that is measured in whole metric rather than whole imperial units.
  2. If the Treasurer is considering the minting of a $1 coin in Australia, a course that was recommended by the President of the Queensland Confederation of Industry, Mr A. J. Willis, and the Chairman of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Bankers’ Association, Mr H. Lee, in an article in the Courier-Mail dated 5 December 1976, will the Treasurer give consideration to the possibility of minting the new coin with a size and weight equal to an exact metric measurement.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No. I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the provisions of the Currency Regulations, as amended by Statutory Rule No. 139 of 1975. The Regulations prescribe three measurements for each coin denomination: Standard weight (and remedy- that is, tolerance), maximum diameter and maximum thickness. For coins made in 1 974 or earlier these are specified in precise (but not, in most cases, whole) imperial units- grains and inches.

For coins made after 1974 the measurements are specified in precise (but not whole) metric units- grammes and millimetres.

The decision was taken that the 50c commemorative Silver Jubilee coin be produced in the same alloy and with the same weight and size as the standard 50c coin; one consideration was the avoidance of confusion that could arise in the public mind as a result of a different coin size.

  1. Several suggestions have been made that Australia should introduce a dollar coin. These suggestions are being studied. Should the Government decide to introduce any new coin, its weight and size would be prescribed in precise metric terms and the desirability of having one or more of the characteristics expressed in a whole metric unit will be considered along with other relevant factors.

Powers of Police: Power to Tap Telephones (Question No. 1601)

Senator Colston:

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

Is every State Police Commissioner in Australia in favour of the Federal Government granting police limited powers to tap telephones in Australia, subject to judicial oversight, as was suggested by the former Queensland Police Commissioner, Mr Ray Whitrod, at his farewell Press conference in Brisbane on 29 November 1976. If so, (a) Why has the

Federal Government refused permission for these powers to be granted; (b) What would be the advantages of providing police with power to tap telephones in certain circumstances; (c) What would be the disadvantages of so doing; and (d) Does the Attorney-General intend reviewing this matter in the foreseeable future.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am informed that the 1975 Conference of Commissioners of Police in Australia passed a resolution in favour of the police being given limited power to intercept telephones in relation to the investigation of serious crimes. Successive Commonwealth Governments have had this matter under consideration for some time but the question is closely related to the current consideration of privacy by the Law Reform Commission. The matter will be further considered following a report on privacy by the Law Reform Commission.

Belconnen Area, Canberra: Community Facilities (Question No. 1604)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

What proportion of the Australian Capital Territory’s (a) retail, (b) restaurant, (c) cinema, (d) indoor sporting/recreation, (e) outdoor sporting/recreation, (0 primary schools, (g) secondary schools, (h) pre-schools, (i) childcare, (j) playground, and (k) parkland, facilities has been established in the Belconnen area of the Territory.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 9 per cent (estimated).
  2. 7 per cent (estimated).
  3. Nil.
  4. Secondary schools and the Hawker College provide facilities suitable for basketball and badminton and sites have been identified for squash courts. Several feasibility studies on indoor recreation centres have been carried out and a site has been identified on the shores of Lake Ginninderra for a building to be developed by the Foundation for Youth. The A.CT. Sports Council plans a major indoor recreation centre in the Belconnen Town Centre. Four community halls have been established. Health centres which form a focal point for community activities are at Melba, Kippax and Scullin.
  5. Enclosed grounds- 2 in Belconnen out of 12 available in Canberra.

Tennis- 4 courts out of a total provision of 99 public courts in Canberra. Several courts are available at educational institutions. An additional 4 courts are under construction at Melba.

Swimming Pools- Belconnen has 1 public swimming pool out of the Canberra provision of 6.

Bowling greens- 1 club out of 10. (0 Government primary schools- 12.

Non-government primary schools-5.

Including rural areas there are 78 primary schools in the A.C.T.

  1. Government high schools-5.

Non-government high schools- 1.

There are 28 high schools (including secondary colleges) intheA.C.T.

  1. Of the 70 pre-schools in the ACT. 17 are in Belconnen.
  2. No public child care facilities have yet been established in Belconnen, but plans are in hand for two centres.
  3. Of the 187 playgrounds maintained by the City Parks Administration 62 arein the Belconnen area.
  4. The National Capital Development Commission plans for the provision of parkland and public open space in urban areas throughout Canberra on the basis of approximately 4 hectares per 1000 people.

In addition approximately 6 hectares per 1000 people are provided for metropolitan parklands, hill reserves, plantations and golf courses.

The neighbourhood parkland and pedestrian ways have been completed in most Belconnen suburbs. However, landscaping has either been partially completed or is still in progress in Charnwood, Macgregor, Fraser and Giralang.

Budget Strategy (Question No. 1608)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How does the Treasurer reconcile his claim made in a statement last week dealing with devaluation that full wage indexation and the 2.2 per cent September quarter wage increase (9 per cent annual) would have destroyed the Government’ s previous economic strategy, with the fact that the Budget papers assumed an identicalincrease in the cost price index and average earnings, i.e., 12 per cent.
  2. Is the 12 per cent increase in average earnings assumed for the purpose of estimating tax revenue (Budget Paper No. 1, page 117) an over-estimate. If so, will the deficit be greater than the Budget forecast and by how much.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)I made no such claim.

  1. No.

Woden Valley- Weston Creek Area, Canberra: Community Facilities (Question No. 1617)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

What proportion of the Australian Capital Territory’s (a) retail, (b) restaurant, (c) cinema, (d) indoor sporting/recreation, (e) outdoor sporting/recreation, (f) primary schools, (g) secondary schools, (h) pre-schools, (i) childcare, (j) playground, and (k) parkland, facilities has been established in the Woden Valley- Weston Creek area of the Territory.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 25 percent (estimated).
  2. 20 per cent (estimated).
  3. There are currently no cinemas in Woden- Weston Creek, but a site has been leased for one in the Town Centre.
  4. Secondary schools and Colleges provide facilities suitable for basketball and badminton and the YMCA Centre at Phillip provides amenities for a number of sporting/recreation pursuits. Four squash courts have been identified in the Community Centre at the Group Centre to be established in Weston Creek. Commercial squash courts are located at Phillip.

The Woden Town Centre Library has been planned to cater for the needs of Woden and Weston Creek.

  1. Enclosed Ovals-2 out of 12.

Tennis- 20 courts out of a total provision of 99.

Swimming Pools- 1 out of 6.

Bowling greens- 1 out of 10. (0 Government primary schools- 19.

Non-government primary schools- 6.

Including rural areas there are 78 primary schools in the ACT.

  1. Government high schools- 6.

Non-government high schools- 1 .

There are 28 high schools (including secondary colleges) intheA.C.T.

  1. 19 pre-schools out of the 70 in the A.C.T. are in Woden- Weston Creek.
  2. Of the 3 child care centres in the ACT. one is in Woden- Weston Creek.
  3. ) Of the 1 87 playgrounds maintained by the City Parks Administration 47 are in the Woden- Weston Creek area.
  4. See answer to Question 1604 on urban parkland areas provided in the Territory.

Urban parklands in Woden- Weston Creek are landscaped except for small areas where development has only recently taken place.

Tuggeranong Area, Canberra: Community Facilities (Question No. 1618)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

What proportion of the Australian Capital Territory’s (a) retail, (b) restaurant, (c) cinema, (d) indoor sporting/recreation, (e) outdoor sporting/recreation, (f) primary schools, (g) secondary schools, (h) pre-schools, (i) childcare, (j) playground, and (k) parkland, facilities has been established in the Tuggeranong area of the Territory.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 2 per cent (estimated).
  2. 0.5 per cent (estimated).
  3. Nil.
  4. Secondary schools provide facilities suitable for a number of indoor sports including basketball and badminton. The college planned to open in Wanniassa in 1979 incorporates a community centre which has a swimming pool, squash courts, sports halls and theatre.

Local activity centres include small meeting rooms for community use.

  1. Sites have been identified for enclosed sports grounds and a tennis centre is planned to commence in 1977-78.
  2. f) Government primary schools- 4.

Non-government primary schools- 1 .

Including rural areas there are 78 primary schools in the A.C.T.

  1. Government high schools- 1.

Non-government high schools- 0.

There are 28 high schools (including secondary colleges) intheA.C.T.

  1. Of the 70 pre-schools in the A.C.T. 4 are in Tuggeranong.
  2. No child care centres yet exist in Tuggeranong, but one has been planned for Wanniassa.
  3. Of the 187 playgrounds maintained by the City Parks Administration 1 7 are in the Tuggeranong area.
  4. See answer to Question No. 1604 on urban parkland areas provided in the Territory.

In Tuggeranong the landscaping has been completed in most areas of Kambah. Partial landscaping has been carried out in Monash and Fadden. No landscaping has been carried out in Wanniassa.

North Canberra Area: Community Facilities (Question No. 1619)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

What proportion of the Australian Capital Territory’s (a) retail, (b) restaurant, (c) cinema, (d) indoor sporting/recreation (e) outdoor sporting/recreation, (f) primary schools, (g) secondary schools, (h) pre-schools, (i) childcare, (j) playground, and (k) parkland, facilities has been established in the North Canberra area of the Territory.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 36 per cent (estimated).
  2. 45.5 per cent (estimated).
  3. 75 percent.
  4. Secondary schools provide facilities suitable for basketball and badminton, and there are three public squash centres. Both of Canberra’s indoor bowling centres are in North Canberra, and the district has 2 public libraries.
  5. e ) Enclosed Ovals- 5 out of 1 2.

Tennis- 41 courts out ofa total provision of 99.

Swimming Pools- 2 out of 6.

Bowling Greens-3 out of 10

GolfCourses- 1 out of 5.

  1. Government primary schools- 10.

Non-government primary schools- 6.

Including rural areas there are 78 primary schools in the A.C.T.

  1. Government high schools- 5.

Non-government high schools- 2.

There are 28 high schools (including secondary colleges) intheA.C.T.

  1. Of the 70 pre-schools in the ACT. 17 are in North Canberra.
  2. One child-care centre out of the 3 in the ACT. is located in North Canberra.
  3. Of the 187 playgrounds maintained by the City Parks Administration 37 are in the North Canberra area.
  4. See answer to Question No. 1604 on urban parkland areas provided in the Territory.

All urban parklands have been landscaped.

South Canberra Area: Community Facilities (Question No. 1620)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

What proportion of the Australian Capital Territory’s (a) retail, (b) restaurant, (c) cinema, (d) indoor sporting/recreation, (e) outdoor sporting/recreation, (f) primary schools, (g) secondary schools, (h) pre-schools, (i) childcare, (j) playground, and (k) parkland, facilities has been established in the South Canberra area of the Territory.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 28 per cent including Fyshwick (estimated ).
  2. 27 per cent (estimated).
  3. 25 per cent.
  4. Secondary schools provide facilities suitable for basketball and badminton, and there are two public squash centres. There are also 3. public libraries and 2 community halls in South Canberra.
  5. Enclosed Ovals-3 out of 12.

Tennis- 34 courts out of a total provision of 99.

Swimming Pools- 2 out of 6.

Bowling Greens- 5 out of 10.

Golf Courses-3 out 5.

  1. f) Government primary schools- 5.

Non-government primary schools- 6.

Including rural areas there are 78 primary schools in the A.C.T.

  1. Government high schools- 3.

Non-government high schools- 4.

There are 28 high schools (including secondary colleges) intheA.C.T.

  1. Of the 70 pre-schools in the A.C.T. 11 are in South Canberra.
  2. One child care centre out of the 3 in the A.C.T. is located in South Canberra.
  3. Of the 187 playgrounds maintained by the City Parks Administration 24 are in the South Canberra Area.
  4. See answer to Question No. 1604 on urban parkland areas provided in the Territory.

Uranium Oxide Reprocessing Plant, United States of America (Question No. 1632)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did a uranium oxide reprocessing plant that was being built in the United States of America run into severe technical difficulties while still under construction. If so, was the project abandoned.
  2. What were these ‘severe technical difficulties’.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The General Electric Company’s Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant at Morris, Illinois, ran into technical difficulties at the final stages of construction and testing, and the company announced in July 1974 that the plant was not operable in its present form. The company has not yet announced any final decision on the plant.
  2. The plant was designed to use simplified equipment in an attempt to reduce reprocessing costs so that a small plant located near power reactors could operate economically, but this subsequently did not prove to be possible. It appears that some of the problems arose in the scale-up of equipment previously tested in pilot plant studies, and some materials handling problems were discovered during trial runs at full scale. No irradiated material was processed in the plant.

Immigrants: Pension Eligibility (Question No. 1672)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How long must immigrants to Australia reside in this country before they become eligible for age pensions at the age at which pension becomes payable.
  2. Do immigrants who are (a) naturalised and (b) not naturalised, who have qualified for and receive an aged pension, continue to receive the pension if they return to their home country.
  3. Can immigrants who are (a) naturalised and (b) not naturalised, and who have qualified but do not yet receive age pension, receive the pension after they return to their home country.
  4. How many former migrants to Australia are now residing overseas and receiving an age pension and what is the total cost to the Australian Government.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Ten years’ continuous residence in Australia or external Territory (other than Norfolk Island) is a qualification for grant of age pension in Australia. Certain absences can be counted as residence in Australia.
  2. 2 ) and ( 3 ) Irrespective of nationality or citizenship, social services age pensioners whose eligibility does not depend on reciprocal arrangements with other countries may continue to receive their basic pensions if they leave Australia. This has been the general position since 8 May 1973. Although there are exceptions which affect numerically small groups the general rule is that age pensions may not be granted outside Australia. This principle does not apply where a claimant left the country before 8 May 1973, had lived for 30 years or more in Australia, was aged 60 years or more (55 in the case of a woman) at the time of leaving Australia and is in special need of financial assistance; a pension may be granted in these circumstances.
  3. The information sought is not available but at 30 June 1976, 5854 people overseas were receiving age pensions under the pension portability arrangements and overseas expenditure on age pensions in 1975-76 was $8. 5m. This amount includes payments to Australians who are not former migrants and wives’ pensions paid to wives of age pensioners abroad, for whom separate figures for number of recipients and expenditure are not available.

Unemployment Benefit: Instructions to Department of Social Security Staff (Question No. 1675)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What is the text of instructions given to staff of the Department of Social Security in relation to applications for unemployment benefit from persons who are voluntarily unemployed and from persons whose unemployment is due to misconduct.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The relevant instructions are quoted hereunder-

Postponement of benefit

Section 120 of the Social Services Act provides that in some circumstances the payment of unemployment benefit may be postponed.

The Registrar of Social Services will decide whether the date of commencement of benefit should be postponed where evidence suggests that a person has become or remained unemployed through: misconduct as a worker. refusal or failure without good and sufficient reason, to accept an offer of employment.

The maximum period for which benefit may be postponed is six weeks dating from the date of lodgment of the claim.

Note: The period of postponement includes the seven day waiting period.

Where a person voluntarily ceases wark without good reason the period of postponement is six weeks. Payment of special benefit for the period of postponement may be considered if hardship is demonstrated.

Persons voluntarily unemployed

A person will be regarded as voluntarily unemployed without good reason where he leaves of his own free will any employment which is covered by an award or agreement, or in which the pay is that generally paid in the locality and is not less than the Federal mininum or basic wage and is considered reasonable, unless it is established that the employment was not suitable to be undertaken by the claimant.

The reasons given by a person as being those causing his voluntary unemployment should be taken up with the employer. If the report indicates that the claimant voluntarily left his employment without good reason, he should be given further opportunity to amplify or amend his previous statement.

Where conflicting statements are supplied it should be borne in mind that there may be ill feeling between the claimant and his former employer and all the facts should be carefully weighed. In arriving at a decision the claimant should be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt.

When it has been established that a person is voluntarily unemployed as described above, payment of unemployment benefit will be postponed for a period of six weeks dating from the date of registration with the Commonwealth Employment Service. (Social Services Act S. 120).

Cases will arise where unemployment is seen to be voluntary only after payment of benefit has commenced. In these cases payment should be suspended from the first available payday for a period equivalent to the postponement that would have been imposed in accordance with instructions in the preceding paragraph. (Social Services Act S. 1 3 1 ).

If it is claimed that application of this instruction would cause hardship, payment of special benefit may be considered.

Postponement procedure

During a period of postponement or suspension lodgment of income statements may cease until the end of that period. A single income statement returnable at the end of the postponement period should be issued to the claimant. This income statement should cover the whole of the postponement period.

An instruction on how to complete the special income statement is to be included with the advice of postponement and should clearly specify: the date the income statement is returnable to the OCES. (This date should allow sufficient time to process the statement and input the date into the ADP system, preventing any delay in restoration of benefit.). when payment will commence or resume (assuming eligibility continues).

The notice advising postponement or suspension under this instruction, as well as containing the details of the income statement required above, should: refer to the section of the Act- either 120 or 131- under which benefit is postponed or suspended, state the reason for the deferment in payment clearly and correctly. state the period for which payment will be deferred.

The advice should be accompanied by a Notice of Rights, formTRIl.

In any case of deferment of unemployment benefit the office of the CES is to be advised of the action taken. A copy of the notice to the claimant (or beneficiary) is sufficient advice.

Following despatch of the postponement advice files should be kept under review. If the income statement is not returned the claim should be lapsed as a ‘failed to report’ case.

Persons unemployed through misconduct

A person will be regarded as becoming unemployed through misconduct when he has been dismissed as a result of:

failure through his own deliberate actions to yield a reasonable return of work;

improper behaviour or practice;

unauthorised absences from duty.

The principles expressed in the instructions relating to persons who are voluntarily unemployed will also apply to these cases.

Maximum period of postponement

The maximum period for which benefit may be postponed is six weeks dating from the date of registration with the Commonwealth Employment Service.

In determining the period of postponement which should be imposed the following scale of penalties is set down as a guide: 1st occurrence (with extenuating factors)- a warning. 1st occurence (no extenuating factors )-2 weeks. 2nd occurrence (depending on the seriousness of the circumstances) 3 to 4 weeks. 3rd and subsequent occurrences 5 to 6 weeks.

In any case a postponement of 6 weeks will be imposed on persons voluntarily unemployed. (Note: The period of postponement includes the seven day waiting period).

Taxation: Lump Sum Payments (Question No. 1678)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Has the Government given consideration to altering the taxation on lump sum payments, on termination of employment or retirement, from l/20th of that sum to the total or some other fraction. If so, what are the details.

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

This is a matter which the Government expects to be looking into when it considers the relevant parts of the report of the Aperey Committee.

State Welfare Housing Finance (Question No. 1687)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

What funds have been provided by the Commonwealth to each State and for Australia as a whole for State welfare housing in each financial year since 1 970-7 1 .

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question. Two schemes are administered by my Department under which capital funds are provided by the Commonwealth to the States for welfare housing. Details are as follows:

  1. 1 ) Advances under Commonwealth-State Housing Agreements.

Notes-

  1. In the financial years 1971-72 and 1972-73 there was not a Housing Agreement operative providing for the making of advances by the Commonwealth to the States. Instead, State loan funds were allocated for welfare housing purposes and financially assisted by housing grants payable by the Commonwealth to each State under the States Grants (Housing) Act 1971-1973.
  2. Including advances by the Commonwealth of $6.55m under the Housing Assistance Act 1973.

    1. Grants under the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act 1969 and States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974.
  1. In addition, grants paid under the States Grants (Housing) Act 197 1-73 were as follows:

Sand Mining: Environmental Impact Arrangements (Question No. 1690)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is the full text of the former Prime Minister’s letter, dated 9 July 1974, to the Premiers of Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia, informing those States of new environmental impact arrangements to be observed when seeking approval for export contracts for sand mining products.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The details of correspondence between a Premier and Prime Minister are normally regarded as confidential and for that reason I do not intend to release the text.

Australian Capital Territory Police: Replacement of Vehicles (Question No. 1699)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

Will 10 Australian Capital Territory police cars and 6 motor cycles be replaced after they are taken off the road shortly, because of Federal Government cutbacks. If not, what effect is this decision likely to have on law enforcement within the Territory.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The 10 four-wheel motor vehicles and the 6 motor cycles recently withdrawn from service with the Australian Capital Territory Police Force will be progressively replaced as manpower levels within the Police Force increase in accordance with the Government staff ceiling policy. There will be no adverse effect on law enforcement within the Territory caused by the reduction in the Police fleet.

The Australian Film and Television School: Annual Report (Question No. 1702)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Was it necessary to re-print portions of the 1 973-74 annual report of the Australian Film and Television School. If so, why was it necessary and what additional cost was involved.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

See my answer to Questions No. 1630 and No. 1845 (House of Representatives Hansard, 9 December 1 976, page 3726).

Taxation: Lump Sum Superannuation Payments (Question No. 1708)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Did a taxation judgment given in October 1976 rule that a lump sum superannuation payment received in lieu of future periodical superannuation payments is not taxable. If so, what are the details.

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

On 13 October 1976 Taxation Board of Review No. 3 gave a decision in a case involving commutation of a bank officer’s pension into a lump sum payment.

The taxpayer had retired from the service of a bank and become entitled to a pension from the staff superannuation fund. Three days after his retirement, acting in accordance with a rule of the fund, he elected to commute half of his pension entitlement into a lump sum. This sum was paid to him by the fund two days later.

The Commissioner of Taxation took the view that the lump sum was paid in consequence of the taxpayer’s retirement and that5 per cent of it was therefore assessable income in accordance with section 26 (d) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

The Board of Review, however, took the view that the lump sum was not paid in consequence of the taxpayer’s retirement but in exchange for giving up part of his pension rights. In the Board’s view no part of the lump sum was assessable income.

The Commissioner of Taxation has appealed to the Supreme Court of Queensland against the Board’s decision.

James Cook University: Medical School (Question No. 1722)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the Prime Minister been requested by the Queensland Premier to reverse the Federal Government’s decision to delay the building of a medical school at James Cook University for three years. If so, (a) what was the substance of the request, (b) when was the request received, (c) when does the Prime Minister expect to be able to reply to Mr Bjelke-Petersen, and (d ) what was the reason for the original decision to delay the establishment of the medical school for three years.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question: (a), (b) and (c) I received a letter from the Premier regarding the funding of the medical school at the James Cook University on 24 December 1976 and I replied to the Premier on 24 January 1977.

  1. The Government’s decision is based on the advice and proposals contained in paragraph 6.25 of the Universities Commission ‘Report for the 1977-79 Triennium ‘.

Fraser Island: Compensation for Sand Mining Ban (Question No. 1726)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the Queensland Government placed in writing its request for an additional $10m over and above the $80m originally requested in compensation for the decision to ban sand mining on Fraser Island. If so, (a) when was the request received and (b) when is it likely a decision will be reached by the Federal Government.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Queensland Government has made no such further request.

Advertising: Commonwealth Expenditure (Question No. 1733)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the total expenditure on advertising by the Commonwealth in the financial year 1975-76, and what was the breakup of this expenditure on (a) newspapers, (b) radio stations, (c) television, and (d) magazines and journals.
  2. What was the percentage increase or decrease in this expenditure in each of the categories referred to when compared with the financial year 1974-75.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The total expenditure incurred by the Commonwealth on advertising arranged through the Australian Government Advertising Service, in the financial year 1975-76 was $9,022,863. The breakdown of that expenditure is:

Press (including magazines and journals)- $6,735,930

Radio stations-$643,677.

Television-$95 1,780.

Miscellaneous (including outdoor and cinema advertising)$69 1,476.

  1. The percentage increase or decrease in expenditure for the financial year 1975-76 in each category compared with the financial year 1974-75 is:

Press (including magazines and journals- 23.4 per cent decrease.

Radio stations-5.0 per cent increase.

Television- 55.2 percent decrease.

Miscellaneous (including outdoor and cinema advertisng)22.3 per cent decrease.

Overall-27.3 per cent decrease.

Albury-Wodonga: Commonwealth Acquisition of Land (Question No. 1773)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

Has the Commonwealth acquired private land for its exclusive use in Albury-Wodonga. If so, where and for what purposes.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Since Albury-Wodonga was recognised by the Government as a potential growth centre, only one property in this area has been purchased by the Commonwealth for its exclusive use.

This property comprised a vacant site on the corner of Townsend and Smollett Streets, Albury. It was acquired for the purpose of a laboratory for the Department of Health.

Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation: Annual Reports (Question No. 1776)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister received the annual financial reports on the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation for 1974-75 and 1975-76.
  2. When will the reports be tabled.
  3. What are the causes of the delay.
  4. Has the Minister any information relating to the tabling in State Parliaments of financial reports.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. As soon as possible after the Treasurer has approved the form of the financial statements as is required by section 32 of the Act and I have received the reports of the AuditorGeneral for the Commonwealth as set out in section 33 of the Act.
  3. Because the Albury-Wodonga growth centre project is a venture involving the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian Governments, the separate presentation of the financial statements is a complex matter in respect of which the three Auditors-General and the three Attorneys-General and the three Treasurers and the three Corporations have a variety of views. Inevitably there are differing views as to the proper and adequate presentation of the financial information in the three sets of financial statements to be presented to the respective Parliaments. Special attention is being given to producing coordinated and integrated statements that are acceptable to all parties with the object of ensuring that the format for 1 974-75 will be acceptable for subsequent years.
  4. The Annual Reports and Financial Statements for the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, the AlburyWodonga (New South Wales) Corporation and the AlburyWodonga (Victoria) Corporation are produced on an integrated basis and the reports for the State Corporations will be presented to the appropriate State Ministers at the same time as the Development Corporation reports are presented to me. My colleagues on the Ministerial Council are aware of the delay in the finalisation of the 1974-75 and 1 975-76 Annual Reports and Financial Statements.

Australian Government Loan Borrowings

Senator Cotton:
LP

-On 9 December 1976 Senator McLaren asked me a question without notice concerning Australian Government loan borrowings for 1976. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The currencies in which the Commonwealth Government borrowed on international capital markets in 1976 were Deutschemarks, Swiss francs, Netherlands guilders and United States dollars.

The aggregate Australian dollar equivalent of the overseas loans undertaken by the Commonwealth in 1976, based on the relevant rates of exchange for the Australian dollar prevailing when the individual loans were concluded, was $A691.4m. Following the devaluation of the Australian dollar on 28 November the equivalent figure was $A808.3m. Following the subsequent revaluations the equivalent figure on 1 6 February was $A752.4m.

It should be noted, however, that a meaningful assessment of the ‘net financial situation’ in regard to the loans from the viewpoint of their Australian currency equivalents would need to take into account not only the changes which have occurred in the exchange rates to this point but also to those points in time when interest and capital repayments on the borrowings are effected.

In considering the overall financial effect of overseas borrowings flowing from variations in exchange rates, account also needs to be taken of the fact that the foreign currencies received in such borrowings by the Commonwealth are sold to the Reserve Bank and thereafter constitute part of Australia ‘s international reserves. As such, those foreign currencies are invested by the Reserve Bank in the capital markets abroad and as such their value is not, of course, affected by the variations in the exchange rate for the Australian dollar.

For these and other reasons it is not very meaningful to attempt to quantify the position of these particular loan operations along the lines implied by the honourable senator’s question.

Housing Allowance Voucher Experiment (Question No. 1103)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

Will the housing allowance voucher experiment apply to the Northern Territory.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is envisaged that the housing allowance voucher experiment will be conducted in Hobart, Melbourne and Sydney.

Queensland Roads Programs (Question No. 1460)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister provide summary funding details of the urban local roads program for Queensland for 1975-76 and 1974-75.
  2. Will the Minister provide summary funding details of the urban arterial road program and the rural arterial roads program for Queensland for 1975-76 and 1974-75.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Summary funding details of the urban local roads program for Queensland for 1975-76 and 1974-75 are:
  1. Summary funding details of Queensland’s 1975-76 and 1974-75 urban arterial and rural arterial road programs are not available. The programs approved were financed jointly fromboth Commonwealth and State funds and consequently the extent of Commonwealth funding in an individual project cannot be ascertained.

Doctors’ Incomes (Question No. 1526)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government obtained information regarding the incomes of doctors and particularly general practitioners for the financial year ending 30 June 1976.
  2. What was the average income of a general practitioner in Australia for this period.
  3. Will the Minister make available to the Senate the average incomes of general practitioners, by States, as soon as possible.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. See(l).
  3. I understand that some statistics for the 1975-76 income year of the incomes of taxpayers classified for statistical purposes to the ‘industry’ described as medical practice, will be published in Taxation Statistics, the supplement to the annual Report of the Commissioner of Taxation, when the main income tax statistics for that year have been compiled.

State Railway Finances (Question No. 1648)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1) What were the deficits or surpluses incurred by each State railway system for each of the past five years.
  2. What was the proportion of the deficit in each State to the total Budget outlays in each of those States for the same period.
  3. What were the operating profits or losses of each to the State railway systems over the same period.
  4. What was the total debt of each State railway system as at 30 June 1976 and what proportion of the debt burden was incurred prior to 1 970.
  5. Have any of the State governments, other than those whose railway systems had been acquired by the Australian Government, approached the Australian Government to fund all or part of the debt structure. If so, when were the approaches made.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following information to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. . Deficits of State Railway Systems
  1. Proportion of Deficits to Total Actual Outlays
  1. Operating Profits or Losses (Losses shown in parenthesis)
  1. Total Debt of State Railway Systems as at 30 June 1976

The proportion of the above debt that was incurred prior to 1970 has not been reported.

  1. To my knowledge there have been no approaches to the Commonwealth Government from the State Governments seeking funding for all or part of the railway debt structure since this Government took office in December 1975. + From 1 July 1975, the South Australian nonmetropolitan railway and the Tasmanian system form part of Australian National Railways.

Taxation Information: Availability to Department of Social Security (Question No. 1673)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Is information obtained by taxation authorities available to the Department of Social Security. If so, what are the procedures by which this information is made available?

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Information is obtained from taxation authorities in accordance with section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act (inter alia) which provides:

1 ) For the purposes of this section, ‘officer’ means a person who is or has been appointed or employed by the Commonwealth or by a State, and who by reason of that appointment or employment, or in the course of that employment, may acquire or has acquired information respecting the affairs of any other person, disclosed or obtained under the provisions of this Act or of any previous law of the Commonwealth relating to Income Tax.

Subject to this section, an officer shall not either directly or indirectly, except in the performance of any duty as an officer, and either while he is, or after he ceases to be an officer, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person any such information so acquired by him.

Nothing in the section shall be deemed to prohibit the Commissioner, a Second Commissioner, or a Deputy Commissioner, or any person thereto authorized by him, from communicating any information to-

the Director-General of Social Services for the purposes of the administration of any law of the Commonwealth relating to pensions, allowances, endowments or benefits.

Kingaroy Airport: Commonwealth Funds (Question No. 1685)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What funds have been provided by the Commonwealth for Kingaroy Airport in each year since 1 960.
  2. How many (a) aircraft movements and (b) jet aircraft movements, have there been in and out of Kingaroy Airport in each year since 1960.
  3. Has the Commonwealth recently agreed to provide additional funds to upgrade Kingaroy Airport. If so (a) what are the details and (b) who officially requested the upgrading of Kingaroy Airport.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Commonwealth funds expended at Kingaroy Airport since 1960 are:

Ownership of Kingaroy Airport was transferred from the Commonwealth to the Kingaroy Shire Council on 19 November 1968 with subsequent Commonwealth expenditure being in the form of grants matching local funds on approved works. Prior to transfer, the aerodrome was improved to a condition satisfactory for existing and immediately foreseeable traffic.

  1. (a) Aircraft movements at Kingaroy airport were not recorded until 1967. From 1967 to 1972 a commuter service operated there and the traffic records relate only to that service. Since 1974 records have been kept of all aircraft movements.

On this basis the aircraft movements were

  1. Separate figures for jet aircraft are not available but the number of movements would be very small since the only jets to use the aerodrome would have been small executive aircraft.

    1. Any proposals for the upgrading of Kingaroy Airport would be initiated by the Kingaroy Shire Council as owner of the airport. There are no current proposals to do so and hence the Commonwealth has not been asked to provide any additional funds.

Hearing Aids (Question No. 1696)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Has the Federal Government considered legislation to compel persons or companies selling hearing aids to inform prospective clients of the facilities available from the Commonwealth Government to persons with hearing difficulties. If not, will the Government give this matter consideration.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No. Nor is the Government contemplating introduction of such legislation.

Department of Productivity: Budget Allocation for 1976-77 (Question No. 1703)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Minister’s reply to Question No. 1387 (Senate Hansard, 10 December 1 976, page 3088) why was the additional appropriation of an estimated $10,841,000 necessary; and
  2. Can the Minister provide a more detailed breakdown of the estimated additional appropriation.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. The additional appropriations will be necessary because Budget allocations for salaries and administrative expenses of staff subsequently transferred to the Department of Productivity were originally made in the appropriations of the Departments of Industry and Commerce, Transport and Employment and Industrial Relations. These appropriations cannot be divided between departments. Surplus funds available in the appropriations of these Departments in 1976-77 arising out of the transfer of functions to the new Department will be withdrawn by the Department of Finance. (In the case of the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Offices the relevant appropriation- Division 198- was transferred in its entirety to the Department of Productivity).
  2. A detailed breakdown of the estimated additional appropriations, based on the Budget allocations for the functions transferred to the Department of Productivity and covering the period 1 December 1976 to 30 June 1977 is as follows:

The variation from the estimate of $10,841,000 provided in the answer to Question No. 1387 has arisen from subsequent discussions between officials of the departments concerned.

The offsetting savings available in the departments from which functions were transferred to the Department of Productivity are as follows:

Aboriginal and Islander Women : Family Allowance (Question No. 1706)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Do Aboriginal and Islander women living on reserves in Queensland not receive family allowance. If so, is the Minister taking any action to rectify this situation.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Aboriginal and Islander women living on reserves in Queensland are entitled to receive family allowance payments under the same conditions as all other women with children.

If the honourable senator is aware of instances where Aboriginal and Islander women living on reserves in Queensland entitled to family allowances are not receiving their correct entitlement, I would be grateful if he would inform the Director of Social Services for Queensland or myself of the details so that further consideration may be given to their case.

Public Libraries (Question No. 1757)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. ) When will the Governmentput into effect the recommendations of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries.
  2. Is the Government intending to proceed with Recommendation 44 which refers to Australian Government assistance to State and local governments for improvement in library facilities.
  3. Will the Government establish a Public Libraries and Information Council along the lines outlined in Recommendation 3 of the Report.
  4. In view of the chronic inadequacies of public libraries in Queensland, will the Government take urgent steps to provide assistance.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4) The report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries is still the subject of examination by an interdepartmental working group and a draft report is in the course of preparation. When the working group’s final report is submitted to me consideration will be given to the future action that should be taken with the recommendations made by the Committee of Inquiry.

Department of Social Security: Rehabilitation Centres (Question No. 1771)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) residential, and (b) day centres in each State are operated by the Rehabilitation Division of the Department of Social Security.
  2. ) What are the staffing levels of each establishment.
  3. What are the patient levels at the same date.
  4. How many persons are on the waiting lists for admission to (a) residential, and (b) day centres in each State.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. A combined residential/day attendance centre is operated in all States except Tasmania where a State Government centre is used. Victoria also has a separate day attendance centre. In addition, New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland each operate a Work Adjustment Centre; and in New South Wales and Victoria a Work Preparation Centre for mildly retarded school leavers has been established. In all there is a total of five residential and six day attendance centres.
  2. and (3) The staffing and patient levels at each establishment, at the commencement of the current financial year, are shown in the following table:

As at the commencement of the current financial year there were 1012 rehabilitees undergoing treatment and training at the Department’s rehabilitation centres. This in fact represents only 60 per cent of the total case load for, at the same time, there were 708 rehabilitees or 40 per cent of the total case load who were receiving assistance other than in the rehabilitation centres e.g., through regional units, in vocational training through recognised training institutions, etc.

  1. The current list of persons awaiting admission to residential and day attendance centres is as follows:

The smaller States currently do not maintain waiting lists for admission to their rehabilitation centres.

In New South Wales and Queensland it is expected that the backlog will be overcome with the opening of the new rehabilitation centre at Camperdown, Sydney and the completion of a new residential block at the Taringa Centre, Brisbane. In addition, construction is about to commence on the Department’s first rehabilitation centre at Townsville. This centre has been designed to provide a regional service for North Queensland cases. In Tasmania work has commenced on a joint State/Commonwealth Government rehabilitation centre in Hobart. The combined effect of the currently approved construction program will be to increase the present case capacity of Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service centres by over 25 per cent.

Dingo Research Program (Question No. 1801)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

Are any research programs being currently undertaken on the dingo and its habitat.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Yes. The CSIRO Divsion of Wildlife Research is undertaking a comprehensive research program on the basic biology and ecology of the dingo in two contrasting environments, the hot arid climate of central Australia, and the mountain areas of the south-east.

The main objective of the research work is to provide an adequate basis of biological knowledge for the review and development of policies and strategies for the management of dingo populations by the relevant authorities.

The aspects which are being studied include types of wild dog, diet, breeding, longevity, parasites and diseases, physiology, population numbers, movements, social behaviour and the effects of control methods.

The phase of intensive study in the field has been completed and work is now proceeding on the collation of the large amount of data which has been collected.

Scientific papers outlining the results will be published progressively as analyses are completed.

Research on the dingo is also being conducted in some of the States by non-CSIRO scientists with whom the Division of Wildlife Research liaises.

Agarol: Inclusion in Pharmaceutical Benefits List (Question No. 1816)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Has the drug Agarol been deleted from the pharmaceutical benefits list. Ifso, why.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Agarol has not been deleted from the pharmaceutical benefits list. However, in accordance with recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, on 1 April 1976 its availability as a pharmaceutical benefit was restricted to paraplegic and quadriplegic patients and on 1 December 1976 its availability as a benefit was amended to cover also patients receiving the Supplementary Intensive Nursing Home Care Benefit.

Minister for Social Security: Personal Staff (Question No. 1849)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Is the Minister currently seeking a new person for her personal staff. If so, what was the reason for the departure of the former incumbent of the position concerned.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

page 507

No

Plutonium Production (Question No. 1292)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. Are approximately 500 pounds of plutonium produced annually from each nuclear reactor.
  2. Are only 10 pounds of plutonium required to manufacture an atomic bomb having a substantial destructive power.
  3. What is the estimated number of nuclear plants likely to be operating by 1980.
  4. How much plutonium is likely to be produced annually from all of these reactors.
  5. What steps are the Governments of countries with a nuclear capacity taking which are likely to prevent plutonium falling into the hands of guerilla groups.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Approximately 120 kg of plutonium would be produced annually from a 1000 MWe light water reactor. Light water reactors account for over 80 per cent of currently installed nuclear generating capacity.
  2. Yes, if weapons grade plutonium is used; but the weight of plutonium required for an atomic explosive is a function of the isotonic composition of the plutonium used. A greater amount or reactor grade plutonium would be required for such an explosive than would weapons grade plutonium.
  3. It has been estimated that about 300 nuclear power plants generating electricity will be operating in 1980, representing an installed capacity of about 200 G We.
  4. If reprocessing plants start operating and plutonium recycling takes place, an OECD NBA/IAEA estimate puts annual plutonium extraction from world nuclear power programs in 1980 at some 18 tonnes.
  5. Physical security measures such as control (prevention) of access to the material and use of surveillance and radiation detection devices, supplemented by materials management procedures, are employed to prevent theft. Measures which are under study at both national and international levels to further restrict the opportunities for theft of nuclear materials include minimising the number of separation plants in the world, the transport of separated plutonium between plants and the time for which plutonium exists in pure plutonium compounds.

Asbestos: Health Problems (Question No. 1507)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Following the answer to Senate Question No. 8 1 7, can the Minister advise whether there was earlier this year a question answered in the House of Commons relating to the health problems of asbestos.
  2. Was there made available to the House of Commons Parliamentary Library the substance of a report compiled 8 years ago for the Department of Health in the United Kingdom, together with an updated revised version of the report.
  3. Was this report prepared for the Department of Health and Social Security Standing Medical Advisory Committee by a working party under the Chairmanship of Sir Richard Doll.
  4. Did that report clearly state that minimal levels of exposure to asbestos pose a real cancer hazard.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) A question was answered in the House of Commons in 1 976 relating to the health problems of asbestos.
  2. Yes. I would like to apologise to the senator for any inconvenience that may have been caused to him by my reply to his earlier question (No. 817). My Department was advised by the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Security that no reports had recently been made public, and I presume that the United Kingdom department did not consider either the 1968 report, or its revision in 1971, to be recent.
  3. I understand that Sir Richard Doll was closely associated with both reports and was Chairman of the subcommittee which produced one of the reports; the membership of these subcommittees is not, however, included in either report.
  4. The 1 968 report stated that no firm statement could be made about the precise quantitative relationships between the risk of developing bronchial carcinoma and mesothelioma and the size of fibre or the amount and duration of exposure. It commented that it has been possible to show that mesothelioma can be produced by slight exposures, and on present (1968) knowledge, it must be assumed that no amount of exposure is completely free from this risk. The 1 97 1 revision did not comment further on these aspects but stated ‘There is increasing evidence that exposure to asbestos may be associated with some cases of gastrointestinal carcinoma and the position should be kept under review’.

For the further information of the senator I would like to inform him that the Standing Medical Advisory Committee has recently appointed an Advisory Committee on Asbestos which met for the first time on 23 June 1 976. As reports from this Committee become available I will ask my Department to forward copies to the senator.

Defence: Role of General Aviation (Question No. 1615)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

Has action been taken on a suggestion contained in a submission published in the Aircraft Owners and Pilots’ Association magazine of June 1976 that there is ‘potential within GA ranks for a co-operative effort with the Department of Defence to maintain a large number of pilots in a state of defence-preparedness’.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The quotation in the question asked by the honourable senator is a matter of contention rather than a suggestion. No specific action has been taken on that matter but the role of general aviation in the community and its relation to the national interest is fully recognised.

Nuclear Waste: Explosion of Russian Dumps (Question No. 1633)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did a Russian scientist, Dr Medvedev, recently state that a nuclear fuel waste dump exploded in 195 8 in the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.
  2. Did Dr Medvedev also say that tens of thousands of people were affected by radiation.
  3. 3 ) What was the probable cause of this explosion.
  4. What effect will this have on the present thinking of nuclear scientists and Governments that nuclear waste can be buried and safely contained for many thousands of years.
  5. Was this incident cited as evidence in the recent Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No information has been released by Soviet authorities.
  4. None.
  5. No.

Australian Capital Territory: Mental Health Ordinance (Question No. 1644)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What progress has been made in preparing a mental health ordinance for the Capital Territory.
  2. What consultations have been held in this process.
  3. 3 ) When will the ordinance come into force.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Detailed proposals for a mental health ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory have been drafted and widely circulated throughout the community in the form of a discussion paper.
  2. Consultation has been sought with leading academic figures, with the judiciary, with health and welfare professionals and administrators. Seminars have been arranged for public discussion of the proposals, one in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Criminology and two convened by the Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service. Voluntary organisations such as the Handicapped Citizens’ Association ACT. Inc. have also held meetings to discuss the proposed legislation. Various recommendations arising from the community discussions have been incorporated in the successive amendments of the discussion paper.
  3. Recommendations based on the amended discussion paper have been prepared but have yet to be endorsed by the Capital Territory Health Commission. If approved by the Commission, these recommendations will be used as the basis for the preparation of instructions to the AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department for a draft ordinance. The draft ordinance will be submitted to the Legislative Assembly for advice before being sent to the Governor-General for his signature. It is too early at this stage to suggest when the ordinance is likely to be in force.

Uranium Mining and Exploration Projects (Question No. 1652)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

Which companies are involved in the following uranium mining and exploration projects, and what is their level of equity in the various projects: (a) Ranger, (b) Nabarlek, (c) Jabiluka, (d) Koongarra, (e) Westmoreland, (0 South Alligator Valley, (g) Mary Kathleen, (h) Mt Painter, (i) Maureen, (j) Beverley, (k) Yeelirrie, (1) Radium Hill, (m) Harveys Range, (n) Rum Jungle, (o) Lake Raeside, (p) Wiluna, and (q) other major uranium projects currently under way in Australia.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The only Australian uranium mining project in production is at Mary Kathleen. This project is 100 per cent owned by Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd.
  2. I understand that the interests of the companies involved in exploration projects, in relation to which substantial reserves have been firmly established and in relation to which companies have indicated to the Government their readiness to proceed to the development stage, are:
  3. Ranger Peko-Wallsend Ltd and Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd (Note: in relation to this project the then Government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the 2 companies on 28 October 1975 which provided for a joint venture arrangement between the companies and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. That proposal has not been discarded by the present Government);

    1. Nabarlek: Queensland Mines Ltd 100 per cent;
    2. Jabiluka: Pancontinental Mining Ltd 65 per cent, Getty Oil Development Co. Ltd 35 per cent;
    3. Koongarra: Noranda Australia Ltd 100 per cent;
    4. Yeelirrie: Western Mining Corporation Ltd 100 per cent; and
    5. Beverley: Oilmin N.L. 162/3 per cent, Petromin N.L. 162/3 per cent, Transoil N.L. 162/3 per cent, Western Uranium Ltd 50 per cent.

No decisions have been taken on the development of these projects as the Government’s attitude is that policy decisions in relation to the further development of the Australian uranium industry will have to await the outcome of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. If any decision were taken to proceed with further uranium development in Australia, any such projects would only be allowed to proceed provided they had a minimum of 75 percent Australian equity and were Australian controlled.

  1. I am not aware of any uranium projects at Radium Hill and/or Rum Jungle. Uranium production did occur at those localities in previous years. Exploration for minerals generally is taking place at a number of localities throughout Australia, including those mentioned in the question, and uranium may or may not be an object of the exploration. Such projects cannot at this stage be definitely classified as uranium projects.

Nuclear Waste: Explosion (Question No. 1658)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. Did a second expatriate Russian scientist, Professor Leo Tumerman, say recently that he travelled through a nuclear blast area in Russia in 1961.
  2. ) Did Professor Tumerman indicate that this nuclear explosion was caused by the explosion of a plutonium stockpile in 1958.
  3. Did this scientist indicate that the blast area was totally devoid of human and animal life, and that an area of hundreds of square miles was left barren and unusable.
  4. Did Professor Tumerman state that this explosion was a result of negligence and carelessness of officials.
  5. 5 ) How does this incident relate to that mentioned in Senate Question No. 1633.
  6. What effect will this have on -the present thinking of nuclear scientists and the Government that nuclear material can be stored and kept safely for long periods of time.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Some Press reports of Professor Tumerman ‘s statement suggest that the devastation he witnessed was the result of a mishap at a military plutonium repository.
  3. As far as he could see, yes.
  4. Some Press reports attributed such a statement to Tumerman.
  5. The places mentioned by Tumerman and Medvedev are nearly 200 miles apart on opposite sides of the Ural Mountains.
  6. In view of the lack of authoritative information on the alleged explosion, none.

Cedar Bay Police Raid (Question No. 1716)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

With reference to the Minister’s reply to Senate Question No. 1311, relating to the Cedar Bay police raid, what ‘ activities occurring outside State jurisdiction’ was it considered could have been encountered.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

These activities were in relation to the possible illegal movement of drugs.

Australian Patrol Boats (Question No. 1718)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many patrol boats available for patrol duty in Australian waters are currently not operational.
  2. How many are operational.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 (HMAS Barbette undergoing a routine refit in Cairns.)
  2. 10 (HMAS Acute is operational but is not included as she is not manned full-time.)

Coolangatta Airport (Question No. 1729)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of Coolangatta Airport, including the terminal building.
  2. How much has been spent this financial year in making improvements to the airport.
  3. When was the terminal building erected, and at the time of completion what was the estimated number of passengers using the airport.
  4. What is the latest estimated usage of the airport by passengers on an average daily basic
  5. 5 ) What is the estimated total number of people using the airport terminal immediately preceding the arrival and departure of aircraft.
  6. Are there any proposals to enlarge or modernise the air terminal at Coolangatta Airport.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The maintenance and upkeep of Coolangatta Airport is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Department of Transport, with cleaning of the terminal undertaken by a private contractor.
  2. No moneys have been spent this financial year on improvements to the airport.
  3. 3 ) The terminal building was first used by Ansett Airways and Butler Airways on 1 September 1954 with TAA operations commencing in 1956. Passenger records are not now available for this period but it is relevant that the aircraft then in predominant use had substantially lower passenger capacities than present day aircraft. An extension of the terminal building was completed in July 1971 with some 1 87 724 passengers using the terminal that year, i.e., a daily average of 498.
  4. The most recent estimated average daily utilisation of the terminal is 845 passengers. It should be noted, however, that Coolangatta experiences wide variations in daily peak movements. Currently there are 5 jets arriving and departing on Sundays and 2 jets arriving and departing on Tuesdays over the peak hour. Again, the peaks vary with seasonal demand.
  5. It is estimated that the friend/passenger ratio at Coolangatta is 0.25:1, i.e. one visitor to each 4 passengers can be expected in the terminal during the arrival and departure of aircraft. The total number of people in the terminal will naturally depend on the number and type of aircraft expected, the time separation between each arrival and departure and the passenger load factor of each aircraft.
  6. There are no current proposals to enlarge or modernise the existing terminal. Development of the terminal is tied to the question of future ownership of the airport and when this is resolved, improvement of the terminal would then be expected to be a priority project for the new management.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development: Proposals for Common Fund (Question No. 1765)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister aware that the West German and United Kingdom governments have been opposing the United Nations Conference of Trade and Development (UNCTAD) proposals for a Common Fund, on the grounds that the 2 main beneficiaries are Australia and Canada, not the poorest of poor nations.
  2. ) Can the Minister provide details of what the benefits to Australia, as calculated on the 10 Core Commodities, of the UNCTAD Integrated Commodities Programme, would be if a Common Fund is established in March next year and the commodity agreements are successfully negotiated.
  3. Could the Minister also indicate what progress was made at the November Common Fund preparatory talks in Geneva and if he feels that the Common Fund negotiations are progressing fruitfully.
  4. Is the Minister now able to make a definite statement of the Australian Government position with regard to the proposed Common Fund, especially if the Government feels that an early decision on the Common Fund could act as a catalyst to current commodity negotiations.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) No. All developed countries which participated in the Fourth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development held in Nairobi last year, including the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, joined in the adoption by consensus of a resolution on an Integrated Programme for Commodities which, among other things, set out steps to be taken towards the negotiation of a common fund. The Resolution makes it clear that the Integrated Programme is a program of global action to improve market structures in international trade in commodities of interest to developing countries.
  2. No. A realistic calculation of the possible benefits to Australia could only be attempted when the relevant negotiations have been completed and the detailed provisions are known. It should be noted that Australia is an exporter of only three of the ten so-called ‘core’ commodities, namely, sugar, copper and tin.
  3. At the November Common Fund preparatory talks, participating countries considered a number of aspects of the proposal for a negotiation on a common fund including the elaboration of objectives of such a fund, its financing needs and structure, sources of finance and mode of operations. All the major members of UNCTAD are participating fully in the preparatory meetings which, given the complexity of the subject and the range of issues involved, can be said to be progressing satisfactorily. The third such meeting is currently being held and a negotiating conference will begin on 7 March. It must be stressed, however, that no international decision has been taken to establish a common fund and agreement remains to be reached on the detailed provisions of such a fund.
  4. As a major exporter of agricultural and mineral commodities, Australia has worked actively over the years in international discussions and negotiations aimed at improving the conditions of international commodity trade. Accordingly, Australia has supported the proposal for an integrated program on commodities. However, in the terms currently proposed, the Government remains to be convinced of the need for a common fund as an element of that program or that an early decision on its establishment is necessary to ensure the success of the program. The main purpose of a common fund would be to finance buffer stocks or other stocking arrangements which are only one of a number of measures that could be included in individual commodity agreements or arrangements. Moreover, the extent to which stocking arrangements might be used has still to be determined. Nevertheless, the Government firmly recognises that participants in an individual commodity agreement have the responsibility jointly of ensuring that finance is available for stocking arrangements where these have been agreed as an appropriate measure in that agreement.

Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service: Staff (Question No. 1774)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. What steps are being taken to alleviate the staffing difficulties of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, as outlined in the Director’s Statement to the 1975-76 Annual Report.
  2. Will the number of staff be increased to continue and upgrade the work of the Service.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Govemor-General-in-Council recently approved the creation of 22 positions in the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. These positions are in the process of being filled.
  2. The number of staff needed to continue and upgrade the work of the Service is currently under review.

Sand-mining on Fraser Island: Payment of Compensation (Question No. 1819)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

Why has the Federal Government agreed not to place any conditions on the Queensland Government’s spending of the $ 10m compensation to the decision not to allow sand-mining on Fraser Island.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

My colleague, the then Acting Minister for National Resources, took carriage of consultations with the Queensland Government on assistance measures to Queensland following the Commonwealth Government’s decision on Fraser Island. I am advised that in the negotiations between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments it was agreed that, since the State Government and local governments in the region had the best appreciation of employment opportunities, the disbursement of the

Commonwealth assistance shouldbe left to the state,This, of course, is consistent with the government’s federalism policy.

Cooloola National Park: Proposed Sand-mining (Question No. 1820)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

Has the Federal Government any jurisdiction over the use of Cooloola National Park in Queensland. If so (a) what are the details, and (b) what action is the Minister taking to investigate proposals by the Queensland Government to allow rutile mining at Cooloola.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Federal Government has no jurisdiction over the use of Cooloola National Park. However, any new sand-mining proposal for the area requiring Commonwealth Government approval would be subject to examination under the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act.

Great Barrier Reef : Proposed Oil Spillage Experiment (Question No. 1821)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

Is the Australian Government currently planning a controlled oil leak experiment. If so, what are the details.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

In response to the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commissions into Exploratory and Production Drilling for Petroleum in the Area of the Great Barrier Reef, an inter-departmental committee is currently considering what research needs to be undertaken to determine the possible effects of oil on the ecosystems of the Barrier Reef. A number of options are being examined including the possibility of controlled spillage of oil but no decisions have as yet been made.

Lone Fathers: Special Benefit (Question No. 1839)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Does the Department of Social Security actively advertise the possible availability of special benefit to lone fathers who seek assistance from the Department.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The availability of special benefit to assist people in need is publicised by means of the Department’s information leaflets. The fact that lone fathers with young children may qualify for this benefit is generally well known to welfare organisations.

National Rural Bank: Proposed Establishment (Question No. 1841)

Senator Colston:

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

When does the Minister expect to be able to announce the Government’s definite proposals for the establishment of a National Rural Bank?

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourale senator’s question of 23 February 1977:

I think I can best assist the honourable senator by repeating for him some relevant observations I made in an address in early February:

At the moment the Government is developing a number of alternative propositions. In conjunction with the Treasurer, I am hopeful that we can get a practical and simple proposition for public comment within the next few months.’

Wool Marketing Reform (Question No. 1842)

Senator Colston:

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

Does the Minister intend implementing the Australian Wool Corporation’s proposals for reform of Australia’s system of wool marketing. If so, when.

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

A number of aspects of the proposals have already been implemented and consideration is presently being given to extending the activities of the Corporation further into areas in which it would be in a position to influence the adoption of substantial cost saving economies in the handling, transportation and sale of wool.

National Estate Grants Programs (Question No. 1850)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

Is it a fact that at present there are no funds available for the National Estate grants programs. If so, (a) why and (b) when will funds become available.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The position is that the 1976-77 Budget contains an amount of $1,350,000 which is required for National Estate projects where there are firm legal commitments arising from agreements made in previous years. There are no funds available this year for new projects.

As a consequence of the Government ‘s review of spending programs, undertaken in preparation for the framing of the 1976-77 Budget, the National Estate program along with a number of others was restricted to existing commitments. This is part of the Government’s economic strategy for reducing inflation.

As regards the availability of funds for the National Estate in future years, the Government has stated that as soon as the Register of the National Estate is well advanced it will be in a position to again consider the appropriation of funds, in the light of the evidence of urgent need disclosed through the preparation of the Register. I am advised that the Australian Heritage Commission is making good progress in the preparation of the Register and hopes to have work well advanced within the next few months.

It should therefore be possible for the Government to consider an appropriation for the National Estate in 1977-78, within the context of the Budget strategy for that year.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 February 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770225_senate_30_s71/>.