Senate
26 March 1980

31^st Parliament · 1^st Session

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
PETITIONS
- Anti-Discrimination Legislation
- Alice Springs to Darwin Railway
- Metric System
- National Women’s Advisory Council
- Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility
- Anti-Discrimination Legislation
- Anti-Discrimination Legislation
- Aboriginal Rights Treaty
- National Women’s Advisory Council
- Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility
- Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility
- National Women’s Advisory Council
DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING
- Notice of Motion
RURAL SECTOR
- Notice of Motion
FUEL RESERVES
- Notice of Motion
TRADE PRACTICES ACT
- Notice of Motion
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
QUESTION
- UNITED STATES NAVY: AUSTRALIAN PORT FACILITIES
QUESTION
- MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS
QUESTION
- LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS
QUESTION
- OLYMPIC GAMES
QUESTION
- PETROL PRICES
QUESTION
- TASMANIA: SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION PROGRAM
QUESTION
- FRENCH ATOMIC TESTS
QUESTION
- URANIUM SALES TO FRANCE
QUESTION
- PROTEST AT RUSSIAN EMBASSY
QUESTION
- SOUTH AFRICA
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
QUESTION
- OLYMPIC GAMES
QUESTION
- TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES
QUESTION
- SUGAR IN FOODSTUFFS
QUESTION
- COUNTRY GAS PRICES
QUESTION
- HEARING DEVICES ON TELEPHONES
QUESTION
- COMPENSATION TO SOVIET UNION
QUESTION
- MASSACRE IN AFGHANISTAN
QUESTION
- EAST TIMOR
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
QUESTION
- ABORIGINES: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT
QUESTION
- NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH
QUESTION
- ROAD FUNDS
QUESTION
- RIVER MURRAY SALINITY
QUESTION
- PENALTY RATES FOR REPATRIATION HOSPITAL STAFF
QUESTION
- HOUSE DAMAGE IN SOUTHERN TASMANIA
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN REPRESENTATION ON NATIONAL ABORIGINAL CONFERENCE
INTEREST RATES
- Discussion of Matter of Public Importance
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION
- Report of Australian Delegation for 1979
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL 1980
- Second Reading
SENATE (REPRESENTATION OF TERRITORIES) AMENDMENT BILL 1980
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
SENATE (REPRESENTATION OF TERRITORIES) AMENDMENT BILL 1980
- Third Reading
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
PAPERS

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.. and read prayers.

page 1007

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) left Australia yesterday to visit Honolulu to lead the Australian delegation at the conference on Development the Pacific Way. The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) will act as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs until Mr Macphee ‘s return on 2 April.

page 1007

PETITIONS

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present two petitions, similar in wording, from 15 and 14 citizens of Australia, respectively, as follows:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth-

That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy and/or sex.

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals- in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 138 citizens of Australia:

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

That in order to: facilitate the development of the North of Australia provide an all-weather rapid land transport system from north to south and vice versa facilitate better defence of Northern Australia provide improved transport for primary and mining products to southern markets boost tourism

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

Urge that the Federal Government give favourable consideration to proceeding forthwith with the completion of the construction of the North/South railway from Alice Springs to Darwin as a matter of priority.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth 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.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator RYAN:

– I present the following petition from 50 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth.

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women’s Advisory Council. We call on the government to continue to maintain the national advisory council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 101 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 1 0 per cent by 1990 and about 16 percent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.

Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.

Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.

Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 percent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of $2,500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I present the following petition from 1 3 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex is a fundamental human right;

That it is both the duty and responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society’s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status and /or sex.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and /or sex.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I present the following petition from 1 5 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy and /or sex;

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals- in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aboriginal Rights Treaty

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 34 citizens of Australia:

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

Whereas before Europeans settled in Australia, the Aboriginal peoples of Australia had lived on their traditional land from time immemorial and had in Aboriginal law and customs a clear title to those lands; and

Whereas Europeans and other non-Aboriginal people have occupied and used most of the traditional lands of the Aboriginal peoples against their will and without negotiation, compensation or treaty, and

Whereas it has been the practice of nations established in territories previously occupied by indigenous inhabitants to reach a negotiated settlement with those inhabitants; and

Whereas that occupation has seriously damaged the traditional way of life of Aboriginal Australians and has caused poverty and hardship to be the fate of the great majority of their surviving descendants; and

Whereas the surviving descendants of the Aboriginal peoples have expressed a wish to have their rights to land acknowledged, to preserve their link with their Aboriginal ancestors and to maintain their distinctive identity with its own cultural heritage; and

Whereas the people of Australia in 1967 voted overwhelmingly that the Commonwealth Parliament should have responsibility for laws relating to Aboriginal Australians; and

Whereas it is accepted internationally by the United Nations organisation, that each country should work to establish the rights of indigenous peoples to selfdetermination, non-discrimination and the enjoyment of their own culture: and

Whereas the Woodward Commission in 1974 established principles by which Aboriginal rights to land should be acknowledged and realised; and

Whereas the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament in February 1975 resolved that Aboriginal Australians should be compensated for the loss of their traditional lands and for the damage to their way of life; and

Whereas the National Aboriginal Conference unanimously resolved in April 1979 in Canberra to ask the Commonwealth Government to negotiate a Treaty with Aboriginal Australians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government should invite the Aboriginal people of Australia to negotiate a Treaty with the Commonwealth of Australia, and any Treaty should contain provisions relating to the following matters: (i) The protection of Aboriginal identity, languages, law and culture, (ii) The recognition and restoration of rights to land by applying, throughout Australia, the recommendations of the Woodward Commission, (iii) The conditions governing mining and exploitation of other natural resources on Aboriginal land, (iv) Compensation to Aboriginal Australians for the loss of traditional lands and for damage to those lands and to their traditional way of life (v) The right of Aboriginal Australians to control their own affairs and to establish their own associations for this purpose.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 2 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth.

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women ‘s Advisory Council. We call on the government to continue to maintain the national advisory council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

And your petitioners as in d duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 60 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 1 0 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.

Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.

Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.

Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of S2.500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 120 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for selfprovision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.

Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.

Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.

Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of $2500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Acting Clerk- Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as

Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted.on by their Parliamentary representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp, Senator Colston, Senator Hamer, Senator Lewis, Senator Missen and Senator Scott.

Petitions received.

page 1010

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and time of meeting of the Senate for the week commencing 31 March 1980 be:

Monday, 31 March-2.30 p.m.-6 p.m., 8.00 p.m.-l0.30 p.m.; Tuesday, 1 April- 2.15 p.m.-6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m.- 10.30 p.m.; Wednesday, 2 April-10.30 a.m.-l.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m.-6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m.- 1 1 . 00 p.m.

) That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day.
That General Business take precedence of Government Business after 8 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 April 1 980.

page 1010

RURAL SECTOR

Notice of Motion

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the Senate is of the opinion that the Government, in the interest of securing the long term viability of the rural sector, should:

progressively reduce certain tariffs which inflate rural costs; and

encourage small localised on-farm energy production.

page 1010

FUEL RESERVES

Notice of Motion

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the Senate is of the opinion that:

1 ) the Federal Government should immediately seek discussions with appropriate State Ministers to ensure that adequate emergency reserves of refined motor spirit and avgas are held in all major cities in Australia;

funds should be provided from the crude oil levy for allocation to the provision of underground storage facilities for such reserves; and

these reserves should be acquired from production over immediate requirements and international spot purchases, if necessary.

page 1010

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Notice of Motion

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

1 ) That a select committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon the provisions and operation of section 45d and related sections of the Trade Practices Act, in particular as they affect industrial relations; and
that provisions relating to membership, powers and proceedings of the committee be contained in a separate resolution.

page 1010

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1010

QUESTION

UNITED STATES NAVY: AUSTRALIAN PORT FACILITIES

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to two questions I asked last week of Senator Durack who was then acting in the capacity of Minister representing the Prime Minister. The questions were directed to whether an assessment of the risk of Perth’s becoming a prime nuclear target had been made before the Prime Minister offered the use of Cock burn Sound to the United States. Has the Prime Minister yet provided any answer to the questions?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I read in Hansard the substance of Senator Button’s questions. I do not have the reply immediately at hand. I will seek it for the honourable senator.

page 1010

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS

Senator DAVIDSON:

– My question is directed to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for National Development and Energy. I refer to a report today which shows a 10 per cent increase in the number of car registrations for the month of February over the month of January and a 3 per cent increase over the same month last year. Do any additional figures indicate a trend towards smaller motor vehicles or those which have features for fuel economy? Has the Minister any information which suggests that there is a greater emphasis on the economies of fuel which would provide fuel resources for the future?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Recent registration figures for passenger motor vehicles suggest some recovery from what was a softening of the market which occurred in the latter months of last year. The February 1980 registrations were up more than 9 per cent on January and were the highest for that month since 1975. Total registrations in the eight months to the end of February show a rise of about 5,000 units over the same period in 1978-79. The figure is about 303,000. Sales of four-cylinder vehicles during January and February reflect the trend towards smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles.

Four-cylinder sales as a percentage of total sales over the last eight years clearly show the present trend. For example, in 1972 the figure was 38.8 per cent; in 1974, 44 per cent; in 1976, 51.8 per cent; and moving through to January 1980, 64.3 percent; and February 1980, 65.8 per cent. There is in fact a general pattern of a greater emphasis both on more fuel efficient and smaller cars. That is reflected also in the figures that I indicated to Parliament some time ago relating to the conservation of fuel.

page 1011

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Minister for National Development and Energy. I declare an interest in the question as my home is fitted with liquefied petroleum gas heating and cooking appliances. I refer to the announcement over two months ago of a scheme of assistance to household users of LPG. The key to the scheme was a payment to wholesalers of $80 per tonne of LPG supplied to household users. Given the financial difficulty facing domestic users of LPG burdened with astronomical increases in the cost of this source of energy, can the Minister give to the Senate a definite date for the commencement of this scheme? Further, what assistance is to be given to users who purchased their appliances in reliance on the Government’s previous strong encouragement of the use of LPG?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The actual arrangement for the date of introduction of payment of the subsidy comes within the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I will get an answer on that aspect of the question from him for the honourable senator. I believe that the aim is to introduce the subsidy as soon as possible. Some States may have to introduce complementary legislation for the payment but the aim is. for this to be done as soon as possible. On the question of assistance to those who use liquefied petroleum gas, the aim is that in the future wherever possible natural gas pipelines should be developed. On reflection upon where the honourable senator lives, it is clear that his State does not have a source of natural gas. That is a particular difficulty. There are specific problems in relation to the Launceston gas distribution company because of the decision of the Prices Justification Tribunal to put an incredibly high price upon butane, which Launceston had chosen as its basic gas. Discussions are taking place to see what amelioration can be made and what help can be given in that area. The Government is considering this matter in connection with the decision on the subsidy which it has already made.

page 1011

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs and also the Treasurer. I refer to the United Nations’ condemnation of the Soviet Union for its invasion and continued occupation of Afghanistan and the need to minimise the opportunities for the Soviet Union to use the Olympic Games for propaganda purposes. Is any action being considered to discourage tourist and Olympic Games spectator visits to the Soviet Union? Will the Government consider endorsing Australian passports with a warning in Russian and English that ‘the United Nations has condemned the armed invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union and travellers are warned of the risks of travel to the Soviet Union or occupied Afghanistan’? Will the Government consider some restriction of foreign exchange to roubles? Finally, will the Government consider limiting media coverage of the Soviet Games to a results only service?

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I would have considered that, as day by day the growing atrocities and the bloody murder of people in Afghanistan are reported, there would be little reason for Australian Labor Party senators to interject and to seek to oppose an authentic opposition by the Australian people to the atrocities that are daily occurring.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

– Let the disgust of the Government be registered at the interjections that are being made in relation to this question.

Senator Grimes:

– The only disgusting person here is you. You are corrupt.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Grimes, you will withdraw. You cannot charge an honourable senator with being corrupt.

Senator Grimes:

– I withdraw. I did not charge him; I said he was.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You cannot say those things, and you realise that, Senator

Grimes. It is not allowed here. It will be withdrawn.

Senator Grimes:

– I will withdraw. Let the Minister behave or he will get some more of itwith the facts next time.

Senator CARRICK:

– The Australian people will judge today whether condemnation of the bloody murder in Afghanistan, which is the subject of day by day reports received by the Government, is good behaviour and whether the jeering and sneering at our proposal that there should be protests is bad behaviour. If judgment is to be passed on behaviour, let it lie on Senator Grimes and his party.

page 1012

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. In answer to a question on 2 1 February he said:

The Government is highly conscious of the fact that its aim ought to be to do two things: First, to provide petroleum products as cheaply as it can to the people of Australia. We are doing that as the third cheapest in the world . . .

The Minister made similar statements on 26 and 27 February. Was the assertion that Australia has the third cheapest petroleum in the world derived from advice tendered by his Department, and, if not, from what source does he get his information?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I was referring to the list that I had published and the list that my Department had supplied to me of a range of countries throughout the world. The figures that were provided and tabled in the Senate and incorporated in Hansard were obtained by cable from the various embassies throughout the world. There needs to be a correction now.

Senator Gietzelt:

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, there needs to be a correction because now that the American Government has put a 10c levy on petroleum products the American price of petrol will be slightly dearer than that of Australia, so the Canadian price will be the one that will lag behind ours. Those figures were provided by my Department and were checked by cable.

Senator WALSH:

– I have a supplementary question. In view of Senator Carrick ‘s answer, will he stake his ministerial position on the accuracy of his previous assertions that Australia had the third cheapest petrol in the world and now has the second cheapest, or does he want to recant while he still has time?

Senator CARRICK:

-I have talked before about the florid rhetoric and the absolute nonsense of Senator Walsh. I was asked from what source the information I gave to the Senate came. I have repeated that the information was given to me by my Department, it having been provided in response to cables sent to various embassies and high commissions by my Department. That is the basis of the information that I have provided and, as I understand it, it happens to be factual.

page 1012

QUESTION

TASMANIA: SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION PROGRAM

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Has the Tasmanian Government made a submission to the Commonwealth for an allocation of funds from the Commonwealth school-to-work transition program in 1980? If so, can the Minister say to which institutions in Tasmania the funds will go?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– At this stage five programs in respect of Tasmanian government schools have been approved. An amount of $212,000 has been provided for additional transitional education teachers in high schools for 1980. Three teachers will be employed for one school term to prepare and update teaching materials for transition education. I think that involves $15,000. Additional counsellors will be appointed to extend the provision of vocational guidance and to support transition education teachers. That involves $40,000. Subject to further discussion with the Tasmanian authorities, funds will be provided to maintain the Launceston student workshop. I think that will be $31,500. There are also special education and guidance services. Support of up to $70,000 has been approved for projects in special schools to improve transition education for handicapped children. Apart from the Launceston student workshop project, the individual institutions to be assisted will be determined by State priorities.

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order. Before that information goes too far astray could I ask the Minister to table the document from which he read?

Senator Carrick:

– Yes, I would be happy to table the document.

page 1012

QUESTION

FRENCH ATOMIC TESTS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Today’s Press reports that France set off a nuclear test device at Muroroa Atoll yesterday with a blast twice the size of that which razed

Hiroshima in 1945. It has also been reported that the French Government carried out an underground test of great power at the same atoll on 22 February, and that these are the first of a series of tests of similar magnitude. Did the French Government inform the Australian Government of its intention to carry out these tests? Does the Government know what precautions have been taken by the French Government to safeguard Pacific countries and Australia from ill effects? Is the Federal Government monitoring possible fall-out in Australia? If it has not so far done this, will the Government set up monitoring machinery immediately?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In relation to the first part of the question, I am not aware whether any information was given by the French Government to the Australian Government. I did see in newspaper reports some suggestion that there had been another atomic test at Muroroa Atoll. I am aware that the Australian Government monitors atomic fall-out continuously in various ways. I will seek further information and let the honourable senator know.

page 1013

QUESTION

URANIUM SALES TO FRANCE

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he can confirm an undertaking given by France to supply highly enriched uranium, including weapons grade uranium, to Iraq. Is this a departure from French non-proliferation policy? Does this development have implications for the future sale of Australian uranium to France and for the safeguards adopted by the Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This is a question on which 1 do not have immediate information. It is a matter which requires specific detail. I will bring it to the attention of my colleague in another place, and seek the information for the honourable senator.

– One of the delightful things about Senator Cavanagh is that in taking his point of order he in fact committed the same sin and saw the mote in the eye of Senator Chipp. Mr President, I will consider any matter in terms of a proper protest as and when it emerges in the future.

page 1013

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICA

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Minister aware of the reasons for the South African Government’s decision to confiscate the passport of Bishop Desmond Tutu? Bishop Tutu, an Anglican pastor of unquestioned integrity, is now secretary of the South African Council of Churches and he is dedicated to the peaceful reconciliation of the black and white of the diverse communities of his own country. What crime has he committed?

Why have restrictions been placed upon him, preventing the carrying out of his work? When the Australian Governmentand this Senate have rightly protested against the restrictions placed on Soviet citizens by the Soviet Government, what steps has the Australian Government taken, and what steps will the Government take, to protest to the South African Government in order to gain a remedy for such persons as Bishop Tutu?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This is not a matter on which I am informed. I will see whether I can get some information before the end of Question Time, or, if not, by tomorrow, on both aspects of the question that Senator Teague asks.

page 1014

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS

Senator GRIMES:

-I ask the Minister for Social Security about the social security appeals, following her joint announcement with the Attorney-General that appeals against decisions of her Director-General can go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Will she notify all appellants whose appeals have been rejected in the past three years, though determined in their favour by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, that they now have a further avenue of appeal? Will the Minister act on the continuing inequities such as the refusal to pay unemployment benefits during an appeal and the refusal to pay invalid pensioners appealing on medical grounds? Will other pensioners who are paid during the process of an appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal also be paid while their appeal is before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

-I would need to give consideration to the first part of that question with regard to retracing the steps of three years’ claims that may have been made before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, but I will seek some advice on that. I will give consideration also to the matter of inequities that may occur during appeals. It will be understood that, in respect of pensions and benefits, in some cases the entitlements are continued whilst arrangements are being made for appeals to be heard. In the case of the unemployment benefit where it is regarded as a benefit which requires a claim on such a short term basis as once a fortnight, a new claim can be made whilst an appeal is pending. In the light of the question asked by Senator Grimes, I will give consideration to the way in which we can now advise people on the pursuit of their claims and see whether any reasonable changes are able to be made to present conditions.

page 1014

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators, I have much pleasure in drawing your attention to the presence in the gallery on my left of a delegation of the Association of South East Asian Nations Inter-Parliamentary Organisation led by Air Chief Marshal Harin Hongskula, the Speaker of the National Assembly of the Kingdom of Thailand and President of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend a very warm welcome to you honourable gentlemen and trust that your stay in our country will be pleasurable and profitable to you. We wish you well.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 1014

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1014

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I draw the Minister’s attention to a recent report that President Carter of the United States is considering allowing taxation write-offs for the loss of deposits paid by those American citizens who wish to support his boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games. In view of this, will the Australian Government give consideration to similar relief being made available to those many Australians who wish to boycott these bloodstained Games and thereby demonstrate their abhorrence of the foreign policy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The matter is one that concerns the Treasurer. It is an interesting suggestion. I will bring it to his attention and seek his study and comment.

page 1014

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Transport suspect that there is any ulterior motive in the much repeated furphy that Trans-Australia Airlines is bankrupt? Is not this mischievous and damaging subversion of our national airline designed to alter the management of TAA and thus change the policy of TAA in choosing the Airbus A300 in preference to the American aircraft ordered by its competitor? Would the Minister make a clear and unequivocal statement explaining to the Senate and the people of Australia that the literal commitment of TAA to pay indexed compensation is virtually only a book entry and, in fact, it is not likely to be claimed by TAA employees?

What has the Government done in the past four years to clarify TAA ‘s superannuation position?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– As to the detail of that question. I will refer it to the Minister for Transport for a reply. But I wish to say that, although the honourable senator has gone beyond the Standing Orders, I think, in asking me for opinions about other people’s motives, as he has put the question on the public record I will respond by saying that I suspect no ulterior motive of the sort which he has suggested. I suspect no malice. I suspect that any suggestion that it will lead to a change in the type of aircraft selected by Trans-Australia Airlines is so fanciful as barely to warrant comment.

page 1015

QUESTION

SUGAR IN FOODSTUFFS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health to an Age article of 24 March 1980 in which Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd, the manufacturer of Ribena, a top selling vitamin C supplement, admits that 55 per cent of the product’s volume is added sugar. Will the Minister comment on the claims of Professor Elsdon Storey, Professor of Child Dental Health at Melbourne University, and the head of the State Health Commission, Dr Brian Wood, that high levels of sugar in vitamin supplements are not necessary? Does the Minister agree that use of sugar in foodstuffs, particularly in those consumed by growing children and expectant and nursing mothers, must be more carefully controlled? What recent investigations have been conducted by the Government or government agencies into the excessive use of sugar in goods marketed within Australia and the association of sugar with various illnesses and common diseases? Will action be taken by the Government or government agencies to discourage the use of sugar in the manufacturing process to ensure that correct eating habits are fostered in the Australian community?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

-I have some information on the article mentioned by the honourable senator. I may need to seek some further information as a result of some other parts of his question. My colleague the Minister for Health has advised me that there are readily available preparations that do not have high levels of added sugar. Examples are unsweetened fruit juice, which has a legal minimum level of vitamin C in most States, or capsules and tablets which have a negligible sugar content. The excessive consumption of sugar to which highly sugared vitamin supplements may contribute is a matter for concern. In fact, one of the dietary goals suggested by the Commonwealth Department of Health is a decrease in the consumption of refined sugar in Australia. This is primarily because excessive consumption of sugar contributes to obesity and dental caries and has an adverse effect on the total nutritional balance of the diet of the individual.

The role of sugar intake as it relates to the nutritional status of infants and children is under consideration by the National Health and Medical Research Council working parties on standards for infant foods and on television advertising of foods directed to children. The latter has been investigating the role of foods of low nutritional value in relation to their effects on the health of children. Prominent amongst these foods are those having a high sugar content.

The nutrition section of the Commonwealth Department of Health is also co-ordinating a survey investigating the dietary habits of adolescents in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. This survey will provide detailed information on the intake of sugar by this group. I can assure the honourable senator that the Commonwealth Department of Health will continue to place a high priority on promoting the importance of a wise choice of foods for a balanced and nutritious diet. As I said, I will refer the whole question to the Minister for Health and see whether any further response is required.

page 1015

QUESTION

COUNTRY GAS PRICES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy, is related to the question asked earlier by my colleague, Senator Tate. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to advertisements appearing in newspapers that are printed and published in the central western districts of New South Wales, authorised by various local government organisations in the area, and pointing out to consumers that the price of gas has risen by 64 per cent since January 1979 and that it will continue to rise while the Federal Government adopts the policy that propane prices should be at import parity? Is the Minister aware that the local government councils, in their advertisements, are apologising to all consumers for the enormous increases in prices but are stating that the rises are beyond their control and that they are because of Federal Government policy? Is the Minister aware that the Government’s pricing policies for liquefied petroleum gas are creating great disquiet and anguish not only within local government circles but also amongst members of the general public, particularly in country areas of New South Wales? In view of his statement to Senator Tate that the aim is, wherever possible, for natural gas pipelines to be developed, I ask the Minister what is being done to expedite the supply of natural gas to the areas in New South Wales to which I am referring, namely, Bathurst, Orange, Cowra and other places.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Has the Government drawn the content of these reports to the attention of the Australian Olympic Federation? Can the Minister advise the Senate of the Government’s reaction to a recent report that the International Olympic Committee may be prepared to give financial aid to competitors who wish to attend the Olympic Games in Moscow regardless of the United Nations’ stand on the matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Kilgariff quite rightly draws the attention of the Senate and the people of Australia to the reports of the massacre at Kerala and to similar stories.

Senator McLaren:

– Unsubstantiated.

Senator CARRICK:

-I did not know that we had Soviet apologists opposite, but apparently we have.

Senator Grimes:

– What a despicable fascist!

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! The honourable senator may not use that unparliamentary language. I ask him to withdraw it.

Senator Grimes:

– If it is reasonable for the Leader of the Government in the Senate to abuse us collectively in such terms I suggest that it is reasonable for someone on this side of the Senate to abuse him in specific terms. I do not see why I or anyone else in this place should have to put up with abuse from someone whose history is so unsavoury.

The PRESIDENT:

page 1018

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of reports continually coming out of East Timor of acts of atrocities and killings by Indonesians in the occupied territory? In view of the fact that the Australian Government has given de jure recognition to Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor and as the Minister is aware that means condoning the Indonesian action in that country, will the Minister indicate to the Parliament the steps the Australian Government has taken to ascertain the truth of those reports and the action the Australian Government has taken with the Indonesian Government to see what can be done about them?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware, in more recent times, of allegations of atrocities.

Senator Wriedt:

– Well, there are plenty of them. You are selective in your reading, aren’t you?

Senator CARRICK:

-It is suggested that I am selective in my reading. I invite Senator Wriedt to select from his reading those things on which he is drawing and to give them to me. I will give them to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek an answer to the remainder of the question.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I accept the Minister’s invitation. In turn I ask him to authenticate the claim he made in his last statement concerning the reports which are allegedly from intelligence sources at the United Nations. I ask him to table the documents.

Senator CARRICK:

-I will get the information.

page 1018

QUESTION

page 1021

INTEREST RATES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Gietzelt proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to keep its promise of lowering interest rates.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Most Australians are disturbed by the announced increase in interest rates. Yesterday’s Press and again today’s Press are full of reports about the increase in interest rates and the effect that that will have upon home loan interest rates. The Bank of New South Wales has taken the step of raising its interest rate by 0.5 per cent, bringing its rate on home loans up to 10 per cent. Other banks will follow suit in a few days. The rise in interest rates is an admission of failure in economic management by the Fraser Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) must be held personally responsible for the inability of this Government to contain interest rates. Mr Fraser must be held personally responsible for the failure to implement his party’s policy. The Fraser Government, of course, is the principal factor in the steps which have been taken by the banking institutions because it consciously precipitated the latest rise by increasing earlier this month the interest rate offered on Australian savings bonds by 0.5 per cent to 9.75 per cent.

The first point to be noted is that it is the little man, the ordinary person in our community, who will suffer most from this recent increase. The Sydney Morning Herald of 4 March made the comment that the increase in the rate on Australian savings bonds means that the money of small investors is being used to solve the Government’s money supply problems. The recent increases in Commonwealth bonds rates of 1. 1 per cent, semi-government loan rates of 1.2 per cent, most overdraft rates of 0.5 per cent and the Australian savings bond rate of 0.5 per cent have led to higher costs for home mortgages. This will be seen as a principal factor in accelerating the rate of inflation. The most recent rises that I have referred to will flow on to the building societiesthat is projected in today’s newspapers- most home buyers will be forced to pay considerably more, and loan repayments on a new home of average size and costing $30,000 will rise by at least $10 a month.

The situation is that as a result of this Government’s taxing policies with respect to energy- I refer to petrol- most people travel to work by means of their own private transport, as a recent survey has shown. This situation has come about because of the lack of proper planning proposals by national governments in the post-war years. It is costing those people at least $10 a week more to move from their home to their place of work.

The increase in this interest rate will cost an average home-buyer at least $ 10 per month. This Government’s failure to index taxation has the effect of reducing substantially take-home pay and has the effect of reducing disposable income. The rise in home loan interest rates to 10 per cent- that is what the latest decision means- will have the result that a person earning $250 a week, average weekly earnings, may borrow only $27,500 rather than $28,600, as was the case with the rate of interest prior to the latest announcement of a 0.5 per cent increase. This widens the deposit gap by $1,100. People will now have to save that additional amount, refinance their loan applications in order to meet their accommodation requirements, put off their plans to buy or build a new house.

This will have a serious effect upon the home building industry and upon the housing industry, and will flow right through the whole economy. Instead of this Government taking steps to stimulate the home building industry, the Government’s inefficiencies and inadequacies will result in an even further decline in the home building industry. The rise in interest rates will also mean more extensive finance for small businesses, higher charges for consumer finance to hire purchase companies, and higher inflation. I suppose we can expect that even the Bankcard organisation, which is charging the usurious rate of 1 8 per cent, will get on the end of the queue and have the audacity to raise its charges higher than 18 per cent. This will result from this Government’s economic failure.

The downturn in the construction industry and the tide of finance for small businesses will undoubtedly exacerbate unemployment. Here we were yesterday talking about the problems. Indeed we have, in this place, in the last several weeks talked about the problems facing small business. Senator Messner must surely acknowledge this because he endorsed what I said yesterday in respect of the matter of finance for small business. This is one of the contributing factors that leads to difficulties in that sector of the Australian economy. Of course, higher interest rates on mortgages will have just that effect. We are all thoroughly aware by now that the Fraser Government’s policies are in tatters and that its obvious unconcern about the unemployed will be further shown by this decision by the Government and the banking institutions.

If one looks at the Fraser Government’s record of interest rates, I think that it is clear that the recent increase indelibly stamped this Government as economically incompetent. We have a charlatan government, a government that pretends to have knowledge and skill but which in fact fails to produce it. In December 1977, the Prime Minister forecast that interest rates would decline by 2 per cent over the next 12 months. That was the projection of this charlatan Prime Minister, this economic quack, who came into power illegally in 1975. He said that interest rates would decline by 2 per cent in 1 978. He also said that he was talking about interest rates, such as bank lending and home lending, that directly affect people. A few days earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) made the same promise. He promised also that he would eat his hat if his prediction did not eventuate.

Since then, most interest rates have risen significantly, and the long-term Commonwealth bond rate has risen by 1.7 per cent to an all-time record high of 11.2 per cent. It is not surprising that, in the face of this evidence of failure, the Government should feel compelled to gag the debate on interest rates in the House of Representatives when the Opposition sought to have the matter discussed there on 26 February this year. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister did not like the taste of leather. How and why has the Government got itself into this interest rate mess? It is as a result of economic incompetence, economic mismanagement and faulty economic theory. We are faced with the apparently paradoxical situation of high interest rates at the same time as excessive amounts of money are floating around the economy. There is no shortage of money. So why should its price be rising? We are entitled to ask that question.

I make the point that rising interest rates will, of course, mean higher profits for the banking institutions. The answer, which is of course very clear, is that the Government has allowed an excess of liquidity, but at the same time wants to restrict it. On the one hand the Government has presided over a massive foreign capital inflow. That took place in the month of January when a record amount of $550m came into this country which left the banks awash with funds. On the other hand, the Government has set an excessively stringent money supply growth target of 10 per cent. Foreign capital inflow, coupled with a bumper wheat crop cheque, has sent the money supply soaring to an annual growth rate of 1 9 per cent in the three months to the end of January. It is 19 per cent and if it flows, as I suggest it will, into the Australian economy, we will be fast approaching the same sort of inflation rate and interest rate that is apparent in many other countries. The Government is obsessively concerned with the inflationary effect of this money supply growth and it is determined to put the squeeze on, no matter what the cost. If home buyers and the unemployed bear the burden, that is just bad luck for them. That is the philosophy behind this Government’s approach.

The latest interest rate rises are largely of this Government’s own doing, as a product of” its own incompetence. The Prime Minister and others in his Government have been very keen to put the blame on overseas forces. They look at the United States of America and at other countries such as the United Kingdom. It is true that overseas interest rates are very high. The prime lending rate in the United States has reached a record 15.75 percent and in Britain it has topped 18 per cent. One would have to look only at the comments in the Australian Financial Review on that matter on 28 February last to see that. But the large difference between Australian and overseas rates has existed for several months without any excessive pressure on the Australian exchange rate. This argument by the Government is designed to conceal its own incompetence, its own failure to comprehend the forces that operate in the money market situation and the contradictions that obviously exist in its own economic policies. It is very interesting that the Prime Minister, his economic advisers and his apologists, to some extent, in the media should now seek to blame overseas forces and claim that interest rates are beyond the Government’s control. Let us look at what this sham Prime Minister had to say on 22 January 1975 when he spoke to an Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science congress. Of course, he was not Prime Minister at that time. In his speech he stated:

I do not believe that men and women are governed by inexorable events beyond control. When political leaders say the present situation cannot be helped, that is part of a world situation, they are expressing the futility of their own leadership, when if they were men of real stature, they would be saying ‘ we can overcome’.

What has the Australian Prime Minister done in implementing those sentiments that he was prepared to throw about in the heady days of 1972 to 1975? The fact is that we have a situation which the Government could control. It is not capable of doing so because of its twisted economic priorities. It is becoming increasingly clear to the public and to the business sector that this Government has no positive and articulated economic policy. It is increasingly clear that this Government cannot be trusted even to implement its own election promises. The recent rises in interest rates are large enough to dampen investment activity in all areas of the economy except, of course, in the most profitable ones including the mining sector, about which this Government seems to be most concerned. We read newspaper headlines such as that in the Australian on 26 February last, which states Share Prices Die as Interest Rates Climb’. There is a widespread lack of confidence in the Government’s economic policy and management. There is a lack of confidence by the public, investors and businessmen. Even the Treasurer, Mr Howard, appears to have little self-confidence. In the Age of 5 April 1979 he was quoted as saying:

I will not guarantee the level of interest rates in any area of the economy.

How right that statement has been proved. The Treasurer knew, as we know, that market forces are the determinant factor in what happens to interest rates. The long promised recovery about which this Government has spoken since 1975 has not arrived. As a result of this increase in interest rates, it is further away than ever. The Fraser Government’s strategy is based not on rational, equitable or positive economic policies, but on optimistic talk, rhetoric and promises. Australia has been saddled not with a consumerled recovery, an investment-led recovery or an export-led recovery but with a rhetoric-led recovery. That is now beginning to be exposed even more. The Labor Party would take the pressure off the home buyer and encourage investment in the housing industry and throughout the economy by keeping interest rates low.

The Labor Party would set about helping particularly the home owner, helping bridge the gap that prevents the overwhelming majority of Australian people from qualifying for home loans. Now, thousands more will find themselves unable to get into the home buying group. The most cherished dream of every person, as it is for every family unit or group of” people, is to own one’s own home. Yet, this disastrous situation will make that objective even more difficult and distant than it has been. The money supply must not be the sole determinant factor in respect of providing funds for economic growth and for housing construction. Therefore, the Labor Party would be correct in advocating, as it has in recent times, the development of policies towards creating employment opportunities in this country. Whereas on the one hand the Opposition is criticised for not being positive, on the other hand it does do its homework and does put forward policies that would have the effect of stimulating job creating sectors in the economy in areas of social need. We then see how the Government reacts to that in an absurd way, as demonstrated by the debate conducted in the House of Representatives yesterday.

The money supply must be allowed to grow at a rate which will cover prices and real growth. That is the tool that must be used by any wellmeaning government. Inflationary pressures can be alleviated by cuts in indirect taxes, particularly in the oil levy, which is a massive consumer rip-off and which is the only means by which this Government can finance its deficit budgeting. The impost of this tax on petroleum products is contributing to the increase in the rate of inflation, as it flows through the whole economic structure and fabric of our society. It is time Australia had economic policies which looked after the mass of the people. It is time that we as a parliament put into effect the oft-expressed statement of Fraser that the Government is here to govern for all the people. They are all the people who are now forced into longer home buying queues and all the people who will be forced to pay higher interest charges on their indebtedness, whether it be through consumer finance, credit charges, Bankcard or anything else. It is time we started to govern so that decisions of the national Parliament protect the interests of the ordinary people rather than line the pockets of big business and finance corporations.

The Opposition is aware of the financial manipulation in the money market by the injection of overseas capital. We are aware of the activities of those who manipulate the stock exchange. They make more money in one or two minutes in speculation at the stock exchange than people who labour all their lives in the pursuit of a worthwhile contribution to the economic wellbeing of the society. This Government relies on market forces as the almost sole determinant or regulator in economic matters. It is a market which is distorted and manipulated, and which acts in an anarchic sort of way. It does not provide the sort of regulation that is required, and which it is in the hands of the Government to exercise to protect the interests of the powerless groups within the community, that is, the great majority of the people whose interests are affected by inflation, unemployment and increases in interest charges.

It is time to change the economic direction being taken by this Government. It is time we had a government that concerns itself with interest rates and the projected increase in the rate of inflation. It is time we had a government that concerns itself with the ever-increasing rise in the rate of unemployment in this country. It is time for us to change this Government, which now stands condemned for its failure to implement the policies which it promised in 1975 and again in 1977 would reduce interest rates throughout the Australian community.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I rise to answer the points which Senator Gietzelt has made. In fact, I have found it extremely difficult to find any relevant matter to which I can address myself in speaking to the matter of concern to Senator Gietzelt. As I read the motion, he is complaining that the Government has failed to keep its promise to lower interest rates. Before addressing my remarks particularly to that aspect let me mention one point emphasised by Senator Gietzelt during his discussion on the subject. He was particularly concerned about home buyers. If honourable senators look closely at this they will get a clear idea of the differences between this Government and the Opposition with regard to policies for economic recovery. (Quorum formed).The Australian Labor Party brought this matter forward today. I notice that only one other Labor senator came into the chamber when the quorum was called. It is interesting to observe that Labor members of parliament are paid as much as Liberal members of parliament yet they do not take the time to sit in the chamber.

We are addressing ourselves to Senator Gietzelt ‘s misunderstanding of economic affairs. He talked particularly of the home buyer and his problem. Quite clearly, the problem of paying an extra one-half of one per cent on a home loan is considerably less to a home buyer than it would be for him to have to pay an extra 20 per cent on the purchase price of a house in the event of the price being inflated as the result of wrong policies. That is precisely what happened during the Labor Government’s term of office. The home buyers most penalised at that time were those who were suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous inflation generated from the great machine of the Whitlam Labor Government.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You cannot keep talking about the Whitlam years.

Senator MESSNER:

-Senator Gietzelt should ask people outside the Parliament. They will understand well enough. Clearly, that aspect fails to make any impact on the Opposition. We should have a little concern for the general proposition that Senator Gietzelt has tried to make. He would have us believe that inflation, interest rates, monetary control and taxation are all independent of one another and that none of them has anything to do with anything else. He comes into the chamber, slings around his hammers and sickles and talks about controlling the economy in a total way such as his party might suggest. Yet, at the same time, he sees no interrelationship between those very important aspects of economic life. In fact, each one of them is interrelated. Each one is subject in one form or another to governmental control. It is important that control be exercised precisely at this time in order to ensure that monetary aggregates- that is, the total supply of money in the community- are kept to the budgetary estimates of approximately 10 per cent as outlined by Treasurer Howard in the August Budget last year.

With that objective and with the acknowledged support of this community, through past election results, that policy of monetary restraint together with a policy of ensuring that costs are kept within bounds means that inflation will fall. That factor is at the core of our economic policy. ( Quorum formed). I point out again that the quorum was called by Senator McLaren who apparently cannot stand the heat in the kitchen. He continues to disrupt the debate. Let us address ourselves to one or two matters of real import in this debate. It is alleged by Senator Gietzelt that the Government has failed to keep its promise with regard to the lowering of interest rates. Senator Gietzelt made no attempt in his speech to make it clear which time he was referring to. What did Senator Gietzelt allege? I believe that he was referring to the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at the time of the election in 1977 that it was expected that interest rates would fall during 1978. Having checked on a few indicators, I have every reason to support the Prime Minister’s statement.

I refer to a graph which has been produced by the eminent economic advisory firm, Syntec Economic Services Pty Ltd, and which appeared in the March edition of that firm’s publication. The graph gives a comparison of the long term corporate bond rate in Australia and the United States. I note that at the end of 1977, which is approximately the time to which Senator Gietzelt referred, the bond rate was around 12 per cent per annum. The graph shows that during 1978 and through 1979 the rate fell to around 9.75 per cent. That is a fall of over 2’A per cent. Consequently, I fail to see the point which Senator Gietzelt made, namely, that the promise of a fall in the interest rate structure was not kept. It is clear from the graph to which I have referred that interest rates continued to fall even through the latter part of 1 979 although there has now been a movement upwards to which Senator Gietzelt referred.

Let us address ourselves to the reasons that interest rates have tended to move upwards in the last few months. We have to consider overseas economic events. Clearly, there has been a very determined effort on the part of the Australian Government to keep control of the interest rate structure throughout Australia by handling with very great care and expertise the exchange rate between Australian currency and that of the United States. Businessmen who think of investing in Australia have two things in mind. One is the rate of interest or the yield which they would get on bonds or equity investments in Australia at the time at which they invested their money. Secondly, they are concerned to see what is the trend in the exchange rate of the currency in which they are investing. Those two factors are very relevant to a decision about investment. Over time the exchange rate has been managed very effectively by this Government. Australian reserves of foreign currencies have remained very high. We have seen a dramatic fall in the value of the United States dollar. We have seen a colossal rise in the price of gold on world money markets in the last three months which, of course, is the inverse reciprocal of the price of the United States dollar. These factors are significant in terms of the trends in this country. Clearly our terms are very good when compared with those of other countries.

I refer again to the graph in the Syntec publication which gives a comparison of the Australian bond rate with the United States corporate bond rate over the last three years from 1 977 to the end of 1979. Whereas in 1977 the United States rate was 3 per cent or 4 per cent below the Australian rate, in the early part of 1980 the United States corporate bond rate is in excess of 12 per cent while the Australian rate is below that figure. In other words, Australian investments are holding their own. We are holding our foreign exchange reserves quite well. We have an interest rate structure that is significantly below that of overseas nations. In 1 974-1 suppose that Senator Gietzelt and his cohorts would use this sort of argument- that advantage to Australia did not exist.

In fact, the movement was the other way. That is why at that time we saw soaring interest rates in Australia which, as I recall, on the daily call market reached of the order of 24 per cent. I recall that at one stage the Bank of New South Wales was so embarrassed that it was forced to go to the Reserve Bank of Australia to seek a call loan for approximately 30 per cent. As I recall also, it was refused that loan by the then Treasurer, the Honourable Frank Crean. That sort of skyrocketing change in interest rates will bring about significant changes in the economy of any nation. But the point at issue is that Australia, compared with the rest of the world, is doing significantly well in terms of interest rates and control of the general monetary stance of this nation. In such a way, it is remaining solid and, indeed, is protecting the hard-won gains of economic competitiveness with the rest of the world which has been established over the past three or four years.

If there is any doubt about the interest rate of Australia compared with the rest of the world, let me quote one or two figures to identify the clear advantage of Australia. I am reading from an index of interest rates applying one year ago compared with the rates applying at the end of February 1980. One year ago, in the United States the rate was 141.3. At the end of February 1980, in the United States it was 196.4. In other words, there was a jump of some 55 index points. In the same period, in the United Kingdom there was a jump from 132.9 to 164.9, a rise of 32 points. Let us compare those figures with those for Australia. Australia’s rise in index points was from 155.8 to 178.4, less than 24 points. That clearly demonstrates that, while other nations are having very significant troubles in keeping interest rates down, Australia is doing extremely well in ensuring that a low interest rate structure is kept in this country.

I return to the main point which Senator Gietzelt made in this debate. He alleged that the Prime Minister had deceived the people of Australia in respect of an election promise made in 1977. Quite clearly, during 1978 and 1979 interest rates fell in accordance with that promise. The honourable senator cannot make out a case in respect of that matter. Since the middle of 1 979, significant changes on the world financial scene have been generated by a great deal of concern over the status of the United States dollar, the price of gold and other matters. Consequently, there have been significant changes in the interest rate structure of the main currencies of the world. (Quorum formed). I draw attention to the fact that Senator Gietzelt, who proposed this matter of public importance, was not present in the chamber when a quorum was called and he did not enter the chamber subsequently.

Senator McLaren:

– He was called out to an urgent telephone call.

Senator Archer:

– It ‘s a long phone call.

Senator MESSNER:

– As my colleague points out, it is a long phone call. I conclude my point by demonstrating that, whilst there have been significant changes in the world monetary scene since the middle of 1979 and whilst, as I have demonstrated, the Australian Government has done a great job in controlling those events insofar as they affect Australia, it is clear that other countries have not had such good fortune in controlling their affairs. I believe that that quite clearly and conclusively demonstrates that the Fraser Liberal-National Country Party Government has the economy soundly under control. We look forward to continuing development in the coming 1980s which will bring great benefits to Australia if the same sorts of policies as those which have been utilised in the last five years are continued in the next decade.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Any debate on interest rates is difficult because it is difficult for any government to combat the effect of overseas economies and the rates of inflation in those countries. I will spend one or two minutes answering the point made by Senator Messner when he claimed that the rate of inflation under the previous Labor Government was ‘outrageous ‘. He went on to use the figure of 24 per cent as being a figure which he had heard was the rate of inflation under that Government.

Senator Messner:

– No, that is not what I said.

Senator WRIEDT:

– If the honourable senator were to check Hansard he would find that was the figure he used. I will put the record straight by quoting the Federal Treasurer, Mr Howard. He said, in reply to a question on notice that I asked him late last year, that the average annual increase in the inflation rate over the three years of the previous Labor Government was 13.2 per cent compared with an average annual increase of 1 1.6 per cent in the first three years of this Government, representing a difference of 1.6 per cent. If the rate of inflation under the previous Labor Government was outrageous, the rate of increase under the present Government is also very close to being outrageous. It is ludicrous to suggest that there was any marked or substantial difference between the inflation rates in the three years of the previous Labor Government and the inflation rates in the three years of this Government.

Let us look at the reason for the difference. Senator Messner brushed over what we call import inflation, that is, the increase in the price of goods for which we as a nation have to pay. In the financial year 1974-75 the increase in the price of imported goods was no less than 25 per cent, which was probably the most dramatic increase in the cost of imported goods that this country has ever seen. That increase came upon us suddenly as a result of factors which none of the other nations was geared for or was expecting. Yet, in the first year of this present Government, that increase was only 1 3 per cent; in the second year, 1977-78, it was only 10 per cent; and in the third year, 1978-79, it increased to 16 per cent.

The point is that any government which has to weather increases of 25 per cent in its import prices obviously will experience a tremendous pressure on inflation in its country. That was the principal reason- we saw the inflation rate increase at the speed it did in 1974-75. But the present Government has not been laboured with that problem to the same extent as the previous Government was. Senator Messner said that the Fraser Government was doing very well. I cannot understand how anyone on the Government side could claim that the Government is doing well when the rate of inflation is on the increase. The rate is now at least 10 per cent. Mr Risstrom of the Australian Taxpayers Association said recently that he anticipated it rising to about 14 per cent some time later this year.

On the question of interest rates, which Senator Messner also referred to, we ought again to look at what Ministers of the Government of which he is a supporter are having incorporated in Hansard. The figures incorporated by Mr Groom on 4 March this year cover interest rate movements in this country from 1973 to 1978 and show that interest rates over the three years of the Fraser Government have been higher than they were in the three years of the Labor Government. I hope that no one on the Government side will argue about that. The information is in Hansard. The table shows that the average interest rate for the three years 1973, 1974 and 1975 was 10.7 per cent and that the average rate for the three succeeding years- that is, for the period this Government has been in office- is 1 1.2 per cent. Certainly it is only half a per cent difference, but half a per cent can be very important to those people with home loan mortgages, as Senator Gietzelt pointed out. Let me make the record quite clear. Interest rates have been higher in the three years of the Fraser Government than they were under the previous government. That is history.

Let us look at the present position and at what the Prime Minister committed himself to and said when he was in Opposition. For example, when he was addressing the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science on 22 January 1975, he said:

When political leaders say the present situation cannot bc helped, it is part of a world situation, they are expressing the futility of their own leadership.

He was, of course, referring primarily to inflation. He was saying, when he was in Opposition, that when things were going wrong it was an indication of the futility of the leadership of the government of the day. Is the Prime Minister not in exactly that position today? It is his own leadership that is so futile. He was interviewed only last night on the radio program PM. The transcript states:

Speaking to reporters, Mr Fraser declined to predict whether the latest rises in home loan interest rates would be temporary or whether they could go up still further.

Mr Fraser said:

I am not going to make any predictions because I can’t make predictions about what is happening overseas.

What a complete contrast to what he said in January 1 975 when, of course, the boot was on the other foot. When he was in Opposition it suited him to refer to the futility of the leadership of the government of the day. He now finds himself in exactly the same position. He brushes it off and says: ‘I cannot make predictions because I do not know what will happen overseas’. If he had only half a knowledge of the effect of the increase in prices of imported goods he would have known in 1 975 that no government could escape the consequences. Of course when the election came along in late 1977 he made his position on interest rates quite clear. In addressing a Melbourne Stock Exchange dinner on 4 November 1977 he said:

Significantly lower interest rates are vital to full economic recovery.

Then, in one of his weekly electorate talks, on 1 3 November he said:

I now look forward to the day when overdraft rates and building society rates start to come down.

Again, on 4 December, in another electorate talk he said:

Lower interest rates will reduce the cost of mortgage finance up to $10 a week on an average building society loan for a new home.

On 28 November 1977 the Sydney Morning Hera Id reported:

Mr Anthony said on Friday that he would eat his hat if there was not a 2 percentage point fall over the next year.

He was referring to interest rates. Nobody these days believes very much what Mr Fraser says about anything. It is almost superfluous to spend time referring to the promises which he has made in his parliamentary career and which he has not kept. We all know those things. It is important that we remind ourselves of what was said by Mr Fraser as the Leader of the Opposition in 1 975 and as Prime Minister in the election campaign of November 1977. He made promises which he must have known in his own mind it would be impossible to keep. He made promises, undertakings and commitments which he could not possibly keep. Alternatively his understanding of the issues of interest rates and the economy was so abysmal that it was impossible for him to make any intelligent or informed statement.

As Senator Messner quite rightly said, inflation is very much wedded to interest rates. We all understand that. As the inflation rate moves up there is pressure on interest rates as well. One of the favourite accusations is that the inflation rate is forced up by increasing wages. It is never incomes, only the wage demands of low income earners such as manufacturing workers who are seeking to get more than the average wage of $165 a week. We are told that that is the principal reason why the inflation rate is forced up. Let me look again at the figures supplied by the Treasurer. In the three years of the previous government we had an average annual 7 per cent increase in real terms in incomes- that is, in wages and salaries in Australia. Under the present Government the increase in real terms, according to the Treasurer, is only half of one per cent. So, there has been a dramatic decline in the purchasing power of wage and salary earners in Australia. About 85 per cent to 90 per cent of all Australian income earners who are on wages and salaries have had this dramatic reduction in the purchasing power of their money. Despite that we have seen a continuing increase in inflation and now, of course, interest rates as a result of the policies of Mr Fraser.

What has caused the increasing inflation that we are now witnessing and which may well rise, as Mr Risstrom says, to 14 per cent this year? Let us look at the reasons which are solely related to the policies of the Fraser Government. I refer to increases in sales tax and excise tax on tobacco and liquor, to the 2 per cent ad valorem customs duty on all imports, the impact of the increases in health charges, the inability of the Government to increase consumer demand and our rather slack manufacturing output which has meant that with increased unemployment there has been further social security and welfare payments. Last but not least, of course, is the increase in petrol prices caused by the policy of grabbing every cent from the increase in overseas prices. We know that 90 per cent of the motor spirit that is consumed in this country is produced in this country at a rate of about $3 or $4 a barrel. Mr Fraser has pushed up the price, by imposing that tax, to the electorate to about $30 a barrel in order to extract his additional $3,000m revenue.

The important point to learn from the whole exercise of the Government in respect of interest rates and inflation is the fact that prior to the last election the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, made promises which he knew he could not keep. He did so deliberately to try to deceive the Australian people- he did so quite effectivelyinto believing that he in fact would get inflation and interest rates down. He has failed on those counts as he has failed on so many others.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

-In responding from the Government side I remind the Opposition that after the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made that undertaking to lower interest rates, interest rates actually fell. I contend that circumstances today are very different from what they were when the statement was made. I think it is important that we recognise the two-fold cost effect of an interest rate. Firstly it reflects a price for holding money and secondly it reflects a price for borrowing. Lower inflation and a contained public sector borrowing are fundamental prerequisites to lowering interest rates. I think it is also significant to note at this stage that the Australian economy is now performing much more strongly than it was at the time the statement was made and at the time of the last Budget. For example, for the 1 2 months ended December 1979 Australia’s inflation rate was approximately 10 per cent. Compare this with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average of just over 12 per cent. Australia’s comparatively low inflation compared with our overseas competitors and the facts that we have valuable resources, a pragmatic management of our exchange rate and sound management of our economy have made Australian industry and Australian exports much more competitive.

We now have a buoyant rural sector and therefore strong growth in exports. Australia is now seen as a very attractive place in which to invest funds in natural resources. I think it is important that interest rates to some extent reflect market pressures. If we get away from this important principle we get into a situation of humps and bumps in infrastructure and of having an oversupply in certain market sectors and an undersupply in others. In the Government sector, the Australian treasury bond, if underpriced, might fail to secure sufficient interest from potential lenders. Thus the Australian Government would receive insufficient funds to finance the deficit and also to absorb the excess money supply. Australian savings bonds, treasury notes, et cetera are vital factors in mopping up excess liquidity.

I was rather concerned that despite statements by eminent economists world wide that this Government is managing the economy in a very sound fashion, the leading speaker on the opposite side, Senator Gietzelt, said that there is a major move for an economic turn-about, for changing the Government’s economic policies. I think that it is important that when Government is pursuing sound economic policies it should have the support of the Opposition. Instead our policies are constantly denigrated in the public eye. whilst it is recognised overseas that our policies are sound and encouraging investment. While Opposition senators are seeking to interject I think it is important to note that in 1972 when the Labor Party came into office the inflation rate was 4 per cent and when it left office the inflation rate approximated 1 8 per cent. I make one point in defence of Senator Messner. He talked about a 24 per cent inflation rate. This was queried by Senator Wriedt. Senator Messner was referring to the call rate which is the marginal rate.

I think it is important to trace the history of sound management of the economy. In the 1960s the emphasis was on controlling interest rates. Today, because of a differing situation, the same emphasis cannot be placed on controlling interest rates. In the 1960s the emphasis was on the control of interest rates and not on money supply. But this situation has now changed. In the late 1970s and in the 1980s the emphasis is on controlling the money supply of the country.

Senator Georges:

– Why?

Senator WATSON:

– The reason is that in the 1960s inflation was low. In the 1970s and 1980s we have a situation of rising world inflation. In this situation the sound economic measures necessary are not to control the rate of interest but, more importantly, to control the money supply. I am afraid that this is where the Opposition goes awry. If we reduced interest rates- as the Opposition wishes the Government to do- the Government would be abandoning its fight against inflation. This would mean that the Commonwealth would offer securities to the market at interest rates substantially below those offered by the free market. The result would be that fewer people would take up Government loans. I mentioned that in addition to funding of the deficit, Commonwealth loans and treasury notes are important factors in controlling the money supply in Australia. To reduce interest rates by 2 per cent- as many of my colleagues on the opposite benches advocate- would result in an upsurge in inflationary pressure and an associated increase in the money supply. I repeat that it is not sound economics to control both money supply and interest rates, as the Opposition advocates.

In the 1970s and also moving into the 1980s, money supply is looked upon by all recognised economists throughout the world as an important indicator because it indicates people’s expectations as to what will happen to inflation. (Quorum formed). I mentioned that the money supply is an important indicator of what will happen to inflation and to inflationary expectations. I emphasise that there is no precise mathematical link between the two, but there is mathematical evidence that higher inflationary expectations follow increases in money supply. Whether this effect takes six months, 12 months or two years to occur is dependent on a number of outer factors.

What has given rise to the increases in interest rates? I think that we have to recognise that the increase in the price of oil is a most important factor. Another important factor beginning to emerge is the creation of what I might term international cartels in certain raw materials. I can see the continuing growth of these cartels in the 1980s, controlling certain commodity prices thus leading to inflationary factors and inflationary expectations. On the other hand there are the expectations on the part of labour in the work force to continue to participate in increasing wage gains many of which are in excess of productivity increases. In the light of this prophecy 1 can see the need for the Government to continue its fight against inflation because inflationary pressures are evident and will continue to grow.

This matter must be viewed in the international context. The impact of increased interest rates on business expectations initially tends to make business funds more expensive. But it also convinces businesses that in the long run the Government knows what it is doing, that it is controlling and managing the economy. It means that businessmen expect that inflation will not go through the roof as it did under Labor, that it will be contained and managed. The other inevitable impact will be some increases in prices. But we must be careful that we do not sit down and close our eyes to the inevitableness that has happened in the United States of America with President Carter who said ‘If we do nothing about it the factors will resolve themselves’, with the result that now he is forced to take drastic measures that will affect all countries around the world. We find them in situations of chronic high inflation. Let me quote from the Economic Newsletter issued by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation on 18 February 1980, which states:

Once the curtailment of money supply growth (in conjunction with other policies of restraint) succeeds in reducing inflation, interest rates can come down. Therefore we have the apparent paradox that for inflation and interest rates to fall, interest rates must first rise. The effects of higher interest rates on existing cost structures arc generally regarded us being relatively small in a majority of cases. Studies in the United States suggest that interest payments represent perhaps as little as 3 per cent of total business costs. Moreover, a rise in interest rates does not significantly affect aggregate debt in society- the volume of long-term corporate and government debt is much higher than short-term debt. And, in any event, the rise in costs due to higher interest rates over the past few years would be substantially less than the overall increase in the cost of living.

I think it is important to recognise that Australia’s inflation rate and interest rate are substantially below those of its major trading partners. Let us look at a few figures. I think it is important to look at the situation. The prime rate of interest in the United States at the moment is 19 per cent whereas the overdraft rate in Australia at present is 10.5 per cent. What a tremendous difference! In the United Kingdom we see that the base rate of interest is 1 7 per cent, which means the cost to the borrower would be in excess of 18 per cent. A lot of the columnists have asked: ‘Why has there not been a large outflow of capital from Australia?’. It is because of the tremendous difference between Australia ‘s inflation rate and its interest rate and those of the Western world. Why has capital not flowed out of this country? It would be doing this but for our resources and our sound management of the economy and the fact that Australia is a wonderful place in which to invest. We are now in a position where we have capital inflow. Unprecedented capital came into Australia in January. Although it moderated in February, world investors still see Australia as a good place in which to invest.

I quote figures from Syntec ‘s world interest rate index. My colleague, Senator Messner, mentioned the percentage point increase. I will give some significant increases comparing today with 12 months ago. The increase for Switzerland is 135 percent; Australia, 14.5 percent; the United States, 39 per cent; Japan, 40 per cent; Germany, 76 per cent. This will give honourable senators some indication of how we have successfully managed our economy in keeping inflation rates down. We have stable international reserves and consistency in strategy. We maintain our attack on inflation, and as such we maintain business confidence, thereby ensuring that Australia has a viable and growing economy.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Collard)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator Townley:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Senator Georges:

– The debate has not finished. How can you do so right now and interrupt the debate?

Senator Townley:

– You should know the rules. It is the right time to do it.

-The Senate is debating a motion on the Government’s failure to keep its promise to lower interest rates. The motion relates particularly to the Fraser Government. Listening very carefully to Senator Watson I understood that he was making the point that Malcolm Fraser was not the Prime Minister of Switzerland or Japan or a number of other countries which he mentioned- a fact for which those countries could be eternally grateful- but that in fact he was Prime Minister of Australia. The substance of the debate arises from an election promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in the context of the 1977 election. He said:

Once the election is over we will start to move to the consummation of a 2 per cent reduction in interest rates . . . that means about $500 a year for someone on an average home loan.

That comment of the Prime Minister of Australia was supported by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, who on 26 November 1977 assured the people of Australia.

We are slowly starting to get interest rates down and we will get them down, but you will only get them down if you have sound economic policies.

Implicit in that remark is the fact that we have not had sound economic policies since 1977 when Mr Anthony made the remark. He then went on to say that if interest rates did not come down by 2 percentage points in the next 12 months he would eat his hat. That is at least a statement of considerable courage compared with that of the Prime Minister. Mr Anthony was prepared at least to put his hat where his mouth was -

Senator Lewis:

– This is the same speech as you made last week.

Senator BUTTON:

-That is more than Senator Lewis, the great interjector in this chamber, is ever prepared to do. The promise by the Prime Minister to the people of Australia was made in the context of a series of promises which go to the whole question of the legitimacy of the present Government in Canberra. Promises were made about Medibank, wage indexation, unemployment falling from February next year and so on. Implicit in all those promises, the first series of which was made in 1975, was the suggestion: If we get rid of this Labor Government then we will do better in terms of all these matters. We will embark upon this extraordinary course upon which we have embarked, dividing this nation and taking extraordinary steps in the Senate to get rid of an elected government because we will do better. What were the people of Australia told about how the coalition parties would do better? They were told a number of things about Medibank, inflation, unemployment and wage indexation- all these things. None of those promises have been kept.

This debate today is about a particular promise relating to interest rates which has not been kept. Both Mr Anthony and the Prime Minister were associated in that promise. Government senators come here today and read us reams of statistics about the situation of interest rates overseas. For the enlightenment of Senator Lewis, 1 remind him that it was once said that statisticians sometimes use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post- for support rather than illumination. Today honourable senators opposite have been using overseas statistics in an attempt to support a very shonky case, but there is not much illumination in the statistics which have been provided which is relevant to the problem that the Senate is debating.

Government speakers, and particularly Senator Watson, have sought to say: ‘We have by implication broken this promise. We have departed from our promises about interest rates solemnly given to the people of Australia’. But they say ‘We have an alibi- what is happening overseas’. In the context of Australian party politics I wonder how the Prime Minister, who can make those sorts of promises to which we refer, is now entitled to rely on an alibi, the sort of alibi he was never prepared to extend to anybody else. I think most Government senators are or ought to be familiar with the statements which he made about that. On 22 January 1975, in a speech which he made to the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, he had this to say about the question of overseas influences on the Australian economy:

I do not believe that men and women are governed by inexorable events beyond control. When political leaders say the present situation cannot be helped, it is part of a world situation, they are expressing the futility of their own leadership when if they were men of real stature, they would be saying ‘we can overcome’.

They are the words of the Prime Minister, and I advise honourable senators on the Government side to stick to him like a leech and go down with him, because he will go down on the basis of all of these promises that he has made in the past and his absolute incredibility, not credibility, in terms of what he is able to deliver having regard to the sorts of promises which he has made. Again and again, day after day, we see examples of this man shooting from the hip, particularly in the area of foreign affairs. In everything he says when on his overseas trips he is shooting from the hip, saying the first thing that comes into his head or the last thing that has been blown into his ear by some adviser or another.

In the context of those promises which have been made and the alibi which Government speakers now seek, let me turn to the facts in relation to interest rates. Up to January 1978- that is the period set out in the financial indicators statement- the range of interest rates varied from a 0.98 per cent increase to a 1.76 per cent increase. Since January 1980, interest rates on overdrafts of less than $100,000 have increased by a further 0.5 per cent. Today’s announcement recorded in the Australian Financial Review is relevant not only to what has happened in the past few months but also to what is likely to happen in the immediate future. An article in the Australian Financial Review headed ‘Interest rate rises spread ‘ reads:

Higher interest rates spread further through the banking sector yesterday with increases by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, as more Victorian building societies moved to lift their rates by 0.5 percent from April 1.

The move in Victoria now takes in all societies except the National Mutual Permanent Society, which has decided against any changes ‘ at this stage ‘.

There is this further comment in that article to which I would refer the Senate:

A spokesman for the State Savings Bank of Victoria said yesterday that the bank would most likely be announcing increased rates but no decision would be reached before Thursday.

That is tomorrow. Having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister made this promise about a reduction in interest rates of 2 per cent and having regard to the recent increase by 0.5 per cent, let us look at who pays for these broken promises, for this economic ineptitude and for the fact, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) said, that if interest rates do not decline it is because of economic mismanagement. They are his words, not mine. Let us look at who pays for all of this in the Australian community. First of all, it is the Australian home buyer who pays. On the Prime Minister’s own statement, a 2 per cent reduction in interest rates, as he put it, would amount to a reduction in repayments of $500 a year for someone on an average house loan. That is the bait that he used in late 1977 to attract voters. In order to obtain votes in the election which took place in December of 1977 he was saying: ‘You, the people of Australia with home interest mortgages, are going to pay $500 a year less on your mortgages if I am re-elected to power’. That is what Fraser was saying. But instead of a reduction, as the Prime Minister promised, there is a 0.5 per cent increase with a promise of more to come, as the Australian Financial Review article mentions. On the Prime Minister’s own figures, the figures that I quoted, a 0.5 per cent increase represents an impost of $ 10 a month on the average home buyer- presumably the average home buyer who is offered by this Government a tax reduction of 85c a week. That is what the 0.5 per cent increase means to the home buyer.

But what does it mean to small business? The 2 per cent drop in interest rates which the Prime Minister promised would have amounted to a gift, if you like, of $200m to small businessmen throughout Australia. That would have been the benefit which flowed to small businessmen if the Prime Minister !s promise had been kept and economic management had not been as inept as it has been. That is the amount by which repayments on overdrafts would have been reduced had that promise been honoured. The reality is that instead there is an increase which amounts to an extra impost of $50m on small business. The reality gap for small businessmen between the promise and the performance of Malcolm Fraser is $250m. The Department of Industry and Commerce estimates that at the end of 1977 there were 372,000 small businesses in Australia, all of which are affected by this broken promise. That means that 96 per cent of all business enterprises in Australia, employing about 1.6 million people or nearly 40 per cent of the total private work force, are affected. These are the people who are affected by this man ‘s failure to deliver what he promised by way of election bait. Can there be any confidence in small business when there is such a dishonest government in this country, and when the affairs of this country are so mismanaged by this Government?

When one looks at the article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review of Thursday, 20 March, announcing that the Prime Minister was making a crusade about small business, it is important to look at some of the crusades which he has undertaken before on behalf of small business- crusades which in four years have resulted in the number of bankruptcies of small businesses increasing by 103 per cent under the Fraser Government. So much for the new crusade.

As I have said in this place on previous occasions, the greatest thing that can be given to small business by any government is the right to survive as a small business, and the right to survive as a small business is being taken away daily from small businesses as a result of failed expectations and the imposition of higher interest rates by this Government. That has led to the sort of bankruptcy statistics to which I referred a moment ago. The fallacy in all of this turns on the debate of the relationship between the money supply and interest rates. I do not want to go into that in any great detail because of the time available to me. What has happened in Australia is simply that, because of the high level of private capital inflow and because of high farm incomes, two sectors are doing well and these have affected interest rates. As a result, the burden has been thrust upon those thousands and thousands of Australians who, unlike the Prime Minister’s father-in-law, cannot borrow their money at 4 per cent interest. They have to borrow money at the prevailing bank rates, whether it be for a home loan orin respect of their businesses.

These are the problems with which this matter of public importance is directly concerned. The whole question turns on the credibility of a government which has encouraged expectations by promises of lowering interest rates but which in fact has moved in the opposite direction. In that situation the Government seeks an alibi from what is happening overseas- an alibi which it did not have the intellectual honesty to concede to anybody else in terms of economic management. That is the thrust of this matter of public importance, and I commend it to the Senate.

Senator ROCHER:
Western Australia

– After listening to the Opposition speakers, the Senate and indeed the Australian public could be forgiven for wondering whether the Opposition has anything constructive to offer by way of economic management in general and in terms of reducing interest rates in particular. Constructive criticism is one thing, but empty criticism which does not offer the prospect of worthwhile, workable solutions is meaningless. The point was made by Senator Messner, and it must be made again, that the No. 1 prerequisite to lowering interest rates is a low rate of inflation. No one on the Government benches would disagree with those who claim that inflation is too high. It is certainly too high; we agree.

Our efforts must be directed towards not only controlling it, which I believe we have done, but also to reducing it, which is a much more difficult task. At the same time, no reasonable person would claim that the Fraser Government’s achievements in keeping inflation down to current levels has not been commendable, given international and internal pressures. The same can be said about inflation rates. It is true that there is pressure on interest rates to escalate, and we are seeing that happen right now. Despite the rationalising by Senator Button, the greater part of that pressure is due to external factors. Not the least international pressure, of course, resulted from the decisions of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries substantially and regularly to increase oil prices.

These international factors have brought about increases in interest rates. Since July 1979, a period of eight or nine months, we have noted that interest rates in the United States have risen by 6.9 per cent to about 15 per cent. In the United Kingdom, over the same period, they have risen by three per cent to approximately 1 8 per cent. In Japan, in the same period, they have risen by three per cent, as in Canada, while in West Germany the escalation in interest rates over the last eight or nine months has been 2lA per cent. To all intents and purposes, the object of lower interest rates has been frustrated only because of foreign influences and despite sound internal policies.

The explosion of interest rates and inflation under the Whitlam Government, by way of contrast, came about because of internal ineptness and external pressures. I acknowledge that there were external pressures at the time of the Whitlam Government but it was a very serious combination when coupled with the internal policies of that period which we would all like to forget. But the explosion, even in those days, far exceeded increases in inflation in comparable countries and far exceeded inflation in economies similar to our own. I will digress for a little while; Senator Gietzelt indicated that there was something almost evil in the revenues, received as a result of the Government’s oil parity pricing policy, being used to reduce the deficit. The Labor Party failed to get its deficits under control. That was despite oppressive unindexed personal taxation.

Senator Button:

– I wouldn’t talk about that if I were you.

Senator ROCHER:

– Whilst I agree with Senator Button that we have not gone the whole way- I will accept that as a criticism- we are making the effort and are moving towards it. The level of taxation decreased in December last, and more decreases are expected in July. If any one act is designed to cope with reducing and minimising the strains on the monetary supply, the Treasurer’s action in using revenue from the oil parity pricing policy to reduce the deficit is the most successful and the most responsible that could have been taken in all the circumstances. Perhaps it is that success which disturbs Senator Gietzelt.

By any comparison, the present economic situation is a tribute to the Government’s performance. There is irrefutable evidence that an international perception prevails to the effect that the Australian economy and dollar are strong. These facts seem to be difficult for the Labor Party to live with, and I can understand that. Senator Gietzelt went on to talk about housing interest, and I will quote a couple of figures which throw some further light on the matter. The average interest rate charged in Australia on housing loans, weighted by States according to lending levels, at the end of the 1 974 December quarter was 1 1.73 per cent. In 1975 it was 10.9 per cent. In 1979 it was 10.78 per cent. That is an effective reduction in anyone’s language and, combined with the successful attack on inflation, has maintained the equity of the home owner and kept the price to the new home owners down. That represents a real saving- an enormous saving- by any comparison. What is the position overseas?

In the United Kingdom, for example, the basic rate of interest recommended by the Building Societies Association Council for permanent building society loans on new advances to owner-occupiers- this figure is effective as at December 1979, and I understand it to be current- was 1 5 per cent. In the United States of America, the average interest rate on savings and loan associations commitments as at early January of this year was 13.07 per cent. Canadian commercial banks, on loans up to 75 per cent of valuation, have a going rate of 13.75 per cent. On loans over 75 per cent of valuation the rate is 1 5 per cent. In New Zealand, the predominant range of rates from institutional sources- this is from only very limited information, I am afraid- ranges from 12 per cent to 14 per cent.

Despite all the doom and gloom preached about housing, the number of loans made by major banks and permanent building societies increased by 9.3 per cent in the year ended December 1979. In November 1977, the Prime Minister predicted that interest rates would fall by 2 per cent, and they subsequently fell by something like one per cent. That prediction was made, based on the expectations which were real at that time. Of course, in any economy such as we have experienced here- and I have given examples of overseas trends- things change. It is true to say that the expectations have changed and that the basis for making that prediction was right. Nevertheless, it was a valid exercise for the Prime Minister to undertake, and it did achieve, however -

Senator Tate:

– Temporarily.

Senator ROCHER:

– Temporarily- not long enough, I agree- but there was some effect. The Government was successful, in accordance with the limits of its powers, in reducing to some extent the onus and the obligation on home owners. I conclude by paraphrasing something that Mr Howard said in a recent statement that he made in the other place. He said that only by pursuing an uncompromising attack upon inflation- and therefore interest rates- will we be able to ensure that Australia’s great potential is realised in the 1980s. I support the measures which the Government has adopted and I will continue to support them while they are responsible. I move:

Senator McLaren:

– I rise on a point of order. The notice paper that was placed before us stated that the time limit for this debate was two hours. We have nowhere near reached the time limit of two hours. We now find a Government senator moving: ‘That the business of the day be called on’.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order. Under sessional order I must put the question.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1034

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation on the ground that Senator Townley has just misrepresented me.

Leave granted.

Senator McLAREN:

– During Senator Townley ‘s remarks which he sought the leave of the Senate to make, he said that in a bit of back chat I made a remark during the forming of a quorum. Senator Townley has a very short memory because attention was directed to the state of the chamber three times during that debate. I did not call the first one. But I did say that I did not see him in the chamber when the earlier quorum was called. I repeat that Senator Townley, as far as I was aware, was not in the Senate when the first quorum was called. He now maintains that he was. I think he made a very weak excuse to try to get out of the net in which he was caught because he was not in the chamber.

Senator Townley:

– That is not what you said at all.

Senator McLAREN:

– The honourable senator should read Hansard tomorrow, if the comments are recorded in it. I claim that he has misrepresented me in that respect and that what I said was that he was not in the Senate when the first quorum was called. I stick by that statement.

page 1035

INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

Report of Australian Delegation for 1979

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

-I present and table the report of the Australian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union for 1979 and seek leave to make a brief statement relating to that report.

Leave granted.

Senator THOMAS:

– The Inter-Parliamentary Union is a world-wide organisation of parliamentarians dedicated to the promotion of international understanding and peace, to the strengthening of parliamentary institutions and to the support of the objectives of the United Nations. The membership currently consists of national groups representing 88 countries of which 72 countries were present at the spring meeting in Prague and 82 countries attended the 66th Conference in Caracas. Article I of the Union’s statutes sets out the purpose of the Union as follows:

The aim of the Inter-Parliamentary Union is to promote personal contacts between members of all parliaments, constituted into national groups, and to unite them in common action to secure and maintain the full participation of their respective States in the firm establishment and development of representative institutions and in the advancement of the work of international peace and co-operation, particularly by supporting the objectives of the United Nations. With this object in view, the Inter-Parliamentary Union will also study and seek solutions for all questions of an international character suitable for settlement by parliamentary action and shall make suggestions for the development of parliamentary institutions, with a view to improving the working of those institutions and increasing their prestige.

The work of the United Nations and its various bodies is well known to everyone. The best shorthand indication of the nature of the Inter-Parliamentary Union is to say that, whereas the United Nations is the world-wide organisation of governments and commands resources and world attention accordingly, the IPU is the world-wide organisation of parliamentsnot well known but a significant world body which should receive the interest and support of all members of this Parliament. The InterParliamentary Union is widely accepted as an important forum for the exchange of views and a meeting of minds on the central matter of EastWest relations. This is the counterpoise to the difficulties for many approaching the InterParliamentary Union from a Western standpoint- that there is a measure of unreality and incongruity about an organisation of parliaments which includes most of the countries of the Eastern bloc as well as other states with a dubious claim to the practice of parliamentary democracy as we know it.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union is also an important context for the furtherance of the socalled north-south dialogue, that is, Third World issues. In this respect Australia, as a rich but commodity exporting country and thus having interests in common with both developed and developing countries, has a key role to play. As well as its consideration of such major world issues, the Inter-Parliamentary Union also makes a continuing contribution in more specific areas. The most important of these is its work in pursuit of the human rights of parliamentarians. This report provides an account of the deliberations and conclusions reached at both the Prague spring meetings of the Union and the 66th Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Caracas, Venezuela, with particular reference to the contributions by the members of the Australian national groups.

I wish to place on record my thanks on behalf of the whole delegation to the advisers to the delegation, Mr Michael Thawley, who advised the delegation at Prague, and Miss Sue Boyd, who advised us at Caracas, and to the Secretary, Mr H. C. Nicholls, for the high standard of their work. I commend the study of this report to all honourable senators and members and seek their assistance in furthering the work of the Union in the national Parliament.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- As the other senator who attended the Inter-Parliamentary Union conferences both in Prague and in Caracas, I desire to say a few words about the report that has just been tabled. I agree with my colleague in the other place, the honourable member for Newcastle, Mr Charles Jones, when he pointed out in the debate that took place there yesterday when the report was tabled, that serious disadvantages are suffered by members of the Australian Parliament who attend these conferences. When we get to the conferences we find that some countries have delegates present year in year out. I understand that some of them have been permanent delegates for as long as about 15 years. Those people have a great advantage over members of the Australian Parliament who probably attend IPU conferences only once in the time they spend in the Parliament.

Senator Cavanagh:

– How much longer will you be in the Senate?

Senator McLAREN:

– I am not looking for another trip. The point is that I found we suffered a serious disadvantage because at a lot of the committee meetings French is spoken. One feels just like a little terrier running around in a pack. One can hear things going on but one cannot understand them. At the committee meetings decisions are made which come back to the full Council -

Senator Sibraa:

– It sounds like the Senate.

Senator McLAREN:

– It might be like the Senate, I guess. That is one of the serious disadvantages suffered by most of the delegates although we know that the Leader and the Deputy Leader are appointed for the term of the Parliament. As Mr Jones pointed out, if an early election is called, they do not even have an appointment for three years. It could well be that this year we might find that Mr Edwards, who is Leader, and Mr Jones, who is the Deputy Leader, may find themselves not attending the sessions after the Oslo meeting because if we have an election in July no delegates will attend. This is one of the problems we face. I have to be critical of the remarks made by my colleague, Mr Jones, yesterday. On page 1159 of yesterday’s Hansard for the House of Representatives, Mr Jones is reported as stating:

I believe it is time to reverse the situation and locate the secretariat in the House of Representatives.

I concur with my parliamentary colleague, Senator Thomas, who paid a compliment to Mr Michael Thawley and to Miss Sue Boyd for the wonderful work they did in assisting the delegation. Mr Thawley accompanied us to Prague and Sue Boyd accompanied us to Caracas. I also compliment Mr Nicholls for the work he did when he accompanied the delegation to both places. I find it a little hard to take when Charlie Jones says that the secretariat for the IPU delegation should be relocated in the other place. My inquiries indicate that the House of Representatives already provides the secretariat for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences. I think it wants to hog the lot. No criticism at all can be levelled at Mr Nicholls or whoever else has accompanied InterParliamentary Union delegations for the work they have done. They have been most dedicated and they deserve credit rather than a suggestion that the secretariat should be taken to the other place. It would be sad if that were to happen.

I also want to comment about the remarks made by the honourable member for Denison, Mr Michael Hodgman, when he talked about democracies. We all know the beliefs of the honourable member for Denison. He is very anti-socialist in every shape and form and he never loses an opportunity to criticise socialist countries. Because of his attitudes there was some ill feeling in some of the private meetings that we held. I will not go into that today; he knows my feelings. On page 1 160 of yesterday’s House of Representatives Hansard, Mr Hodgman is recorded as stating: 1 believe it is the duty of those who do come from parliamentary democracies to apply what pressure they can, by reasoned argument, to persuade those who do not have that advantage to switch to that system.

- Senator Harradine must speak to the report which is now the matter before the Senate.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I will confine my remarks to the matter before the Chair. I make a point in respect of the remarks by Senator Georges. I was disturbed that invitations to the so-called parliament of the USSR should be issued by the Presiding Officers of this Parliament. Of course, the invitations are not current. They were issued and the reciprocal visits took place 18 months ago or thereabouts. I maintain a consistent attitude about this matter. I maintained it when I was in the trade union movement; I maintain it now that I am in the Parliament. We should avoid giving any recognition at all to the bogus organisations which are designed to keep in office the dictators in the Kremlin. I suggest that if there is any thought in future of issuing invitations to such totalitarian countries, such proposals should be submitted to the Parliament so that parliamentarians can debate them and vote upon them.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-by leave- I intervene in this debate for the purpose of recording in the Senate Hansard the words of somebody much more eloquent than myself. I refer to Lord Philip Noel-Baker, a man who is an athlete, a parliamentarian and a pacifist. He wrote an article headed ‘Sport too precious to be expendable by politicians’. I link that article with the sentiments of a number of our leading athletes which have appeared in the National Times. I seek leave to have the article incorporated in Hansard in lieu of the remainder of my speech. I have handed a copy to the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott).

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

My good friend Godfrey Brown went to the Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936 and won a gold medal. This year he wrote to the Times to say that he regrets he went.

I did not go to the Berlin Games in 1 936, and I wrote to the Times to state the grounds of principle on which I stayed away. In 1 980 I regret not having gone to Berlin. It has been a lifelong regret that I did not see Godfrey, one of the greatest of all Cambridge athletes, run his superb last leg in the 4x 400 metres relay, winning the blue riband of the Games for Britain.

My grounds of principle were strong. Hitler had violated the Olympic charter by excluding Jews and Catholics and workers’ from the German team. I wrote to the chairman of the German National Olympic Committee to protest. He was Karl von Halt, who had been my club-mate in the Munich Sports Club in 1913, but my self-sacrifice in not going to Berlin served no useful purpose. It did Hitler no harm, just as my presence would have done him no good.

Some have argued that Hitler’s presence in the stadium greatly increased his power over the German people and his prestige in the world. Hitler tried his best to exploit that view. But the Games did nothing to increase his power, for it was absolute already.

The Games brought him a crushing humiliation. When he put up swastikas and Nazi slogans in the stadium the International Olympic Committee instantly ordered him to take them down. He had to obey, and the fact was known to his nation within a day.

More important still, the message that the Games gave to the Germans was that Hitler’s ‘Aryan ‘ racialism and his militant militarist mouthings about Germany’s armed power were false, stupid, and obscene. The message was that the greatest athletes in the world were black men- Jesse Owen with four gold medals, Woodruf and others; and that these great athletes were also splendid people, loved and admired by all.

The message was that the chosen competitors of all the nations were one great happy family, inspired by the same ideal of sportsmanship, bound together by ties of common interest and friendship. The message made Nazi doctrine and Nazi practice look abhorrent to anyone with eyes to sec.

Three years later, in late August 1939, the whole world knew that Hitler was about to launch his war. But long before that an athletics match had been arranged between Germany and Britain, to be held at Cologne. The war was obviously so near that the AAA asked my advice. ‘Was it wise to send a team?’ After many consultations I advised them to go. The team, weakened by injury, suffered a heavy defeat. But the huge crowd gave the beaten British an enormous ovation. Pressmen and athletes interpreted it as a protest against the coming war.

The sequel to the match was dramatic. In the evening the teams dined together in a boat on the Rhine. Lord Burghley, as president of the Amateur Athletic Association, was there. At the dinner von Halt said to him: ‘Why don’t you go to Neville Chamberlain, and I’ll go to Hitler, and we’ll tell them that the young people of our countries don ‘t want to fight?’ It was agreed. Chamberlain listened very gladly; Hitler’s reception of von Halt was frostly to a degree. Five days later German tanks began to roll.

What of Afghanistan in 1 980? Of course the Soviet aggression is wholly wrong. But the guilt of aggression is the same whether the aggressor is the host to the Games, or simply another nation taking part. And what has been the practice in the past?

In 1968 and 1972 the United States forces were in Vietnam and Laos, bombing towns and villages every day. More than 800,000 Vietnamese civilians lost their lives. But American Olympic teams played a splendid part in the Games in Mexico and Munich, both of which I saw. The aggression on Cambodia, ordered and carried out by President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger was one of the blackest crimes in the evil history of war. But, while it was going on, the Winter Games were awarded to the United States. The practice of the IOC has been to ignore the fact that a nation was at war, and to allow its national team to take part in the Games.

This is inconsistent with the concept and the law of the League of Nations Covenant and the UN Charter. Under their rules, any aggressor should be made an international pariah, and all communication with him and his nationals should be cut. If this had been observed faithfully, all the wars since 1920 would have stopped as soon as they began. As Churchill said of the Second World War in 1944. ‘The war could easily have been prevented if the League of Nations had been used with courage and loyalty.’

But the Governments have chosen to make a mocker)’ of the League and UN sanctions. And it is not real sanctions against the Soviet Union that the politicians of the West are now proposing. As Adrian Metcalfe, Ann Packer, Robbie Brightwell and others were reported as saying recently: ‘The price of a Moscow boycott may well be the total destruction of the Olympic movement, and the fragmentation of the structure of world sport. That is what is at stake … it cannot be right … for Governments to ask sport to jeopardise its future while continuing to give the Soviet Union favourable trade arrangements which indirectly subsidise the Soviet military machine.’

I find that an unanswerable statement, admirably expressed. If this policy prevails it will mean that politicians are free to use sport for short-term political objectives, in some cases, as now, or for nothing nobler than catching votes in a forthcoming election.

The politicians in the West, at least, have done little to build up the international structure of sport, which is, perhaps, the best hope that nuclear war may be avoided. Almost everywhere the politicians chant the watchword ‘Sport for all.’ But only in the East, where the governments follow Lenin ‘s precept- and the practice of the ancient Greeksthat physical education and recreation are a vitally important part of education and of good life, is sport given its proper place in the social system and the life of the people. It is the best thing the governments of the East have done. In Britain the politicians chant the watch-word, but they lag far behind. This year they cut spending on sport by £20 millions simultaneously with an offer of £50 millions to move the Games from Moscow!

Sport is too precious to be expendable by politicians. Metcalfe and his colleagues say that sport is as essential to life as music or mathematics. Physical fitness and physical effort are a joy beyond all others to those who know them. The sheer beauty of modern games, of gymnastics, dancing, skating, running, swimming, diving, is an aesthetic pleasure beyond compare. The moral, social and intellectual value of the ethos of fair play and good sportsmanship are an asset of top importance, not only to athletes themselves, but to the hundreds of millions of spectators and fans to whom sport and international competitions have become a major and daily interest in their lives.

The great sports of the Olympic movement are not only the most successful international movement of our century; they embody much of what can be called truly ‘civilised’ in human progress since Pierre de Coubertin went to Athens in 1896. They are a marvellous, and heartening, contrast to the wars, the violence, the terrorism, the waves of murder that have disgraced our world.

At the closing ceremony of the Winter Games in Lake Placid Lord Killanin gave warning of the holocaust that might be near, and said ‘if we all come together, it will be for a better world. ‘

Anyway, what is going to happen in Moscow when the Games begin? Just because the Games have now become what Avery Brundage called them: ‘The greatest social force in the world,’ will everybody start saying that Brezhnev, when he declares them ‘Open,’ has become the greatest man? That communism is the best and most successful political regime? This is facile vapouring, as false as at Berlin. Everybody at the opening ceremony- teams, press, public, 2,000 million televiewers, even Brezhenev himself- will be thinking only of the greatness and the Glory of the Games; of the pageant and the emotion of the athletes’ Parade; of the Olympic Flame, kindled by the sun in the sacred olivegrove in Western Greece; of Coubertin ‘s magnificent Olympic Oath, so magnificently honoured by a hundred thousand athletes since 1896.

The Olympic Oath to play fair, to observe the law, to respect the rights and interests of others, to compete and cooperate in honest friendship, could be the programme that will serve mankind. The Moscow Games, with the immense worldwide impact they will have, could be the turning point from violence and conflict to the harmony and welfare of all nations.

Lord (Philip) Noel-Baker, former Labour MP and Minister in post-war administrations, was a competitor in the Olympic Games in Stockholm in 1912, silver medallist at 1,500 metres in Antwerp in 1920 and Commandant of the British team in the Olympic village at Helsinki in 1952.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

-by leave-I think it is important that I rise on this occasion to defend Mr Hodgman, a member of the House of Representatives whom I know to be a man of high principle. He is not afraid to uphold his principles and to be quite outspoken in his views. It is intriguing that Mr Hodgman has been criticised for making statements along lines almost identical to those made by Mr Charles Jones in the House of Representatives on 25 March 1980. Mr Hodgman was attacked for saying the same things. I think it is hypocritical that we should attack Mr Hodgman who is a man of strong principle in this way. In the House of Representatives debate on the report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union on 25 March 1980 Mr Charles Jones said:

One of the intriguing things is that if one looks through the 88 countries one sees that, at best, only about 30 of them have any form of democratically elected government. Some are members of the eastern bloc where one can vote for whom one likes as long as he is a member of a particular political party. The same thing can be said for some of the South American countries and for some of the African countries. Although we are talking about a meeting of parliamentarians, they are a fairly well locked in group of parliamentarians when one realises that 58 non-democratic countries are represented. The result is that when a vote is taken delegates from such countries all put up their hands at the same time for the same resolution. However, I am pleased to say that members of the Australian delegation on occasions have voted differently from one another because we have had our own points of view, and I hope that that will never be changed.

Mr Hodgman has been criticised in this chamber for making statements essentially the same as those made by Mr Charles Jones, a member of the Labor Party. I think it is deplorable that Opposition senators attack the integrity of Mr Hodgman who is a man of high principle.

page 1039

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the annual percentage of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government authorities in the States under the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 from 1.75 per cent of collections in the preceding year to 2 per cent. Last year the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 was amended to increase the share of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government in 1979-80 from 1.52 per cent to 1.75 per cent. The increase proposed in the Bill will apply as from 1980-81 and fulfils the undertaking given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his election policy speech in November 1977 that the share would be increased to 2 per cent by 1 980-8 1 .

Since this Government took office at the end of 1975, the total level of all Commonwealth funds flowing to local government in the States has increased considerably- from $235m in 1975-76 to $333m in 1978-79, the last year for which comprehensive figures are available. This represents an annual average increase of over 12 per cent. I might add, for the information of honourable senators, that the figures I have quoted exclude funds provided under the Regional Employment Development Scheme and employment grants passed on to local authorities by the States. Under those schemes which were terminated by the previous Government in 1 975-76, local authorities were merely used as a channel for the disbursement of funds to assist employment.

The Government has not only increased the level of total Commonwealth assistance to local government, it has also, under the federalism policy, increased the flexibility available to that sphere of government to determine its own expenditure priorities. This has been done by changing the structure of the assistance by giving local government a share of net personal income tax collections, and by making the funds available as general purpose or untied assistance. Untied funds represented about one-third of total Commonwealth assistance to local authorities in 1975-76 compared with about one-half now.

This remarkable growth in untied funds provided to local government has occurred since the introduction of the tax sharing arrangements in 1976-77. Untied funds for local authorities in 1975-76 amounted to $79.91m; in 1979-80, they amounted to $22 1.74m. On the basis of the Budget estimate of personal income tax collections in 1979-80, a 2 per cent share would provide local government with almost $303m in 1980-81. This represents an average increase of no less than 30 per cent per year since 1975-76. The $22 1.74m provided in 1979-80 represented a substantial increase- 23.6 per cent- over the amount allocated in 1978-79. An allocation of $303 m for 1980-81 would imply a further, and even more substantial, increase of about 36 per cent in 1980-81.

In considering the Commonwealth Government’s assistance to local government, two particular aspects need to be borne in mind: Firstly, since the Government took office in December 1975, it has waged an unremitting fight against inflation. Because of its efforts inflation is lower than it would otherwise have been and this has benefitted all sectors of the economy including local government. Secondly, the tax sharing arrangements have been designed so as to provide each and every local authority in the country with some assistance. Under previous arrangements, some local authorities did not receive untied assistance. All in all, local authorities are far better off since the introduction of the tax sharing arrangements than before. Enactment of the Bill in this session of the Parliament will ensure that there is no delay in making payments based on the increased percentage allocation to the States for on-passing to local government.

The Commissioner of Taxation is required to make his determination of personal income tax collections in 1 979-80 by 3 1 July; and in early August it is expected that the Commonwealth will be in a position to make the payments. Actual payment of the funds will await completion by the State grants commissions of their assessments, and the Prime Minister being informed of the allocation of the assistance among local authorities. I commend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980 to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 1041

SENATE (REPRESENTATION OF TERRITORIES) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate (Representation of Territories) Amendment Bill 1 980 is a straightforward piece of legislation to which at the Committee stage we will seek to move some appropriate amendments. The purpose of the Bill is to repeal the existing provisions applying to the filling of casual vacancies in the Senate insofar as representation of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory is concerned. I think it is an indication of the sloppy form of government that we have that the Government has taken more than three years to put into effect the decisions of the Australian people in respect of casual Senate vacancies made in a referendum held more than three years ago. If a casual vacancy had occurred, as a result of death, resignation or otherwise, a simple majority vote in either of the Territories possibly would have resulted in a change of representation in the Senate, having regard to the dismal economic and political record of the Fraser administration.

It is an indication of how sloppy the Government is in all its areas of responsibility that it has taken the Government all this time to introduce this legislation, which seeks to take steps to regularise the situation in respect of casual Senate vacancies occurring in the Territories. At present there is a discrepancy between the way in which Senate vacancies are filled in the States and the way in which they are filled in the Territories. The procedure to be followed when a vacancy occurs in State representation was clearly expressed in the referendum. Those vacancies are to be filled by the States choosing a representative from the same political party as that of the previous senator. That procedure was considered by the people and by the Parliament to be a most efficient and fair system.

However, even under this legislation, the Territories will be required to take a different course of action. They will be required to hold a special election if a vacancy occurs before a general election is held, which is the way in which the law operates at the moment. That can be a lengthy, expensive and time consuming process, the necessity for which should have been avoided very simply by the Government introducing appropriate legislation three years ago. There is no logical reason for the Territories not being subjected to the same procedures and processes as the States are subjected to when casual vacancies arise. Yet even under this legislation differences between the processes of the States and the Territories will still exist, even though the legislation advocates the Territories adopting somewhat similar processes to those of the States.

By not including a provision that casual Senate vacancies will be filled by people nominated by the same party as that of the previous senator, the purpose of this legislation is defeated. We know from bitter experience that we cannot rely on convention. Convention required that, in the event of a casual Senate vacancy occurring in a State, a person of the same political party as that of the previous senator would be chosen by the Parliament. But we know how in 1 975 the then Opposition took advantage of the death of a Labor senator, in conjunction with a conspiracy with the Queensland Premier, Bjelke-Petersen, to change the course of political history, to break the convention. Later that same year the same person, who is now the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), in conjunction with the Governor-General, took steps to break the convention which existed then and which had been accepted throughout Australian political history, namely, the convention that it is the right of a government with a majority in the House of Representatives to govern in its own right.

We cannot rely upon convention. Therefore, procedures need to be spelt out quite specifically in legislation so that legal and constitutional matters are beyond dispute. We submit that the deficiencies in this Bill ought to be examined by the Government and ought not to be treated in the cavalier way in which the Government treats amendments moved by the Opposition to legislation introduced into this place. The Government ought to look at the purpose and the motivation of the Opposition when it seeks in the Committee stage of this Bill to put beyond all legal and constitutional doubt the expressed wish of the Australian people concerning casual Senate vacancies occurring in both the Territories.

I turn to considering other objections we have to the Bill, which will be the subject of amendments which we will move. The Opposition would like to see the Bill specify that casual Senate vacancies which occur when the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly is not sitting should be filled by people appointed by the Executive Council. Why does it have to be, as provided in the legislation, the Administrator who performs that task? What would be wrong with the Executive Council, which would be the Cabinet in the Northern Territory Assembly, performing that task? Why can it not be given that responsibility, in the same way as casual vacancies are provided for in the various States? The legislation before us provides that the Administrator shall appoint someone to act in the position for 14 days. It does not state what is to happen after that. One can imagine that the Assembly could appoint someone when it meets, but would it appoint the same person as the Administrator appointed, or would it be someone else? That provision needs to be more clearly spelt out.

If this Bill is passed, casual vacancies occurring in the Australian Capital Territory will be filled by people appointed by a joint meeting of the Houses of the Parliament. We will have to go through the enormous expense and time wasting process of bringing together both Houses of the Parliament for the purpose of filling a casual Senate vacancy. In times of political crisis, who is appointed to a vacancy could be critical. This Government claims to be interested in the devolution of power and the decentralisation of responsibility. Yet we have an Assembly operating in the Australian Capital Territory and the Government is not prepared to give it the power to make a decision in the event of a casual Senate vacancy occurring. The Assembly comprises a group of people which is representative of the Canberra residents, a group of people which is meeting regularly, a group of people with which there would be no problem in calling them together in a matter of hours or days for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of that important provision in the legislation. The Bill provides that if this House is not in session the GovernorGeneral may appoint someone to fill a casual Senate vacancy.

If the Government is concerned about closing up loopholes and about providing for the processes in the States and the Territories to be similar- we suggest to the Government that it ought to be concerned about that- it ought to accept the amendments which we propose to move to this legislation. Our advice is that the amendments we propose to move are practicable and applicable and that they have legal emphasis. There is absolutely no reason to have different processes in the States and the Territories.

Senator Chipp:

– Are the amendments you are to move here the same as those moved in the House of Representatives?

Senator GIETZELT:

– Yes, they are the same as those moved in the House of Representatives. We cannot understand the reluctance of the Government to regard the House of Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory as a responsible, representative group. After all, in broad terms it has somewhat the same sort of political representation as has this chamber. It represents a very sizable body of community opinion in the Australian Capital Territory. It should be vested with the power to fill casual Senate vacancies. It seems to me that to call together the two Houses of the Parliament in order to dictate to the people of the Australian Capital Territory who will represent them in the Senate is an absurd proposition and one which has very little validity.

No matter how logical and well motivated the Opposition’s approach to these types of matters might be, the Minister in charge of the Bill always says that regretfully the Government cannot accept the Opposition ‘s point of view. If parliamentary democracy means anything, surely it means that matters ought to be determined on the basis of the argument put forward, on the basis of debate, on the basis of what is said in this place, and not on the basis of a decision which has been made away from the Parliament in an obscure political situation. Why do we have debates, why do we have amendments, why do we go through the sham of suggesting that this is the place where matters are debated, if no consideration is given to any of that?

I would be very interested to hear honourable senators from the Government parties indicate what is faulty in the Opposition’s point of view. My colleague, Senator Ryan, will speak on these matters. I understand that the proposition in respect of the Australian Capital Teritory which I have put forward accords with the views of the elected representatives of the Australian Capital Territory. I understand that the Cabinet, the Executive Council, in the Northern Territory believes that it can carry out the function which I suggested it should carry out. Why then does the Government say that it cannot bend its will, that it cannot listen to the view of reason, which has been expressed by the elected representatives, which we are seeking to submit for the consideration of the Senate? I commend to the consideration of the Senate the amendments which we propose to move in the Committee stage.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I support the Senate (Representation of Territories) Amendment Bill 1980. As has been indicated, the purpose of the Bill is to introduce the same method for filling Senate casual vacancies for the Territories as that now in the Constitution for filling Senate casual vacancies for the States. This legislation is another piece of political development for the Northern Territory. It is interesting to look back very briefly on the political development of the Northern Territory. The development has not come easily but has been achieved by the strivings of the people of the Northern Territory. In this aspect the Northern Territory has differed from the Australian Capital Territory. It is my recollection that recently a poll in regard to the Territory’s political development was insisted upon in order to give powers to the Australian Capital Territory legislative authority. The poll indicated that the people of the Territory wished to have no further responsibility. On this aspect the Territories vary. One Territory has now accepted responsible selfgovernment and the other has not.

Let me refer to the history of the Northern Territory. In 1868 responsibility for the Northern Territory was handed from New South Wales to South Australia. For a brief period between the years 1900 and 1911 the Territory was represented in the House of Representatives. The Territory was part of the electorate of Grey in South Australia. Of course we all know that this representation occurred at the time of Federation. In 1911 the Northern Territory (Administration) Act was enacted and handed the Northern Territory to the Federal Government. At the same time the Territory lost all political representation. Over the years there were strivings for political development and for the right of the people to have a say in their own affairs. Step by step they achieved what they have todayresponsible self-government. I see no reason why the Territory in this decade will not take the final step, that of statehood.

It is also worth noting that following the Senate (Representation of Territories) Act of 1 974 which gave the Territories Senate representation, challenges were made in the High Court against the Territories having representation in the Senate. The two challenges were rejected by the majority of judges on the High Court some two years ago. The lines are now cleared for the Northern Territory to gain statehood. I believe that statehood is very essential for the Northern Territory. The Territory will be able, it its own right, to make decisions that the States make now. At present the Territory does not have full authority. Often the Federal Government introduces pieces of legislation concerning the Northern Territory which, I must say, have not been acceptable in some cases.

I note from the Bill that the casual vacancies for the Northern Territory are to be filled by a person chosen by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly with interim appointments to be made by the Administrator if the Assembly is not sitting. The point has been made that the Executive Council of the Northern Territory should choose a person to fill the vacancy. I see nothing wrong with that thought. I know the way that the Legislative Assembly, the Executive and the Administrator function in the Northern Territory. I have no doubts that, although it may be the responsibility of the Administrator to put forward a name in the interim, before the Assembly makes a decision, at least the Executive- the Cabinet of the Northern Territory- will participate. As I see it these days, the Administrator takes few actions that are not referred to the Executive of the Northern Territory.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But the Bill merely makes it mandatory that the person be from the same party.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Yes. Obviously some point escapes me. I would have preferred to have seen that provision included. I believe that the present legislation will be quite workable.

Senator Gietzelt said that the Capital Territory should have the same rights as the Northern Territory in determining replacement senators. Once again we must realise that the people of the Northern Territory accepted responsible selfgovernment; it was not foisted on them. They were out striving for responsible selfgovernment, and this was achieved as was local government in the Northern Territory. The people of the Australian Capital Territory for some reason, which I must admit I find strange even today, refused, in a poll, responsible selfgovernment. One could imagine, as has been indicated by one of the members who represents the Territory, that fears were held about the Territory’s ability to accept and carry out responsible self-government. It was thought that the load would be too heavy. The same thing happened in the Northern Territory. There was a move in the Northern Territory by what was proved to be by far a minority group of people to refuse responsible self-government. This group used every means and manner to endeavour to make the people afraid of accepting responsible self-government. There was quite a campaign. Ultimately as we all know this minority group was unable to have responsible self-government refused. As I indicated in this House only last week, responsible self-government in the Northern Territory has been a tremendous thing and is working well.

I hope that some time in the future the people of the Australian Capital Territory see fit to review the decision that they have made. I believe that if they do so they will find that responsible self-government can do many things for them. Until that day comes the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly will be a minority type of legislature and will not have the ability or the right to be able to choose an interim senator. I support the Bill. I believe it is straightforward. It is necessary for the Northern Territory. I am sure that all people in the Northern Territory will find it most acceptable.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I wish to make a contribution, representing, as I do, the Australian Capital Territory, to the debate on the Senate (Representation of Territories) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Senator Gietzelt has foreshadowed, the Federal Opposition will be moving amendments to the Bill. The Opposition agrees with the spirit of the Bill and with its stated objective which is to introduce the same method for filling Senate casual vacancies for the Territories as that now in the Constitution for filling Senate casual vacancies for the States. Unfortunately, the Bill does not achieve that objective. It does not provide machinery whereby the people of the Australian Capital Territory will have available to them the same method of filling a casual Senate vacancy as the people in the States. This, to me, an Australian Capital Territory senator, is at the heart of the amendments which we will be moving.

The Bill gives to the Australian Parliament the right in a Joint Sitting of selecting a new senator for the Australian Capital Territory. In the case of the States and the Northern Territory the State governments or the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly will have that responsibility. It is totally unacceptable to Federal Opposition senators, and I believe to the majority if not to all electors living in the Australian Capital Territory, that our political rights should be less in this respect than the rights of persons living in the States or in the Northern Territory. In our view the failure of the self-government referendum in 1 978 in the Australian Capital Territory is not an insurmountable obstacle. We were very disappointed that the people of the Australian Capital Territory did not see fit at that stage to vote for a greater measure of selfgovernment.

- Senator Knight asks: Is it not? It is not clear and unambiguous because it occurs to me that the Government may have some devious motive in keeping the power of appointment of such a senator to itself. If the appointment of the replacement senator is just to be a routine matter, and if the local political party is to be consulted and is to nominate the person who will come into the Senate, why do we have to go through this very clumsy provision of a joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament. Why cannot the House of Assembly examine the nomination by the political party, endorse it and send it to the Governor-General? I cannot understand why the Fraser Government wants to retain this power. I cannot understand why it is refusing to trust the House of Assembly in this matter and I cannot understand what it hopes to achieve. I have to ask: Does the Fraser Government intend to follow the disgraceful example of the New South Wales Liberal government or the Queensland coalition government and distort the political balance in the Senate? It would seem unlikely that it does so. If it intends to abide by the wishes of the Australian electorate, as expressed in the 1977 referendum, and accept the nomination of the appropriate political party in the Australian Capital Territory, why can the matter not be dealt with at territorial level? It seems to me that there are no good answers to the questions that I ask and I doubt whether the Minister or Senator Knight will have any. All we are asking really is that the Bill be amended to achieve the purposes which it claims to be achieving, that is, to give the electors in the Australian Capital Territory the same procedures for filling a Senate vacancy as exist in the States.

Senator Bonner:

– It is not a State.

Senator RYAN:

- Senator Bonner seems to be having some difficulty with my argument. If he were to retire from the Senate the Queensland Parliament would accept the nomination of Senator Bonner’s political party and nominate that person to replace him. If Senator Knight or I were to retire from the Senate there would have to be a joint meeting of the Houses of Parliament to replace us. That difference is unambiguous. It is a total difference. It is a difference for which there is no justification and it is a difference which is entirely unacceptable to the Australian Labor Party. For that reason I urge honourable senators during the Committee stage of this Bill to support the amendment that will be moved by my colleague, Senator Gietzelt, and to bring the Australian Capital Territory truly into line in respect of Senate vacancies. I believe that the House of Assembly is an appropriate body to bring forward the nomination of a political party for a Senate vacancy. I hope that honourable senators in the chamber tonight will support this amendment and the other amendments to be moved by Senator Gietzelt. ( Quorum formed).

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– The Senate (Representation of Territories) Amendment Bill would not be the most important piece of legislation that the Senate has passed this year or is likely to pass. In fact, it is relatively unimportant in the whole scheme of things. I believe the legislation to be unjust and I believe it to be wrong in principle. That is why I am speaking to it. That is also why the Australian Democrats will be voting for the amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party. The Bill is unfair in principle, but as I say, it is not the most important piece of legislation. As the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott) said, this legislation simply seeks to provide new procedures for the filling of Senate casual vacancies for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory consistent with those presently provided in the Constitution for the filling of Senate casual vacancies in the States. To be personal about it, if something happened to the two senators from the Australian Capital Territory, Senator Knight and Senator Ryan, it discusses the ways in which their vacancies would be filled. For example, if something untoward in physical terms were to happen to Senator Knight or Senator Ryan- God forbid that that would happen to either of them- or if Senator Knight finally were to have his ability acknowledged by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and were posted as Ambassador to Afghanistan or some other likely place–

Senator Knight:

– Saudi Arabia.

Senator CHIPP:

-I note on the record that Senator Knight states a preference for Saudi Arabia. I hope that the Prime Minister reads Hansard. When a vacancy occurs in the Senate for any reason, that vacancy has to be filled. As we know, at the last referendum the Australian people said that a Senate vacancy should be filled by a member of the party to which the departed senator belonged. As far as the six States are concerned, a Senate vacancy is filled by holding a joint sitting of the two Houses of the State Parliament, if there are two Houses of the State Parliament, and. as a matter of form, accepting the nomination of the political party to which the departed senator formerly belonged. It is a formal matter; it is a matter that does not call for debate. For that reason I say that this Bill which is before us tonight is not very important. That is all that it proposes to do. Australia will not tremble at the passing or non-passing of this Bill.

The Government has brought in this Bill allegedly to make consistent the situations between the two Territories, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, and to pursue the thrust or the spirit of that change to the Constitution voted in by the Australian people at a referendum. The provisions of the Bill are consistent as far as the Northern Territory is concerned, in that the Bill provides that the duly elected representatives of the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory shall nominate a person of the same political party as the departed senator and that that person shall take his place in the Senate. But that is not so as far as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned. The Government has said that the elected House of Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory shall have nothing to do with the nomination of the new senator. If something untoward happens to a sitting Australian Capital Territory senator, we are to have a joint sitting of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament with the Senate of the Australian Parliament to determine who shall be the new senator. The Canberra Times so aptly described the situation as follows:

Rarely has a larger, more awkward hammer been selected to crack so small a nut.

That is the nature of the business we are discussing this evening.

If I could seek the indulgence of the Senate for a short time, I wish to say that I am very disappointed at the kind of business that the Government has lined up for debate on broadcast day. I was pleasantly surprised to get some statistics recently relating to the listening audiences to Parliament. At this time of night, believe it or not, there are something like 300,000 to 400,000 misguided Australians listening to Parliament. I would have thought that the managers of the business of this House could have brought on something a little more exciting for the Senate to discuss on a broadcast day.

Senator Georges:

– There really isn’t anything about that you can advocate.

Senator CHIPP:

-If one turns to Orders of the Day, under Government Business one sees some very exciting matters of national importance. For instance, we have listed for debate the Senate (Representation of Territories) Amendment Bill; the International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill; the Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill; the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill; and the Customs Amendment Bill (No 2). I do not think that that is a really exciting list of matters to be discussed. I simply mention that matter in passing and I make a plea on behalf of those people we should be encouraging to listen to Parliament by at least bringing on for debate subject matters which are interesting, rather than turning them off, as the matters listed on this Notice Paper would.

Along with Senator Gietzelt, Senator Ryan, and other members of the Australian Labor Party, I agree that the Bill virtually means that the Australian Government is saying to the duly elected representatives of the House of Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory: ‘You are not competent enough simply to sit and to receive the nominations from the Liberal Party, or the Labor Party, and say: “Yes, that is the person we recommend to replace the departed senator”.’ We will have to go through this glorious melodrama of having to call together both Houses of Federal Parliament to do that.

Senator Knight:

– No, you don’t have to call them together.

Senator CHIPP:

– It has to have the approval of both Houses. To some extent I believe that this is also a reflection on the people of Canberra, because although I acknowledge to Senator Knight that the House of Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory has limited powers- that was brought about by the will of the people of Canberra themselves, who extraordinarily voted against stateship- that House of Assembly has been democratically elected by the people of Canberra, and one would have thought that it would be capable of performing such a simple task. But there is a massive incongruity in this Bill in that it demands that their replacement senator be nominated not by the democratically elected representatives of Canberra but by the member for Cairns, the member for Perth, a senator from Tasmania, a senator from South Australia. These people will sit and go through the motions of determining which person shall replace the departing senator of the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Knight:

– Those same people in the Australian Capital Territory opted to have this

Parliament make the laws which relate to this Territory, not the House of Assembly.

Senator CHIPP:

-I just acknowledged, Senator, the incomprehensible act of the people of the Australian Capital Territory in voting against their own self-government. But I think the honourable senator will agree in a flash that that does not take away from the fact that the members of the House of Assembly are democratically elected by democratic means.

Senator Knight:

– I acknowledge the nature of their election.

Senator CHIPP:

-Thank you. Let me just look at the composition of the House of Assembly. It has 18 members, and, as I understand it, it is comprised of eight members of the Australian Labor Party, four members of the Liberal Party, one member of the Family Team, three Independents and two Australian Democrats. When this matter was debated on 3 March, the House of Assembly let its views be known in no uncertain terms. I am indebted to the Leader of the Australian Democrats in the House of Assembly, Mr Gordon Walsh, who sent me a copy of the resolution passed in the House of Assembly on 4 March 1 980. The resolution reads:

1 ) That the Assembly is of opinion that the procedure for filling casual Senate vacancies for the ACT should be consistent with that presently provided in the Constitution for the filling of Senate casual vacancies in the States and the procedure proposed for the Northern Territory;
That the Assembly is of the opinion, therefore, that such casual Senate vacancies should be filled by a person nominated by the House of Assembly and of the same publicly declared political persuasion as the Senator being replaced;
That the Minister be requested to bring the terms of this resolution to all Members of Parliament, and
That this resolution be communicated by message to the Minister.

When the debate took place in the House of Assembly, I was fascinated to read that Ms Horder of the Labor Party introduced the motion and made what I regard as being a sensible speech. She was followed by other Labor speakers and Independent speakers. Mr Gordon Walsh, the leader of the Australian Democrats, said:

The fact that this Assembly is unable to legislate and is unable to vote on money does not mean to say that it is an unrepresentative body. We are a fully elected body of 18 people from both electorates in the Territory, and there is no reason why on a relatively simple task of selecting a Senator thai this Assembly cannot be entrusted to do it.

The only member of the Liberal Party who spoke was a Mr Leedman. I have never met Mr

Leedman. He is probably a most competent fellow. But I thought his speech was a most extraordinary speech. He had this to say, addressing himself to the question of the Bill:

. and you may rest assured that there will be no member of the Parliament from either side who will take issue with the way that this Government has proposed this particular bill.

He obviously underestimated the sensitivity and intellectual capacity of people like Senator Gietzelt and Senator Button. He went on to say:

In fact, as far as I am aware, there was no dissent . . . Although the Bill requires that a person of the same party shall be appointed, we -

That is the Legislative Assembly- have not yet demonstrated here a maturity or a political commonsense which might enable a community to trust that sort of decision with us.

I find that an incredible statement for a Liberal to make in the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. He is saying, virtually, that the body to which he belongs cannot be trusted by the people of Canberra to make a simple decision such as this.

In conclusion, I support the Labor Party’s amendment which, I believe, is total commonsense, and so does the Canberra Times, which I rate as one of the most- if not the mostresponsible newspapers in the nation. It said in part:

Nothing so aptly demonstrates the almost colonial status of the ACT, at least in the minds of some of its political masters, as the Senate (Representation of Territories) Amendment Bill now before the Parliament . . . From the point of view of the electorate, there can be no fairer provision than that casual vacancies be filled by by-election, as they are in the case of vacancies in the House of Representatives, and as they could be, in the Territories, in the case of Senate vacancies.

The Canberra Times is being interestingly provocative in making that suggestion. It then accuses honourable senators of being politicians who would say that that would rock the boat too much, but would it not be fascinating if this Senate were very closely balanced and something did happen to Senator Knight? In the present circumstances, let us assume -

Senator Missen:

– He looks pretty healthy.

Senator CHIPP:

– I am saying if something happened in a pleasant way. I would be hoping for something like an appointment to a chief ambassadorial post.

Senator Button:

-Or to the Egg Board.

Senator CHIPP:

-Or the Milk Board. I am sure Senator Knight would fill that position with great competence. If numbers in the Senate were closely tied and there is a vacancy in the

Australian Capital Territory because of Senator Knight’s departure from the Senate, there would be a by-election for that Senate position and both major parties would be locked in monal combat.

Senator Button:

– His party would lose.

Senator CHIPP:

– I will anticipate that for a moment. Perhaps his party would lose. That could well change the situation in this place from being a Senate friendly to the Government to being a Senate hostile to the Government. One would wonder at the responsibility of a decision that would allow the people of the Australian Capital Territory to have the massive responsibility of changing the complexion of a Senate. I say that without any reflection on the voters of the Australian Capital Territory, but it would be a terrifying responsibility and one, I think, that could well lead to a view distorting, perhaps, the views of the whole nation. I think it is an interesting and provocative suggestion, but one which the Australian Democrats would not accept without a great deal more research, discussion and debate. I do agree with the Canberra Times when it says:

Most obviously, it -

– Nonsense. It is just the usual procedure.

Senator BUTTON:

Senator Missen:

– It is just the same as all the States.

Senator BUTTON:

– It is not usual at all for the parliament to which the person elected to fill the casual vacancy comes to be selected by that

Parliament. It is not the usual procedure under the Australian Constitution at all and the honourable senator well knows it.

I suggest a hypothetical case in relation to the other matter which I find very cumbersome under the proposed mechanism. Imagine that members of the National Country Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia for once in their lives suddenly screw their courage to the sticking place when Malcolm Fraser says: I want Bill Smith to be the new senator from the Australian Capital Territory’. He might say that he wants Bill Smith because he is to replace John Knight who has, unfortunately, died or been appointed to the Egg Board. Honourable senators opposite suddenly might screw the courage to the sticking place and say: ‘No, we do not want Bill Smith. We want Fred Jones’. Under this legislation they would be entitled to do that and it would be a golden opportunity for them to show their independence. Of course, that could produce a result which would not be in the spirit of the legislation at all. It is important to make these sorts of points because honourable senators opposite have a shocking track record in respect of this sort of matter.

It was because of the activities of their political parties when the Labor Government was in office that the Constitution had to be amended in relation to this issue. It was because of the activities of their friends- people such as Mr BjelkePetersen and Mr Lewis the then Premier of New South Wales- and their respective governments, and other people generally, that we had to go to the trouble and expense of having a referendum to include in the Constitution what had been accepted by all gentlemen in Australian politics, which does not include the Government side, for a long time as the proper conventions which would apply in relation to that matter. A referendum had to be put to the people of Australia on that question. It is interesting to consult the cases, which, incidentally, were prepared largely by members of the Senate, in respect of that referendum. It is interesting to consult the points in the ‘yes ‘ case and the points in the ‘no ‘ case. The no’ case bears the indelible hand of former Senator Reg Wright. The fine prose is revealed throughout the ‘no’ case. Point 11 of the ‘no’ case was that there would have to be an amendment to the Constitution to incorporate the conventions as was done in 1977. Point 1 1 stated:

The result is a dangerous subversion of the State Parliament in favour of control by political parties. Political parties have never been given such power, virtually to direct State Parliaments to appoint their nominee or to appoint members to Parliament anywhere in democratic constitutions.

Senator Missen:

– What did the people do with that? They chucked it out, didn’t they?

Senator BUTTON:

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– From what Senator Button has had to say, probably he will be pleased to know that I do not agree with the Canberra Times on this occasion, particularly with respect to some of the comments in an editorial to which Senator Chipp referred. But I do agree with Senator Button when he says that the Senate (Representation of Territories) Amendment Bill is sufficiently important for honourable senators to give it serious consideration. I wish to address myself to the substance of the amendments, perhaps looking at them more closely in the Committee stage, and also to some of the comments that have been made in the course of the debate. I do think those comments need to be taken seriously, and they need to be answered.

Probably the most fundamental point has been raised by a number of speakers, and was raised by Senator Button a moment ago. He posed the question: Where did we get the provisions of this legislation as it affects the Australian Capital Territory? I would ask the honourable senator to address himself to section 15 of the Constitution. He will there find almost the precise wording of the proposed new subsection 9(2) of this legislation which provides for the replacement of Australian Capital Territory senators. That is where we got it from. Section 1 5 of the Constitution is almost word for word what is said in the proposed new sub-section 9(2). Section 15 of the Constitution was amended by a referendum of the people of Australia in 1977.

Senator Button:

– If I might interrupt, the point on which I was really seeking clarification was the philosophical justification of moving from that section to this legislation. There has been no explanation of that in the second reading speech.

Senator KNIGHT:

-I will move on to that, particularly as it affects the House of Assembly and the issues the honourable senator raised in relation to that. As I said at the outset, I believe the crux of this issue relates to section 15 of the Constitution and sub-sections 9(2), (3) and (4) of the Act as it will be when amended by this legislation. Senator Gietzelt was critical of the time taken to amend this legislation in accordance with the 1977 referendum. Senator Gietzelt clearly recognised that this legislation is trying to bring the Australian Capital Territory into line with the provisions of the Federal Constitution as provided for as a result of what the people decided in 1977. He was critical that it had taken the Government so long.

The question of timing is not necessarily the essential argument when one looks at that point. Since this legislation was first passed in 1974, there have been a number of anomalies with respect to Territory senators. This legislation now tries to overcome some of those anomalies, partly as a result of the 1977 referendum. For example, in the original legislation of 1974, which the Labor Government introduced and which was passed at a joint sitting of this Parliament- I think the only joint sitting since Federation- in July or August of 1 974, there was no provision for replacement of senators from the Territories should a vacancy occur, but only provisions for a by-election. That was contrary to the provision for all other senators, but it was in the legislation. In turn, that was contrary to the concept of proportional representation in this place. To take an example, if a by-election for Territory senators had occurred shortly after the 1 975 election, I suggest that there may have been two Liberal senators representing the Australian Capital Territory in this place. If an election were held now, it has been suggested that there might be two Labor senators. I do not agree with that. It is a hypothetical situation, and a possibility.

Let us postulate that one way or another we wind up with two Australian Capital Territory senators from one Party or the other at any one time. The result would be that there would not be proportional representation in the Australian Capital Territory that there is elsewhere in Australia. That representation is fundamental to the nature of the Senate. I suggest that in the original legislation that was something of a discrepancy. Of course Territory senators do not have the same terms as other senators. There are technical problems about that and, having looked at the matter, I think it is not possible with two senators from any one Territory to have six-year long and short, terms. That is another anomaly and one that we must continue to face.

Finally, we face the problem of the High Court. Following the McKellar judgment in 1976 or early 1977, the Chief Justice, in particular, in effect proposed that the position of Territory senators should be challenged again. Of course, it was. As a result of the ensuing case, Territory senators were once again confirmed in their position by the High Court. The point I want to make relates to the earlier McKellar judgment when it was decided by the High Court that Territory senators would not count in relation to the nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate. So, once again, there was, and still is, an anomaly in the position of Territory senators.

Senator McLaren:

– Who took the case to the High Court and challenged the legislation? Who was responsible for that?

Senator KNIGHT:

– I will respond to that by saying that the Commonwealth Government, the Liberal-National Country Party Government, supported the Territories in their case before the High Court. That case was won, and resulted in Territory senators remaining in the Senate. Senator Gietzelt also said in the course of his remarks- I think I quote him correctly- that there ought not to be differentiation in practices as between the States and the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. It seems to me that in the original legislation there were some very significant differentiations, which in fact have been added to since that time by the High Court in the McKellar decision. This legislation is reducing the differentiations to the extent that that is possible. I will say more about that later but at this stage I simply make the point that in my view the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly cannot properly carry through the process of replacing senators but this legislation is making provision for replacement rather than by-elections. It is making provision thereby for proper and, to the extent possible, proportional representation in the Territories. Senator Ryan referred to the ‘underrepresentation ‘ of the people in the Territory. A table has been prepared which indicates -

Senator Walsh:

- Mr Deputy President, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Senator Lewis:

– He has come in from the bar, and has started nothing but trouble.

Senator Walsh:

– You have been in the bar tonight; I haven ‘t.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I ask that you request Senator Lewis to withdraw those remarks which he made against Senator Walsh.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- What were the remarks?

Senator McLaren:

– He said that Senator Walsh had just come in from the bar. That is not so. He has been in the House and he just stepped out a few moments ago. Now he is back. I ask that those uncomplimentary remarks be withdrawn because they cannot be substantiated.

Senator Lewis:

– I am prepared to withdraw those remarks.

Senator Keeffe:

– In the point of order, Senator McLaren requested not only that Senator Lewis withdraw the remarks but also that he apologise. The remarks were insulting and he ought to apologise.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have insisted on a withdrawal. Senator Lewis has withdrawn and that is sufficient.

Senator Keeffe:

– I insist that he also apologise. His remarks were totally insulting to Senator Walsh. I know that he was not in the bar.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The procedure in this place is to ask an honourable senator to withdraw any insulting remarks he makes. Senator Lewis has done that and that is sufficient. ( Quorum formed).

Senator KNIGHT:

– I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the table to which I have referred which outlines the number of enrolled electors in each State and Territory and the number of electors per representative.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator KNIGHT:

– In view of the comments made by Senator Ryan earlier and for the benefit of people who may wish to examine the table, I make the point that it shows that the number of electors per representative ranges from a low 466 electors per elected State, Federal and local representative in Tasmania- these figures are current as at March 1980- to 1,378 electors per elected representative in New South Wales. There is then a sudden jump in the Australian Capital Territory where there are 5,854 electors per elected representative. I make that point simply to underline and to support the statement made by Senator Ryan earlier.

I now refer to something else which Senator Ryan said. As I understood what she was saying she placed some emphasis on the need for the same procedures to apply in the Australian Capital Territory as apply in the States in these matters. Proposed new section 9 (2) (3) and (4) is entirely in accord with the provisions of section 15 of the Constitution which makes these provisions consistent with what happens in the

States. As I have said already, I will subsequently address the issue raised by Senator Button and others as to the role of the House of Assembly and why I believe that it should not have the role that State parliaments and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly have in such matters.

Senator Button:

– You have dealt only with the earlier question on the basis of consistency. Is there no other reason?

Senator KNIGHT:

– I will deal with the issue when I discuss the role of the House of Assembly which I shall do subsequently. Senator Chipp made the point that in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory these practices have been consistent in the past but that they are not consistent now. The constitutional status of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are no longer consistent with one another. The changes that this legislation will make to what have been consistent practices in the past are themselves consistent with the changes that have occurred in the constitutional status of the Northern Territory on the one hand and the Capital Territory on the other, although it is hardly correct to say that the constitutional status of the Capital Territory has changed. Senator Chipp also referred to the need to have a joint sitting. Senator Button also raised this matter and, as he suggested, I think that we were getting down to semantics. I stress that there is no need to call together a special joint sitting of the Houses of this Parliament to put into effect the provisions of this legislation. Provision is made for an appointment to be made until the Houses of Parliament can be brought together in a joint sitting. The argument that we should go to enormous expense to call politicians from around the country to come to Canberra to have a special joint sitting that may be relatively brief does not hold. It is necessary to wait only until the Parliament sits. The legislation makes very clear provision in that respect.

– How could it do that?

Senator KNIGHT:

– I may be wrong in putting this proposition, but that is how I read the Constitution. It is how I read the results of two High Court decisions. I believe this Senate ought to address itself to that problem. We ought to consider the implications of a government dominating both Houses of Parliament, wishing to reduce the powers of this Senate and perhaps having the opportunity effectively to do so, simply by amending the Act which tonight we are seeking to amend, by providing in that Act that there should be 20, 30 or 40 senators from the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory. In certain circumstances, the result might be such that the Senate would, in effect, lose its substantial powers under the Constitution. That is a proposition that we ought at least to consider. I put it in the context of this debate because we are dealing with the Act that creates Territory senators and with a Bill that seeks to amend it.

I conclude by saying that what this Bill seeks to do, in the most precise terms, is in accordance with section 1 5 of the Constitution, as amended as a result of the expressed will of the people of Australia in the referendum held in 1977. The Bill does not give to the House of Assembly in the Territory the power of appointment to a vacancy because the people of the Australian Capital Territory decided, also in a referendum, in June 1978 that the House of Assembly should have no executive powers. As a result, this legislation, quite properly in my view, does not give the House of Assembly that power but it does extend the power to this Federal Parliament.

As I said, this process may be unwieldy, it may be cumbersome and it may be regrettable that the House of Assembly does not have more executive powers. But the facts are there before us. The result is that the only constitutionally proper course of action, in my view, is that this

Parliament should take the role of the State parliaments when it comes to replacing senators for this Territory. As provided in proposed new section 9 (2) in future this Parliament will play that role. In the light of referendums held in 1 977 and 1978 affecting the Constitution of this nation and the role of the House of Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory, I believe that the provisions of this amending Bill are quite proper.

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– in reply- We are debating the motion for second reading of the Senate (Representation of Territories) Amendment Bill. I thank the six honourable senators who have taken part in this debate this afternoon and tonight. I was interested in the opening words of some of the speakers. Senator Gietzelt started his contribution to the debate by describing the Bill as a straightforward piece of legislation but then continued to describe it as sloppy. Senator Kilgariff supported the legislation and indicated some of the history of the development of power in the Northern Territory, the Territory which he represents in this chamber. Senator Ryan agreed with the spirit and the objective of the Bill but, having said that, her agreement seemed to wane. Senator Chipp opened his remarks by describing the Bill as being relatively unimportant. Senator Button described the piece of legislation as relatively inconsequential. In spite of all these things we have been discussing the legislation for in excess of two hours.

Let me very briefly sum up what the legislation seeks to do. It seeks, in the first place, to repeal the provisions for filling Senate casual vacancies in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory where up to this time the filling of vacancies has been reliant on byelections. It replaces the method with that agreed to at the referendum of 1 977 which now enables the appointment of a senator from the Territories in a casual vacancy to be by a system which is almost identical to the system that applies in the States. In the Northern Territory a casual vacancy is filled on the nomination of the appropriate party by the Administrator with the advice of the Executive Council if the elected body of that Territory is not sitting. If it is sitting the vacancy is to be filled by the Legislative Assembly of a Territory on the advice of the Executive Council. In the Australian Capital Territory a Senate casual vacancy is to be filled, again by someone selected by the appropriate party, the party of the departing senator, on the advice of the Executive Council of the Federal Parliament to the Governor-General if the Parliament is not sitting. If the Parliament is sitting the selection is made by the two Houses of Parliament sitting together. In other words the legislation seeks to produce a set of circumstances for filling casual vacancies which apply in the States.

The objective of this Bill is to maintain the political balance that has been established by the electors at a Senate election for the duration of the term of the Senate. A problem arises if the by-election system is resorted to. It could well be that within the term of the Senate the balance in a normally closely balanced House could be interrupted. The balance would have been determined by the electors voting for senators for a specific term. This legislation standardises the method for filling casual vacancies along the same lines as those of the States. Since the 1 977 referendum, vacancies have been filled by joint sittings of both Houses where there are two Houses in the State concerned. The new senator sees out the term of the senator being replaced which, again, is preferable to maintaining the balance that has been established at any specific Senate election.

As I have said, the situation in the Northern Territory is decided by the Legislative Assembly or the Administrator if the Assembly is not sitting. In the case of the Capital Territory the vacancy is filled by the Governor-General if the Federal Parliament is not sitting and, if the Federal Parliament is sitting, by a Joint Sitting of that Parliament. I do not propose to go further into this piece of legislation at this time. It has been indicated by Senator Gietzelt and other members of the Opposition that a number of amendments are intended to be moved at the Committee stage. Consequently honourable senators opposite will require to speak to the amendments at that stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Senator Gietzelt:

– May I make a suggestion to suit the convenience of the Committee? The Opposition has circulated five amendments. Two of them are consequential upon the adoption of two others. If the first amendment is not approved by the Committee I will not proceed with the second amendment but will move onto the third amendment. Likewise, if that amendment is not agreed to I will not proceed to the fourth amendment but will deal directly with the fifth amendment.

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The views of the Opposition were canvassed in the second reading debate by Senator Ryan, Senator Button and me. It appears that our remarks have not been understood. We consider that the legislation is, in respect of the Northern Territory, slipshod and rather ambiguous in that the Territory is allowed two bites of the cherry in order to resolve any casual vacancies that take place. Our first amendment seeks to remove that ambiguity and to be quite precise about what would happen in the event of a casual vacancy. Under our amendment, the Administrator will act on the advice of the Executive Council of the Northern Territory which would make the appointment in line with the basic thrust of the 1977 Constitutional amendment. It seems somewhat ludicrous for the Administrator to act on the advice of the Executive Council- that is the Cabinet- of the Northern Territory in relation to an appointment for a short period until the beginning of the next session of the Legislative Assembly. Why not provide the process by which the appointment shall be made in accordance with the practice that is established in the States?

Take the appointment of Senator Neal. My recollection is that Senator Webster accepted an appointment several months ago. The procedure established was for the Victorian Government to make an appointment- not a temporary appointment- in accordance with the expressed will at the 1977 referendum. It seems logical that the same sort of process should be agreed to in respect to the Northern Territory. It should not be left in a different situation from that of all the States. The Opposition’s view is that this should not be so. Senator Knight’s interpretation of this legislation was that it brought the Territories into line with the States. That is not the fact at all. The fact is that there are differences in procedures in respect to the Northern Territory and the States.

I will not canvass the view about the Australian Capital Territory because we appreciate the fact that there are some differences with its situation and we are arguing on the basis of a philosophical disagreement with the Government on the way in which it operates. What we are arguing with respect to the Northern Territory is a matter of procedure. We believe there ought to be a clear definition of powers of the Executive Council in the Northern Territory when acting on the basis of a casual vacancy occurring in a period in which the Assembly is not meeting. We appreciate the fact that this may require an urgent decision. In respect to Senator

Neal’s appointment, we waited until March before he was appointed. I do not know whether we have a different attitude in respect of the States. If something happened to Senator Kilgariff or to Senator Robertson we would make an immediate appointment as is provided in the legislation. It seems nonsensical to us to take a different approach to what ought to be a fairly simple straightforward process. I move:

Depending on the success or otherwise of the amendment I will move for the insertion of proposed new section 9(1) which will provide the machinery to carry out the proposal.

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– The Government will not accept the amendment that has been moved by Senator Gietzelt, basically because it seems unnecessary. It seems to me that proposed new section 9(1) solves all the problems of which the honourable senator is conscious. Proposed new section 9(1) states:

If the place of a senator for the Northern Territory becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the Legislative Assembly of the Territory shall choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term, but if it is not in session when the vacancy is notified, the Administrator of the Territory, with the advice of the Executive Council thereof, may appoint a person to hold the place until the expiration of 14 days from the beginning of the next session of the Legislative Assembly or the expiration of the term, whichever first happens.

In Senator Neal’s case, the Victorian Parliament was in session and it appointed Senator Neal. The Opposition’s amendment seeks to omit, as I understand it, the ‘Administrator of the Territory, with the advice of Executive Council thereof and substitute ‘Executive Council of the Northern Territory’. The Executive Council advises the Administrator in any case and the Executive Council will have been advised by the appropriate political party. I feel that, on examination, honourable senators will find that the amendment is not necessary. The legislation provides for a traditional form of appointment and it ensures that the appointment is not one which is made at the Administrator’s discretion. Far from it; it is made on the advice of the Executive Council. On those grounds I hope that the Government’s amendment to the legislation solves the Opposition ‘s problem.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– After looking at the proposed amendment, I must admit that it is rather difficult to understand, especially when compared with the

Bill. Really they provide for one and the same thing. Proposed new section 9(1) states:

If the place of a senator for the Northern Territory becomes vacant before the expiration of his term . . . the Legislative Assembly . . . if it is not in session when the vacancy is notified, the Administrator of the Territory, with the advice of Executive Council . . .

The Administrator is merely the chairman of the Executive Council. So we are referring to the Executive Council. The Administrator cannot take action without its advice; the Administrator is merely the chairman.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are merely making him the message boy in this.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– No. The honourable senator is misreading the whole situation. What the Opposition is endeavouring to achieve, I say, is already in the legislation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, but the Administrator is a message boy to convey it to us.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Whatever the honourable senator may like to think of him, he wears two caps in the Northern Territory; one as chairman of the Executive Council and one representing the Federal Government in some situations. I repeat that section 9(1) states: . . the Administrator of the Territory, with the advice of the Executive Council-

It is the Executive Council that makes the decision. The Administrator is the chairman. So we are getting exactly the same situation as honourable senators opposite are trying to achieve in this proposed amendment.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The honourable senator from the Northern Territory ignored the area of contention that could exist between the Administrator and the Executive Council. We saw evidence of that during the momentous days of 1975 when a difference of opinion clearly existed between the national administrator, the Governor-General, and the Executive Council. We want to delete the Administrator’s influence, in his own capacity as distinct from being a member of the Executive Council. We can foresee areas of conflict here. Bearing in mind the horrendous events of 1975 which created lasting divisions in the Australian society I think it is appropriate that the Senate take such steps as are necessary to prevent any disagreement or difference that might occur at the appointment of one senator. One senator could make or break a government according to the way in which the injudicious powers of the Senate were used by present Prime Minister Fraser in 1975. So this is not a matter that we can lightly push aside and say that such a situation will not happen. Before 1 972 no one would have imagined that the Governor-General would have taken it upon himself to assert the powers that he did. Of course there can be differences between the Executive Council and the Administrator particularly in the period of the expiration of 14 days from the beginning of the next session of the Legislative Assembly. There are areas in which differences can occur which can make or break the appointment of a senator to fill a casual vacancy. Obviously that could play a very significant part in the fate of a government that has a majority in the lower House. It is clear that the Government is not prepared to budge from its present position, but I suggest that there is some ambiguity in the way it has been presented in the legislation.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– How can there be conflict if the Administrator of the Northern Territory has the advice of the Executive Council? It is the advice of the Executive Council which is the point at issue. As I have said, the Administrator is merely the chairman and he receives the advice of the Executive Council. I say that there can be no conflict, and that what the Opposition is endeavouring to achieve is already in the legislation.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 25

NOES: 32

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I move:

This amendment deals with the situation of a casual vacancy occurring in the Australian Capital Territory. This amendment represents a much more substantial disagreement with the Government’s proposal. Consquently we can argue it with a little more vigour than we argued on the previous one. It is rather ironic that Senator Knight should introduce some of the factors he did when he must surely know that it was the obstruction of his party and his side of politics in the Senate that caused the difficulties about the legislation in the first place. Had it not been for the Joint Sitting of the Houses of Parliament we would not have had the passage of the Bills for representation in the Senate of people from the Territories. We admit that there were deficiencies in the original legislation. They were imposed upon the Government of the time by the obstructionist tactics pursued in this place.

Let us not have any illusions about why there were problems associated with the filling of casual vacancies. If the Senate had acted as a House of review at the time that we were dealing with the original legislation establishing the right of the Territories to be represented in the Senate, we would not have had the sorts of difficulties that subsequently had to be resolved in the historic Joint Sitting of the Houses of Parliament. That principle having been established it appears that this Government wants to be associated with a little more history. The Government wants to have other joint sittings of Parliament. For what purpose? It wants them for the purpose of putting into effect a procedure which has been agreed to by the Australian people at referenda and which has been accepted by both Houses of Parliament.

But the Government wants to bring together 189 members of Parliament from all over Australia for the simple act of ratifying a choice that has to be made by a particular party. It wants to deny the elected representatives of the Australian Capital Territory the opportunity to make the recommendation to the GovernorGeneral. It seems quite an absurd, costly and time wasting process- one that can in no circumstances and in no historical sense be justified- for the purpose of providing emergency arrangements which the Government put forward as the reason for acting in the way that it did in respect of the Northern Territory. But the Government is proposing to bring together every member from every part of the Commonwealth for the purpose of resolving a difficulty which may result following the death, resignation or otherwise of an existing senator. I suggest that if the Government could not see logic in our previous advice, it ought to see some logic in what we are seeking to do in this instance.

The only argument that can be produced to justify a rejection of the Opposition’s amendment is that in a referendum which was conducted in the Australian Capital Territory in recent times the people decided not to give State status to the people of the Australian Capital Territory in its House of Assembly. The only argument is that, even though there probably were economic considerations in that vote insofar as the people did not want to accept financial responsibilities which might have arisen as a result of the House of Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory being recognised as a State Government, this Parliament should say that the House of Assembly is still not a fit and proper place to carry out this rather normal process of appointing a senator to fill a casual vacancy. That does not seem to us to be a suitable alternative. It flies in the face of everything that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his Government have said. The Government stands for the devolution of power and allowing the people to make their own decisions. We have representatives who carry out the day to day affairs of the Australian Capital Territory. It is true that that is done under the jurisdiction of the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott), but his role is not a difficult one as far as the House of Assembly is concerned. He does not sit in judgment and say: ‘No, I reject this, this and that’. He plays a paternal role rather than a supervisory role. In other words, he accepts the principle that the House of Assembly is a responsible, proper and effective body to look after the affairs of the residents of the Australian Capital Territory. Why then can they not have the responsibility and privilege in the rare occurrence that there will be a vacancy in the Australian Capital Territory of appointing a senator for the Australian Capital Territory in the event of a casual vacancy? We urge that a little more mature consideration be given to this matter than is normally given to matters under discussion in the Senate.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In speaking to the amendment moved by Senator Gietzelt, I think it should be placed on record that the Senate is now faced with a very queer set of circumstances. We now have people in government who, when the Labor Party was in government and moved to give representation to the Territories, voted on every occasion to prevent the people in the Territories, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, from having a voice in the Senate. If we look at the voting pattern at the joint sitting of both Houses on 6 August 1974, we find that we still have in this chamber 18 people who are now supporting this legislation and arguing very vigorously to amend the Senate (Representation of Territories) Act. I should like to read out the names of those people who will be voting tonight who voted on three occasions in the Senate and once at the joint sitting of both Houses not to give the people in the Territories any voice.

As one who spoke at length every time the legislation was debated in this place, pleading for the then Opposition to allow us to put this legislation on the statute book, I find it very strange that I have now to read out the names of those people who have taken a reverse position. We see that in the Senate there are Senators Baume, Bonner, Carrick, Chaney, Davidson, Durack, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Jessop, Laucke, Martin, Maunsell, Rae, Scott, Sheil, Townley, Withers and Young. All of these senators are now supporting the amending legislation which has been brought forward. But added to that, when I look at page 87 of the voting list of the joint sitting held on 6 August 1 974, 1 see that Senator Chipp also voted to prevent the people in the Territories from having a voice in the Senate chamber.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Is Senator Scott the same Senator Scott who is the Minister today?

Senator McLAREN:

– That is right. He is the Minister in charge of the Bill tonight. He is one who voted against giving the people of the two Territories a voice in the Federal Parliament. Government senators tonight are arguing strenuously that we should have another joint sitting of both Houses if under any circumstances there needs to be a replacement for a senator, no matter how that Senate vacancy may occur. I might say that both Senator Knight and Senator Kilgariff would not be in this place tonight if it had not been for the actions of the Whitlam

Government. Both of these honourable senators have been very vociferous tonight in the debate, but neither of them would be here if it had not been for the actions of the Whitlam Labor Government giving rights to the people of both Territories.

If we have a look at the record of the debate of the joint sitting, we find that the member for the Northern Territory, Mr Calder, had to be dragged across the chamber by the scruff of the neck to vote for the legislation. I think it is very hypocritical action on the part of this Government to endeavour to prevent the people in the Territories from making their own choice of a replacement senator, and to call on this Parliament to pass legislation to create another joint sitting of both Houses.

Not only did those senators vote against the legislation every time it came into the Senate and at the joint sitting, but also when it became law by a proper and democratic process they took it to the High Court and tried to challenge it there as they did in many other pieces of legislation which were discussed at the joint sitting. I think the present Government was successful in challenging only one piece of that legislation, and that was on a technicality. But the High Court upheld every other piece of legislation which was passed through this Parliament at the joint sitting. This is the sort of hypocrisy that we have to put up with when those people come to government. They hold themselves up as being champions of the people of the Territories, whereas if they had had their way in 1973 and 1974, the peoples of both Territories would not have a voice in this Senate.

The Government has to answer to these people every time it faces them. I hope that the people in the Australian Capital Territory particularly- the amendment we are looking at concerns them- will take remedial action later this year when they have the opportunity and return two members of the Labor Party to the Senate, a party which has always been prepared to give them a voice in this place.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to say a few words on this matter. I am surprised at the way in which the debate has been carried on. Although I agree with Senator McLaren’s remarks in relation to the origin of this legislation and recognise the debt owed to the Labor Party by both Senator Kilgariff and Senator Knight for their positions in the Senate, nevertheless it is an established fact that we have in the Senate representatives from the two Territories. This Bill seems to me to be such a minor one. It is a Bill which deals with the replacement of casual vacancies. It has taken up quite a lot of time. In the time that I have been in the Parliament the occasions on which we have had to fill casual vacancies in the Senate- the Senate has 64 members- have not been frequent. Only four Senate positions are affected by this legislation.

The senators elected from the Territories are all young. Rarely does anybody resign from the Senate other than to accept appointment to a high office, such as is offered to government senators. The judgment by the High Court in the Webster case demonstrated that membership of the Senate is unlikely to be denied on legal grounds. Therefore, the only occasion when a vacancy is likely to occur in the Senate is upon the death of one of the four senators from the Territories. In the last few weeks, it was necessary for one Territory senator to be granted leave of absence on account of illness. It could be said that there may have been a casual vacancy as a result. Nevertheless, the honourable senator in question has returned to the chamber with more fight than ever. However, the occasion may arise when such an appointment will be necessary. This legislation provides the machinery for that purpose. Whether the recommendation comes from this chamber, from some body or is made by an individual, the legislation read in terms of the Constitution poses that the appointment should come from the party represented by the departed senator. Unless the senator to be replaced was an Independent senator, there seems to be no purpose to argue as to who would make the appointment, as the belief would be that the senator should come from the same party as the senator being replaced. The situation could arise that a person who was appointed from a particular political party which was the same party to which the departed senator belonged, could be expelled from that political party before taking up office in the Senate. The argument then could be that another appointment should be made. When it is all boiled down, the point is that it is the political party which makes the appointment.

The argument today turns on the question who conveys to us the appointment by the party concerned. The fight in which we are engaged seems to me to be much ado about nothing. I am speaking to clause 3 because I oppose the procedure by which it is proposed that we should go to the trouble of calling a joint sitting of both Houses to ratify the decision by the party which has control of the appointment of the person to fill the vacancy. That is ridiculous. Perhaps the authority to make the appointment should rest with the Commonwealth. We could decide whether that should be perhaps the House of Representatives or the Senate and not the cumbersome proposal of a joint sitting.

Senator Knight:

– I am sorry. I missed the last point. What did the honourable senator say?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– We could decide that the decision could be made by one House. I am greatly opposed to joint sittings.

Senator Withers:

– Did you go to the last one?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I went to the last one. I was forced to attend by the actions of the honourable senator’s party. The Senate is proud of its power. It has the power to wreck governments. Yet by this proposal the Senate will subjugate that power by agreeing to meet in joint session with a House whose membership is greater than that of this chamber. At such a meeting the independence of the Senate will be submerged by the numbers of the other place. The only joint sitting that has occurred in the history of this nation resulted from the rejection on two occasions by the Senate of legislation. An election had been held and the voice of the people in returning the then Labor Government said that the Lower House was correct. The Government reintroduced the legislation and again it was rejected by the Senate. The Opposition parties in the Senate would not accept the vote of the people. They were prepared to use their powers to reject that legislation knowing that at the joint sitting which would result with the House of Representatives their action would be defeated by the combination of numbers. That action inflicted on the Senate the biggest blow to its prestige that has occurred in the period that I have been a senator. Such an event should not occur again.

– Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. Quite contrary to what Senator Cavanagh has alleged, I was involved in and listening to the debate. Hansard will record that I made a number of interjections to which Senator Button responded and, in fact, complained about. That happened during Senator Button’s speech on this subject which terminated at about 8.30 p.m. Then, as I say, I was listening to Senator Knight’s speech on the subject when Senator Walsh entered the chamber. As soon as he entered the chamber for the first time for the evening he drew attention to the state of the chamber. I commented upon the fact that he had absent from the chamber for the duration of the debate. I said that he had been down at the bar. Senator Walsh made no complaint about that comment. Then, a quorum having been formed, a few minutes later Senator Walsh left. I again commented that he had probably gone back to the bar. Senator Walsh was not in the chamber, but Senator Cavanagh took exception to the remark. Senator Cavanagh defended Senator Walsh.

Senator Gietzelt:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Lewis is abusing the privilege that the Committee has given to him to make a personal explanation. He has repeated ad nauseam the lies he spoke earlier in the debate which he was asked to withdraw. He has repeated them again several times, making serious allegations against one of my colleagues that have absolutely no basis in fact. If that is the behaviour of Senator Lewis, he ought to be ordered out of the chamber rather than be permitted to continue that line of speech. He has not made a personal explanation, which he suggested he wanted to do. In fact, he has just reiterated the very matter that he raised earlier in the evening’s debate. Whether Senator Walsh did this or that in respect of a quorum is quite irrelevant. The fact is that Senator Walsh was in no way involved in any activities at the bar. If anybody was involved in activities at the bar it was obviously Senator Lewis.

Senator Lewis:

– Again I claim to have been misrepresented.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I would like to bring the Committee back to the matter we are dealing with. I allowed a certain amount of leeway to Senator Cavanagh. Honourable senators heard my comments on that matter. Because of Senator Cavanagh ‘s comments Senator Lewis claimed he was misrepresented and I allowed a certain amount of leeway then. I think that should finish the matter for now. The Committee should get back to discussing the clause and the amendment moved by Senator Gietzelt.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I want to comment on a couple of remarks made by Senator Gietzelt and Senator Cavanagh. I think I interpreted the debate correctly by saying that we all agree that vacancies for Territory senators should be filled by appointment rather than by by-election, as provided for in the existing legislation. So at least we agree with respect to the need for appointment rather than the by-election process should a vacancy occur. I would like to comment on the provisions referred to by Senator Gietzelt. He said that I had not adequately justified the argument that I had put.

I would like to reiterate two points in relation to this amendment. Those points, as I said in my earlier comments, relate to the amendment to section 1 5 of the Australian Constitution. It was the result of the referendum of the people of Australia in 1977. The decision with respect to the House of Assembly which left it as an advisory body rather than a full legislative or Executive body was the result of a referendum in the Capital Territory in June 1 978. By way of further explanation, that was a referendum on which both major parties in the Territory agreed. They said that there should be some transfer of greater legislative and Executive powers to what was then the Legislative Assembly. There were differences of emphasis. For example, I supported a transfer of municipal powers as a first step to full State-like powers. Others supported, as an immediate first step, full State-like powers for the Legislative Assembly. Both of those propositions were very decisively defeated. As a result of that referendum, the name of the Assembly was changed to the House of Assembly to reflect its advisory character which it now has and which it exercises.

I concede the point, as I did when someone was speaking earlier, that the 1 8 representatives are democratically elected representatives of the Territory. My concern is that that body is not a proper body to make the sort of appointment that we are proposing in relation to a vacancy in the Senate because it does not have the legislative and Executive powers that State parliaments have through joint sittings- except, of course, in Queensland which is unicameral- to appoint a person to a vacancy in the Senate. I made the point in my earlier comments that I felt it was regrettable that the people of the Territory had decided, in their wisdom, not to transfer the powers to what is now the House of Assembly. The process of utilising this Federal Parliament ultimately to make that appointment may be cumbersome. I recall that I used the words unwieldy and cumbersome’, following Senator Button’s use of the word ‘cumbersome’. It may be, but I believe it is necessary, constitutionally appropriate and, as I put it at the conclusion of my earlier remarks, proper.

I made the additional point in my earlier remarks that what we are doing now in what will be the amended clause 9, sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4), will, in fact, be putting into this law in almost precisely the same terms- that change is appropriate only because it is legislation rather than the Constitution- provisions which now apply in section 15 of the Constitution to the States as a result of the referendum in 1977. I based my argument on those two points. In my view they are decisive. Honourable senators opposite may disagree with that view and obviously they do. But to my thinking those arguments are decisive.

I would also like to comment, because this matter has been raised again by Senator Gietzelt and by Senator Cavanagh, on the question of cost. I think Senator Gietzelt referred specifically to cost with respect to a Joint Sitting. Senator Cavanagh did not, as I recall, refer to cost but he did refer to the problem of drawing all the members of both Houses together to go through this process. I want only to reiterate the point that I made earlier that provision is made in the legislation for further action to be taken on this matter only after Parliament resumes. That action must be finalised within 14 days after the resumption of the Parliament. The result of that is that there is no need for a special calling together of the Parliament as occurred in July of 1974 when the first joint sitting of the Houses of Parliament was held. In this case, that would not be necessary because special provision is made to await the resumption of Parliament and 14 days are given for the matter to be resolved by the Parliament then sitting jointly.

Senator Chipp:

– There would still be massive cost.

Senator KNIGHT:

– There would be costs involved. There would be costs because it would take probably a couple of hours to call everybody together and sort out the procedures, and there would be work for the parliamentary staff beforehand. At least now there are standing orders and procedures for joint sittings. The Standing Orders, in particular, were developed and discussed before the 1974 Joint Sitting. I concede that there would be some costs. My point is that they would not be the sorts of costs involved in calling together a joint sitting for a once only purpose, as occurred in 1974. My understanding is that in all the States such a joint sitting is required and will be required in the future under section 1 5 of the Constitution as it has been amended- except in Queensland, which has only one State chamber, and presumably the Northern Territory. As I understood his comments, Senator Cavanagh suggested that as would be required under the consequential amendments to the amendment the committee is now considering, a party should make the appointment, or should name or select the person who should be appointed.

Senator Robertson:

– Not should; does.

Senator KNIGHT:

– It does. I am sorry; I misunderstood Senator Cavanagh. I thought he was suggesting that that does not happen. I was going to make the point that the provisions in this legislation are the same as those under section 15 of the Constitution, and parties do nominate the persons who will be appointed. What I am saying in fact agrees with what the honourable senator said. I misunderstood him. I offer my apologies.

Finally, I would like to comment on Senator McLaren’s brief but decisive intervention. However, with regret I must disagree once again with Senator McLaren. I would like only to take the opportunity to remind Senator McLaren of two things. One is that, whilst some concern was expressed by what are now the Government parties about this legislation in 1973-74, in 1977- as I mentioned in my earlier comments- when this matter went back to the High Court subsequent to the McKellar judgment and the comments of the Chief Justice, the Federal Government supported the Territories’ case and gave that very strong assistance and support to the case that was put as to the right of Territories to have senators.

In regard to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, I make the point that the present Government, at that time, gave the people of the Territory the opportunity to make that decision for themselves. The honourable senator was referring to the Government imposing things on the people in the Territory and he suggested that there was some ill will involved in that. In 1 978 it was the present Government that said to the people of the Territory that there were three choices available and that the people could vote freely on the matter of what was to happen to the House of Assembly. The people of the Territory, through that referendum, made a decision on that matter. It was not imposed from above. I think that in some respects those facts might qualify the sorts of comments that the honourable senator made.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-by leave- I wish to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented. I have been sitting in my office for the last 20 minutes with the speaker of the sound system turned down. I understand that while I was away Senator Lewis alleged that I had come out of the bar at about twenty-five past eight this evening, called a quorum and then gone back to the bar. I have not been in the bar all night. I am surprised that Senator Lewis did not know that. Obviously he has been there for a considerable time himself. I have not been in the bar, in fact, all day. I came from the dining room to the Senate chamber at 8.15 p.m., I called a quorum at 8.25 and I stayed here until just after 9 o’clock. I photocopied a speech which I will be delivering within the next couple of days and I made arrangements by telephone for a trip that I will be making to central and north Queensland in a few weeks time. I have not been in the bar all night. It seems to me that the hallucinations of Senator Lewis probably spring from the fact that he has spent a considerable time in the bar today.

Senator Lewis:

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave not granted.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Committee is debating the question of whether or not a joint sitting of both Houses of the Federal Parliament, the Senate and the House of Representatives, shall meet for the purpose of ratifying a decision that will have been made by a political party. The Opposition sees that as an unnecessary process, as an absurd proposition and as one that ought to be avoided at all costs. Senator Cavanagh drew attention to the fact that the Australian Labor Party has some distaste for the purpose of joint sittings of Parliament because in the Constitution it is one of the escape hatches, one of the means by which legislation can be agreed upon following refusal of the Senate to pass legislation. Processes are then set in train for matters to be referred to the Australian people for their consideration. It is the Opposition’s belief that that having been done, it should be mandatory for the legislation so to pass and not have to come back for a joint sitting of Parliament.

Yet, this Government seeks to give to that joint sitting of-Parliament the right to ratify a decision that will be made by a political party and to deny the right, which the Opposition seeks to uphold in its amendment, of the people of the Australian Capital Territory to choose who will represent them. In other words, we will have representatives from all the States of the Commonwealth, from all the electorates of the Commonwealth, coming together for the purpose of making a decision and denying the very people whom they represent- that is, the persons of the Australian Capital Territory- the right to make a decision.

Surely from a philosophical point there is much more logic in the amendment which the Opposition proposes than there is in the legislation for which Government members are seeking support. When we delegate to a political party the authority to select a candidate, the task becomes one of ratification. It is a mere formality, a mere process by which the decision of the political party has been made. To use the expression of Senator Cavanagh, the process is to carry that decision into effect. Yet, this Government says that the House of Assembly, which is representative of the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory, should not be the body that carries out that formality, that ratification; and that the people of the Australain Capital Territory ought to be denied that right because they did not vote a certain way in a referendum that took place in 1978.

That is a proposition that we reject and find completely unsuitable. There is no need, therefore, to establish a process which has an historic connotation with our own Constitution which was designed for a different purpose. It was designed to overcome the failure of the Senate to pass legislation. We suggest that nothing that Senator Knight has said in any way would shake our belief that the amendment that we put forward ought to receive majority support in the Senate. After all, it is a matter of extending the democratic process. That process ought to be a consultative one. It ought to be mandatory because the political party will have made the decision. It ought not to be a cumbersome process which we suggest it will be if it is necessary to have a joint sitting of both Federal Houses of Parliament.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

- Senator Knight seems to have taken on the role of replying to any honourable senator from this side of the House who may speak in opposition to the legislation. I give him credit for the way in which he has carried out that role. Although he referred to the matters on which, in his opinion, I may have been wrong, I do not think that there was too much difference between us. I have never opposed joint sittings of the Parliament because of the expense involved. I realise that under this legislation they are to be held when the Parliament would normally resume and that although some expense will be involved it will not be prohibitive so as to justify an alteration to that provision in the legislation. But Senator Knight did not reply to the point I made that it is somewhat belittling for the Senate to have its opinion subjugated by a more populous House because of the numbers in the other place. It makes the Senate a lower House rather than an upper House which is the role that it ought to take. Although that may happen in the States I think that the circumstances are entirely different. I do not know what houses the State parliaments have but any of them could make the decision.

I did not say that the parties should make the appointments; I said that they do make the appointments. The party becomes stronger than the Parliament in relation to them. If a party makes a recommendation to a State parliament, that parliament has to forward the recommendation to the Federal Parliament. If it does not agree with the nomination put forward by the party, the State parliament may recommend another person to this Parliament. Before he takes his seat in this Parliament he may be expelled by the party. In accordance with Labor Party rules, if he opposes the appointed Labor man, he is automatically expelled. If he is filling a Labor Party vacancy, by the time he comes to take his seat he is not a member of the Labor Party. I would think that the other political parties would make some arrangements to see that they are not overridden by a decision to the recommending body. Otherwise, by the time the recommended man came to this Parliament he would not be a member of the party and under the proposed legislation could not take his seat.

Therefore, the party is the body which determines who will fill the vacancy. On the rare occasion that an independent senator or a senator from one of the Territories leaves, the Senate will have a say in who should fill the vacancy. Rather than subjugate our powers to the House of Representatives, it would be far better to let the House of Representatives make the appointment.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am forced to speak again because of several of the comments made by Senator Knight. He tried to excuse the Government for its actions when it was in opposition in refusing to pass legislation to allow the residents of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to be represented in this place. He used as his argument that on the second occasion that this occurred a case was before the High Court which the Commonwealth Government supported. That does not correct all the present Government’s errors on the previous occasions. When the legislation was introduced into the Parliament it was opposed. The record is clear. I referred to it tonight. I mentioned the name of every senator who is still a member of the Senate who voted against the legislation. What Senator Knight has said tonight does not get the Government off the hook for refusing the give the Territories representation in the Senate.

Senator Knight said that there would be no need for a special joint sitting of the Parliament if a replacement of a senator from one of the Territories were needed. What would be the situation in respect of the Northern Territory? I refer to the case of Senator Kilgariff who was elected to the Senate as a member of the Country-Liberal Party. After being elected he resigned from the Country-Liberal Party and joined the Liberal Party. What would be the situation if something were to befall Senator Kilgariff? I was going to ask what would happen if he were run over by the train from Larrimah to Darwin but that service does not exist because the present Government stopped it when it came to office. What would happen if he were knocked down by a bus, taken ill or if he resigned from the Senate to contest a casual vacancy in the House of Representatives caused by the resignation of a Northern Territory member. What situation would we be placed in? It was agreed to by a referendum that the Constitution should provide that a senator must be replaced by a member of the same party. I use Senator Kilgariff as an illustration because he is an obvious example. He came into the Senate as a member of the Country-Liberal Party, resigned from that party and joined the Liberal Party. How would we interpret the Constitution? Would we appoint someone who claimed to be a member of the Country-Liberal Party or would we replace Senator Kilgariff with someone who claimed to be a member of the Liberal Party? That is a situation in which we could well find ourselves. It would cause many legal arguments.

Senator Knight said that we do not need to conduct a special joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. That could be done when the Parliament resumed either for the autumn or the Budget session. If a casual vacancy occurred within 24 hours of the Parliament’s rising for the Christmas recess or the winter recess, the people in the Territory involved would be disenfranchised for all of” the recess. They would have no representative from the party that that person leaving the Parliament represented.

Senator Knight:

– Not necessarily. There is provision for an appointment until the Parliament sits.

Senator McLAREN:

Senator Chipp:

– The Governor-General in Canberra.

Senator McLAREN:

– There again, we get back to the Governor-General, as Senator Chipp said. As we all know, the Governor-General of this country is all-powerful. If Mr Fraser were to go over to Government House and talk to him as he did to the then Governor-General in 1 975, the Governor-General would jump to Mr Fraser ‘s wishes and do what he wanted him to do. We do not want to see that happen with this GovernorGeneral. But, as Senator Chipp said, Mr Fraser can tell the Governor-General who to appoint on an interim basis. Does any honourable senator deny that that is so? That is what the situation will be. The Governor-General will not act unless he is told how to act by the presiding Prime Minister. He will be the person who will determine who will be the senator to represent the Australian Capital Territory until such time as a joint sitting can be held.

For the interim period we will have not the Governor-General’s appointee but Malcolm

Fraser ‘s appointee in the Australian Capital Territory. If a vacancy occurs before the next general election is held and if this legislation is passed in its present state, it could well be that an appointment made after the next general election will be made by Bill Hayden. I am sure that the people in the Australian Capital Territory do not want to see that happen. Under the Constitution now they have the power to elect members of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. Why is the Government denying those members the power to appoint a person to represent the Australian Capital Territory in the Senate if a casual vacancy occurs? All the arguments put forward by Senator Knight fall to the ground when we analyse the situation in the way in which I have just done.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– From the way in which Senator McLaren analysed the situation, I am afraid that he confused himself and, I think, he confused most people who are listening to this debate. I wish to correct briefly one or two of the statements he made. He referred to the political scene in the Northern Territory. Obviously, Senator McLaren is quite unaware of the situation there.

Senator Chipp:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I do not want to be unfair to Senator Kilgariff, although I may be by rising on a point of order. But really, without reflection on you, Mr Temporary Chairman, we do need some strong chairmanship in this debate now. We have spent almost four hours debating a Bill which should have been passed by this place in one hour. We are now discussing an amendment moved by Senator Gietzelt to proposed new subsection 9(2), lines 6 and 7 of the Bill, which deals with and only with the the insertion of the words ‘the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly’ to replace the words ‘, the Senate and the House of Representatives, sitting and voting together, ‘. The clause we are debating has absolutely nothing to do with the Northern Territory. The clause dealing with the Northern Territory has already been disposed of. The arguments advanced have been repeated time and time again in this place and I call upon you, Mr Temporary Chairman, to exercise control over this debate so that at least the remarks made are relevant to the clause before the Committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Collard:

– If Senator Kilgariff directs his remarks to the clause before the Committee there is no substance in the point of order. As far as the Chair doing anything further about the matter, I am rather limited in what I can do. I hope that your remarks, Senator Chipp, will be taken up by honourable senators.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– That is quite okay by me, Mr Temporary Chairman. Senator McLaren made a considerable number of remarks relating to the political situation in the Northern Territory. I was merely responding to them. However, I will not take up the time of the Committee in doing that, other than to say that the political party to which he referred is the Country-Liberal Party. There is no party such as the one he mentioned. But under this legislation the situation in the Australian Capital Territory will be that, if the House is not sitting, the Government may appoint a person to act in the position for an interim period. But that person must come from the political party of the person who left the Senate. At the same time, I take it that that appointment has to be ratified when Parliament next meets. It has to be ratified by people who have been elected.

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– Long ago, Senator Gietzelt moved amendment No. 3, which sought to omit ‘the House of Representatives, sitting together’, and to substitute ‘the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly’. The Government cannot accept the amendment proposed, though I can understand, in the first instance perhaps, a measure of resentment that the State parliaments have a certain capacity in this field and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has a certain capacity and the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly does not have that capacity.

Having said that I can understand the early and perhaps superficial resentment, let me say that we are talking about a body in the Australian Capital Territory that is an advisory body purely and simply. It has no legislative or executive power. It is on those grounds that the Government finds it not possible to accept the amendment. I suppose there is little doubt that in other times and in other circumstances and with a better and clearer idea of the responsibilities of the Australian Capital Territory it may well be that the Capital Territory will, in all respects, be in a similar situation to the situation of the States and the Northern Territory. But at this point that is not the case. Consequently, the Government cannot accept the amendment proposed.

I make one other reference to a matter that has been mentioned by one or two of the honourable senators who took part in this debate. It was suggested that the House or Houses of Parliament would purely have the task of ratifying the promotion of a candidate by a political party. I do not believe the matter is absolutely as simple as that. In most cases, one would expect that a political party would act with maximum responsibility and would nominate a person suitable in every way to become a member of the Parliament, whatever the House may be. But the Parliament would not have to ratify that appointment; it could use its discretion. It could identify someone as being totally irresponsible, totally unsuitable. I think it is worth while marking the point that it would not really be purely a process of ratification. Having made those few remarks, I can only repeat that, for the reasons I have indicated, the Government cannot accept the amendment that is before the Committee at this stage.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 26

NOES: 32

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I move:

On legal advice we support the intent of proposed sub-section 9 (3), but we believe that there is some evidence that the objective would not be achieved unless the words ‘chosen by that party’ are included. Whilst it is true that in other parts of this clause it has been suggested that the replacement will be chosen by the party concerned there can come a circumstance in which the person involved can no longer be a member of that party at a given time. So, on the legal opinion we have, when a’ subsequent vacancy occurs and no member of the party is available to be chosen or appointed the person to be appointed should be chosen by that party. Perhaps the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott) will seek some advice from his advisers. We are seeking only to make sure that the intent of the clause is without argument. Whilst it is said in the early part of the clause that that is the intent, we believe that it ought to be more clearly defined at the end of the proposed new sub-section.

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– The amendment to insert the words chosen by that party’ at the end of proposed new sub-section 9(3) which deals with choosing a replacement senator from the same political party is not acceptable. It appears that if a new senator, before taking his seat, ceases to be a member of his party he should be deemed not to have been chosen or appointed. This effectively provides the political party concerned in his selection with a veto of that appointment. Consequently I believe that the object of the legislation is brought about. On those grounds we cannot accept the amendment.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott) to what he has said. He said that he thinks that the object is achieved by the other amendment to the legislation; that the person appointed has to be a member of the party at the time of taking office. But there is a very important difference which is illustrated by the Queensland Government’s appointment of Mr Field as a senator. He was a member of the party from which an honourable senator had died, thus causing a vacancy. He was not the chosen member of the Australian Labor Party but he was chosen by the Queensland Government to fill the vacancy. Under new sub-section (3) such a situation could happen in one of the Territories without reference to the party involved. The Houses could meet jointly or the Governor-General could make an appointment. Alternatively, I suppose that both Houses could meet jointly and the Northern Territory Assembly could propose to this Parliament a nominee who was not chosen by the party but who was a member of the party.

He may be a member who suits the appointing authority and not the party. He then would hold office until such time as under proposed new section 9 (4) (b) he takes his seat. He would then take his seat if he were still a member of the party. But this provision now throws the responsibility on the party- if the appointing authority does not appoint its chosen candidate- to expel an individual in the party in order to have appointed a member of its choosing at the time the seat is taken. There is no alternative to it. There is no need under new sub-section (3) for the appointing or recommending authority to take any notice of what a party says. It has to ensure that the appointee it recommends, who becomes a senator until he takes his seat, is a member of the same party as that of the member who created the vacancy. That situation happened in Queensland. I think that Queensland appointed a very incompetent member of this Senate. When he took his seat he was automatically expelled from the Labor Party. Therefore, under this provision, he could not have taken his seat. We then would have had to make a new appointment. If the appointing authority received a recommendation from the party and recommended a person that the party wanted selected, that would be the end of the matter.

This provision could cause some embarrassment. If the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly appointed a member- I do not want to be personal to Senator Robertson- of the Liberal Party or Country Party if Senator Kilgariff died, resigned or was given another appointment, the person appointed may not be the candidate that the particular party wanted. However he could be appointed by the parliament of that area without its taking any notice of the candidate chosen by the party. In order to get the party’s choice appointed to the Senate, or that person taking his seat that member would have to be expelled from his party. The party may not desire to do that. This amendment throws a responsibility on the party. The party should decide the first appointment. There should be complete unity and support for the senator from the party to encourage him in his duties in the Senate. He should not be in a position which would possibly create dissatisfaction if a man were expelled from that party for no reason other than that he was recommended for elevation by the appointing authority. That is the reason for this wording. If the Minister analyses it he will see that whilst the situation can be rectified by the expulsion of a member at the time he takes his seat it is an unsatisfactory way of going about it. Therefore serious consideration should be given to the acceptance of the amendment to provide for the insertion in new sub-section (3) of the words ‘chosen by that party’.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I am drawn into this debate because of what is stated in the amendment and what has been suggested by Senator Cavanagh. He ignores the fact that the Senate (Representation of Territories) Amendment Bill 1980 employs the same methods that were employed in the constitutional amendment that we passed in 1977 which of course affects the States. The same type of provision applies in that amendment as applies in this clause. As Senator Cavanagh said, if someone is chosen who happens to be a member of the party but who is not the one that that party wants, and he stands against the endorsed candidate or the candidate desired to be endorsed, then of course we have a problem. But that was recognised in 1 977. In regard to the constitutional arrangements relating to the States, the situation is that if a person is expelled from his party he cannot be chosen. That is what new sub-section (4) is all about.

– That is so in the Liberal Party if someone stands against an endorsed candidate. If the party is foolish enough not to make a provision to prevent someone from getting into office as a replacement senator ahead of its endorsed candidate, it probably deserves what it gets. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and would be contradictory to the provision covering the States.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in conformity with the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

page 1071

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

Senator Lewis:

- Mr President -

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. Senator Lewis, or any other honourable senator, had the right to speak to the motion for the adjournment. But the motion having been defeated, we must go back to the business we were dealing with.

page 1071

SENATE (REPRESENTATION OF TERRITORIES) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not want to prolong this debate as I did not know it was going on. I do not disagree with all that Senator Missen has said. Provision is made in this legislation that if an appointing authority appoints someone who is not a member of the party at the time he is about to take his seat he shall not take his seat. He is a senator elect for a period before a joint sitting of the Houses make a final decision. A party may find it necessary to expel a member. Senator Missen said that a party would be unwise if it did not have a provision for automatic expulsion for someone who stood against an elected candidate. Do we want to put ourselves in such an embarrassing position, where the branch president of the party may have to expel someone in order to get its candidate appointed? It can be overcome by inserting the words ‘chosen by the party’. The only reason that the Government has not accepted that proposition is that it is not in the constitutional amendment which we agreed to. Someone has come up with the idea that some imperfection in the constitutional amendment could be altered with the experience of time. What is the reason for wanting to improve the constitutional amendment that we carried? If no reason has been advanced for not accepting the amendment, why do we not accept it?

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– I can only repeat what I have said. I do not believe the addition is necessary. The circumstances applying during the episode of Senator Field no longer apply. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that they do not apply in future. I believe it fulfils the purpose for which it was drawn up and I believe that the question resolves itself in that the Bill gives to the political party the power of veto over a particular appointment. I believe that is what has been sought and I believe this legislation fulfils that objective. On those grounds we believe it to be sufficient.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I would like the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott) to tell the Committee how the Parliament will ascertain what particular party an appointee belongs to? I gave the instance tonight of a person who is now in the Senate. He was elected as a member of the National Country Party but has since resigned from that party and joined the Liberal Party. If a vacancy occurs in that instance how will we determine who the replacement should be? Which party does the replacement have to come from? Can the Minister answer that question?

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– It would be the party to which he is beholden at this time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-Clause 3 of the Bill states:

Where a vacancy has at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of a Territory and, at the time when he was so chosen, he was publicly recognised by a particular political party . . .

A replacement for Senator Kilgariff- I hope he will not be stabbed in the back overnight- would have to come from the National Country Party.

Senator Puplick:

– There is only one party in the Northern Territory and that is the Country Liberal Party.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not know the intricacies of this, but Senator Kilgariff left one party and went over to the other.

Senator Puplick:

– No, he did not.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Of course he did.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Scott) read a third time.

page 1072

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

– by leave- I wish to make a personal explanation. In Committee tonight I made- I choose my words very carefully- a disparaging remark about an Opposition senator which was in an aside to my colleagues and which I believe would not have been broadcast; nor do I believe it would have been recorded in Hansard. Unfortunately that disparaging remark was heard by an Opposition senator -

Senator Cavanagh:

– Across the chamber.

Senator LEWIS:

– Across the chamber. He saw fit to take exception to it, as a result of which that disparaging remark was broadcast over the air and recorded in Hansard. That then led to a series of allegations and cross-allegations as a result of which the remark was repeated on a number of occasions. Subsequently the honourable senator about whom the allegation had been made came into the chamber -

Senator Chaney:

– You withdrew and apologised.

Senator LEWIS:

– Yes. In the course of it I withdrew and apologised. In the course of the evening the honourable senator about whom the remark had been made came into the chamber and made a personal explanation, for which leave was granted, in which he denied categorically the allegation which I had made. I now unreservedly withdraw the allegation and I apologise to that senator for making the allegation. I make it perfectly clear that I accept his explanation. However, in the course of making his personal explanation and, I believe, as a result of the remarks which were made to him in this chamber by honourable senators who were in this chamber and who must have known that they were untrue that senator alleged that I had spent much time this evening in the bar of this Parliament. I sought leave to make a personal explanation following those remarks. That leave was refused me by the members of the Opposition including- I noted him make it personally- the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt.

I say very simply that I deny having been in the bar of this Parliament tonight. I say quite categorically that I deny that at any time in the past 24 hours have I been in any bar anywhere.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- I also wish to make a personal explanation. I apologise to the Senate for prolonging the agony. I will be as brief as I possibly can but, as my name has been mentioned by Senator Lewis, I think I should say a few words.

Leave was refused to Senator Lewis because that was the second occasion on which he wished to make a personal explanation. It ought to be clear on the record that it was Senator Lewis who, on his own admission, made the original disparaging remark about another senator. He has been in the Senate long enough to know that if he is going to make remarks like that, he will be hit back. Senator Cavanagh quite properly picked up the fact that Senator Lewis had said that. The upshot of that was that Senator Lewis made a personal explanation. The Temporary Chairman was very patient and allowed him to make a full explanation without any time restriction. Senator Walsh then came into the chamber and made his personal explanation. Then Senator Lewis wanted to make another personal explanation. I refused him leave to do so, I think quite properly, because the Bill before the chamber had been spun out because of what was going on here.

As was said earlier, the legislation could have been completed tonight, Senator Lewis is a Government senator. I presume the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, wants to get his legislation through. Instead of doing this, we were fooling around with personal explanations. Senator Lewis had already had an opportunity to speak and to give a full explanation. He then wanted another opportunity. If that had been allowed, what would have been the next thing that would have happened? Would Senator Walsh have sought another opportunity to make another explanation, and then would Senator Lewis have sought to make another personal explanation? What an absurdity!

This place has been reduced into a farce tonight because of the original disparaging remark made by Senator Lewis. What has happened here tonight is on his head. I think it is pathetic that we have had to spend our time listening to these sorts of explanations. I can only say that I believe that I was justified in refusing leave to Senator Lewis to make a personal explanation, which is most unusual, as he knows. If a person feels that he has been aggrieved in this chamber he is normally given the opportunity to explain why. But on this occasion for the reasons I have indicated it simply was not justified.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- Mr President, I think it is about time that the Senate was reminded of a practice and a form of etiquette which seems to have been forgotten, that is, that it is not in good taste to reflect upon the absence of a senator from this place. I think we have taken that for granted for a long time. It is certainly not a good practice to be referring to where a senator may be. Quite often such a reflection is quite wrong, as has been proved tonight on two occasions. Although there is nothing in the Standing Orders about this, I believe that that is a reasonable practice to follow.

Senator Mason:

– When it suits you.

Senator GEORGES:

– Let us get back to it. If I may say so, I think it is necessary tonight to remind ourselves of this practice because of the two incidents which have occurred. It has become the practice for a speaker to say that an honourable senator who has spoken and who has just left the chamber is no longer interested in what is being said. I think that is in breach of the etiquette about which I speak. There is nothing in the Standing Orders about this; nevertheless I think it is a practice to which we should revert.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is a long-established practice in this place that reflections of a personal nature be avoided at all times.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– by leave- I also have no wish to prolong the matter, but I would like to make a brief statement. I think that all honourable senators would agree that it is unfortunate that a fair bit of time has been taken up this evening with the matters which have just been under discussion. The only comment that I wish to make is that I was present when the original incident took place and I noted that Senator Lewis immediately and unreservedly withdrew once the matter was brought forward, and he apologised without reservation.

I have no wish to prolong argument on the matter. I merely wish to say that Senator Lewis has been very frank about his part in the matter. Without any of the sorts of reservations that we sometimes get in this place, he has put his position very clearly. As I said, he withdrew and apologised unreservedly, which I think was a most appropriate thing for him to do. I hope that all honourable senators will take the view which has been taken by all honourable senators who have taken part in the latter part of the discussion that in the future we wish to avoid similar incidents as they affect the running of this chamber.

page 1073

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Defence Act- Determinations- 1 980-

No. 8- Clearance Diving Allowance.

No. 10- Extra Risk Allowance.

No. 1 1- Parachutist Allowance.

No. 12- Special Air Service Allowance.

Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Regulations 1980-

No. 3- (Regulations to revise the Regulations in force under the Ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory).

Senate adjourned at 11.18 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 March 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800326_senate_31_s84/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate26 March 1980

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CARRICK:Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

PETITIONS

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Senator RYAN:ACT

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:NORTHERN TERRITORY

Metric System

Senator MASON:NEW SOUTH WALES

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator RYAN:

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator MESSNER:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Senator MARTIN:QUEENSLAND · LP

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Senator MARTIN:QUEENSLAND · LP

Aboriginal Rights Treaty

Senator PRIMMER:VICTORIA

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator PUPLICK:NEW SOUTH WALES

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator DAVIDSON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator SIM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

National Women’s Advisory Council

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

RURAL SECTOR

Notice of Motion

Senator CHIPP:Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

FUEL RESERVES

Notice of Motion

Senator MASON:New South Wales

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Notice of Motion

Senator HARRADINE:Tasmania

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

QUESTION

UNITED STATES NAVY: AUSTRALIAN PORT FACILITIES

Senator BUTTON:VICTORIA

Senator CARRICK:LP

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS

Senator DAVIDSON:

Senator CARRICK:LP

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator TATE:TASMANIA

Senator CARRICK:LP

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator LEWIS:VICTORIA

Senator CARRICK:LP

Senator CARRICK:

Senator Grimes:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Grimes:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Grimes:

Senator CARRICK:

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator WALSH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CARRICK:LP

Senator Gietzelt:

Senator CARRICK:

Senator WALSH:

Senator CARRICK:

QUESTION

TASMANIA: SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION PROGRAM

Senator WALTERS:TASMANIA

Senator CARRICK:LP

Senator Georges:

Senator Carrick:

QUESTION

FRENCH ATOMIC TESTS

Senate
26 March 1980

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

Senator RYAN:
ACT

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CHANEY:
LP

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator CARRICK:
LP