28th Parliament · 2nd Session
Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 9
-I have to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, led by Mr N. M. Matchanov. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation.
Honourable members - Hear, hear.
page 9
– I move:
That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on 5 January 1974 of the Honourable Donald Alastair Cameron, O.B.E., a member of this House for the Division of Oxley from 1949 to 1961, and a Minister of the Crown from 1956 to 1961, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and family in their bereavement.
The late Dr Cameron was Minister for Health in the Menzies Government from 1956 to 1961, Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation from 1960 to 1962 and Australian High Commissioner in New Zealand from 1962 to 1965. He was born in Ipswich on 17 March 1900 and educated at Ipswich Grammar School and the University of Sydney. After receiving the degree of Bachelor of Arts he enlisted in the 1st AIF. On his return from service he studied for his degrees in medicine and surgery. From 1927 to 1932 he was house surgeon at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the Prince Henry Hospital in Sydney. Later he went into private practice in Ipswich. He enlisted in the Second AIF in 1940 in Australian Army Medical Corps. He went on to command the 2/1 Australian Field Ambulance with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. Later he was Assistant Director of Medical Services, 11th Australian Division, with the rank of colonel. He served in Tobruk, Palestine, Ceylon, New Guinea and New Britain. He was awarded the Order of the British Empire and mentioned in despatches. Honourable members will recall his great sense of dedication and the high standards of honour and diligence he applied to all his work. He was outwardly quiet and reserved, retaining some thing of a soldierly bearing, but impressed all who knew him with his courtesy and charm. He brought distinction to the profession of medicine and the profession of arms, and to the offices he filled in public life.
– The late honourable Donald Alastair Cameron, O.B.E., was a man of very strong character. He was a good companion and a loyal colleague; he was a patriotic Australian who served the nation and the community with great distinction; he was a member of the Cabinet; he was a diplomat; he was a medical practitioner; and in all those ways he served the Australian nation and the Australian community. He served in his last official post as Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand for 3 years from 1962 to 1965. He had held the posts of Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ministerincharge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. He served from 1949 to December 1961 as the member for the Federal division of Oxley. An interesting fact about the Honourable Donald Cameron is that he. was the son of a doctor who practised in Ipswich. Don Cameron was bom in Ipswich. He qualified in medicine at Sydney and he was a house surgeon at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the Prince Henry Hospital. He returned to Ipswich and there practised as a medical practitioner.
He had a distinguished war service both in the Middle East and in the islands to the north of Australia. After he completed his service as Australian High Commissioner in New Zealand he returned to public service in Queensland as a practitising medical practitioner. In his return to community service he became President of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Medical Association, which position he held in 1969 and 1970. His family has had strong ties with the medical profession. I have mentioned that his father was a doctor. Now his son, also named Donald, is carving a name for himself as quite a brilliant young medical scientist in Melbourne. That he was able to hold the Federal seat of Oxley as long as he did, even though the area had large coalmining and industrial development, shows his personal attractiveness as a man. Those of us who served in this Parliament with Don Cameron remember him as a good friend and a good colleague.
– I join the
Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the ‘Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) in their remarks to the condolence motion for the Honourable D. A. Cameron, O.B.E. Donald Cameron was a Minister of the Crown when I entered Parliament and I have very warm and kindly thoughts about him. When I came to this Parliament I was a very young member, and what I noted immediately about Donald Cameron was his generosity to new members and his willingness to help and to be friendly. He and his wife made a very attractive couple who helped many young people, and not only in this Parliament. They were noted in the community for the interest that they took in young people. He had a very full life. Being a medical doctor, he served his community well. That service was no doubt the reason why he was elected as its representative. He served his country. He served the Crown as a Minister. He was a diplomat. May I express my pleasure at being able to make these not over-generous remarks about a person who was a first-rate citizen and who will be long remembered. I express the sympathy of members of the Australian Country Party, particularly those who knew his wife, and wish her and her family well in their bereavement.
– <Grief following the death of Dr the Honourable Donald Cameron will be shared by many thousands of Australians. It will fall heavily in its burden upon the people of his home town, Ipswich, where he was widely known and, like his charming wife who survives him, together with his son and daughter, well loved. Dr Cameron’s quiet, gentle, unassuming nature belied the vitality and resourcefulness which he brought to ‘bear as a national figure in the Australian Parliament where he served as Minister for Health from January 1956 to December 1961. His modest nature left it for others to raise his kindly, generous service to his home town, Ipswich, as a general practitioner, especially during the depression when circumstances were so difficult for so many. His professionalism then restored many ill bodies and his understanding and kindness removed much worry without in any way causing any sense of embarrassment for patients’ families.
The high esteem in which he was held in Ipswich can perhaps be best gauged by the fact .that he represented this area for so long with handsome support from Ipswich, a well renowned Labor stronghold in State politics.
His defeat in 1961 was the result of a nationwide swing against his Government. It was no reflection on him or the quality of his representation. Indeed a lesser man could never have held the area so long and so well for his Government.
His family is a distinguished one in Ipswich. His grandfather was principal of the Ipswich Boys Grammar School, the oldest school in the State. His father, like faim, was a distinguished local medical practitioner. Dr Donald Cameron also, as I said, made his mark as a national figure. In doing so he never let slip from his grasp his keen and commendable attachment to his profession and the qualities he believed implicit in the successful and satisfying practice of medicine.
Dr Donald Cameron once described health as ‘one of the most fruitful fields of human co-operation’. He made that remark in addressing the tenth Assembly of the World Health Organisation in Geneva in 1957 and I think it provides perhaps the best single summation of his outlook to the field of endeavour to which he devoted his life. The fact that Dr Cameron, was the first Australian Minister for Health to address the Assembly, and his election as vice-president, illustrate the esteem in which he was held in health circles.
The mass poliomyelitis immunisation campaign was launched in Australia in the year Dr Cameron became Minister for Health. Five years earlier the disease had reached its peak in Australia with more than 4,700 cases notified. The incidence of the disease has remained low since vaccination began, apart from a brief flare-up in 1961-62. Legislation providing Commonwealth financial assistance to approved organisations engaged in conducting home nursing services was also introduced in the year that Dr Cameron took over the portfolio. In 1957 he introduced a Bill which increased the Comonwealth’s contribution to a patient’s hospital costs. His period as Minister also saw considerable expansion in the training of Asian nurses in Australian hospitals, colleges of nursing and allied institutions under the Colombo Plan.
Dr Cameron entered Parliament as Liberal member for Oxley in 1949 and was a member of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. After serving as Minister for Health he was Australian High Commissioner in New Zealand from 1962 to 1965. In 1969-70 he wasPresident of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Medical Association. As honourable members will have noted, Dr Donald Cameron had a full and challenging career. It was one which would have given him great satisfaction because of its success. However, it was so successful only because he put so much into it and was so generous and dedicated in the way in which he went about his life and his work.
I trust that his family will accept my sincere condolences and the expression of sympathy which come from my family, from the good friends of his old electorate and especially of his home town of Ipswich and which of course will be endorsed by honourable members of this House. As his successor in this House and as one who increasingly admired the very fine personal qualities of the late Don Cameron I feel sad and humble at this time.
– I would like to identify myself with the remarks that have been made about an old parliamentary colleague, whose hospitality I enjoyed in Canberra and also in Wellington, New Zealand when he was High Commissioner. As a private member of Parliament Donald Cameron believed that this was a forum for rational discussion. As a Minister he believed that it was a place where he should give all the information that was consistent with his Executive Council oath. He was a distinguished member of the Congregation of St John the Baptist, Canberra and was always, at all times, a courteous colleague. I am sure that all honourable members will pray that his family will be strengthened to bear their grief and that they will be comforted by the many happy memories they may have of him.
Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.
-Thank you, gentlemen.
page 11
– I wish to inform the House that Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the appointment of the Honourable Sir John Kerr, K.C.M.G., as Governor-General. Sir John will take up his appointment when Sir Paul Hasluck relinquishes office at the end of June.
page 11
– I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Willesee, will be absent from Australia from 5 March on a visit to Guinea and Indonesia. He is expected to return on 16 March. In his absence, I am the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs.
page 11
The Cleric - Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost many citizens more, particularly single people and working wives.
That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalisation of health services which will lead to impersonalised and mediocre standards of medical care, the creation of a huge new bureaucracy, and will limit the citizen’s freedom of choice.
That the present health scheme can be amended to overcome existing deficiencies, and that the proposed scheme is totally unnecessary.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Whitlam, Mr Beazley, Mr Drury, Mr England, Mr Gorton, Mr Adermann, Mr Bennett, Mr Bourchier, Mr Chipp, Mr Drummond, Mr Fairbairn, Mr Garland, Mr Hallett, Mr Killen, Mr McVeigh, Mr Staley, Mr Street and Mr ‘Whan.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the undersigned men and women of Australia believe in a Christian way of life; and that no democracy can thrive unless its citizens are responsible and law abiding.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will see that the powerful communicator, television, is used to build into the nation those qualities of character which make a democracy work - integrity, teamwork and a sense of purpose by serving, and that television be used to bring faith in God to the heart of the family and national life.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Whitlam, Mr Adermann, Mr Bourchier, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Fairbairn, Mr Hunt, Mr Keogh, Mr Killen, Mr McVeigh, Mr Mulder and Mr Riordan.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to immediately revoke all whaling licenses issued by the Australian Government and to reimpose a total ban on the importation of all whale produce.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Garland and Mr Kerin.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That there are many people in Australia who still prefer ‘God Save the Queen’ as the National Anthem in preference to the alternatives that have been suggested.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will urge the Government to include ‘God Save the Queen’ in any referendum or poll held for the purpose of deciding the future of a national anthem.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fisher and Mr King.
Petitions received.
Post Office at Elmore, Victoria
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of undersigned electors in the Division of Bendigo respectfully showeth:
That the proposed downgrading of the Post Office at Elmore will not be in the best interests of the residents of Elmore and district.
That the residents of this district believe that a non-official Post Office could not possibly provide the services at present available at the official Post Office.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to downgrade the Post Office at Elmore to unofficial status.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bourchier.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
Further, they believe that this economic support should be in the form of per capita grants which are directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to equal per capita grants of government money spent on education.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth: That whereas our constitutional parliamentary democracy was clearly developed as a Federation to preserve for all time to the Australian people their cherished right to live as free men and women, enjoying complete liberty to worship, assembly, speech, movement and the communication of knowledge and information,
And whereas our existing National Anthem, ‘God Save The Queen’, is a perpetual reminder of these hard-won freedoms and the wise British principle of the division of power, so well reflected in our own Australian Constitution with its careful separation of powers as between the Crown and Commonwealth Parliament, the Senate, the State Parliaments, Independent Courts of Justice, the Governor-General,
And whereas all such rights, liberties, heritage, advancement which we inherited from the British be kept at all costs, including our Constitutional Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia.
So therefore must all these things be accorded the highest national concern and priority.
Your petitioner most humbly prays that the House of Representatives will take the most urgent steps to ensure:
And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lamb.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of electors of the Federal Division of Macquarie respectfully showeth:
That the undersigned men and women are deeply concerned that the powerful medium of television is increasing its content of sex and violence and particularly the possible content of a certain program outlined in the T.V.
Times of 24-30 November 1973, which suggests that acts of rapes, attempted rapes, pack rapes, incest, homosexuality, lesbianism, wifeswapping, unnatural acts with animals, including intercourse with animals, may be incorporated in 1974, in Program Number 96.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members of the Parliament assembled will take such action as will keep from the screens in private homes such elements in programs which can only have a damaging effect upon the moral and social life of the community.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Luchetti.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
That there are many people in Australia who still prefer ‘God Save The Queen’ as the National Anthem rather than any of the alternatives that have been suggested.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of ‘Representatives will urge the Government not to change Australia’s National Anthem without a total vote of the Australian people at a referendum to select an anthem from ‘God Save The Queen’ and the suggested alternatives to it.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Human Rights Bill will deprive free Australian citizens of religious liberty and freedom of worship, and parents and guardians of the right to choose the moral and religious education of their children in that:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House not proceed with the Human Rights Bill.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth:
That jet aircraft operations have a detrimental effect by way of air and noise pollution on the environment and therefore on the lives of citizens living in the general area. That in close proximity to the proposed Galston airport site are the Berowra Reserves, the Hallstrom Nature Reserve and the Muogamurra Sanctuary, and areas of Sydney’s Green Belt, which would be so affected and should be preserved for future generations.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House take appropriate steps to ensure that the Government does not proceed with the proposal to site the second International airport for Sydney in the Galston area or surrounding north-western suburbs of Sydney.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of Electors of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:
That ex-servicewomen who enlisted during World War II have been discriminated against in the interpretation and administration of the War Service Homes Act 1918-1971 and Defence Service Homes Act 1918-1973.
Whilst on enlistment they were prepared to serve in any area, ex-servicewomen who did not actually serve outside Australia are at present debarred from War Service Homes rights.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that immediate action be taken to grant War Service Homes rights to all wartime ex-servicewomen, whether married or single and without restriction as to dependants, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staley.
Petition received.
page 14
– I ask the Prime Minister: What are the grounds for holding up Commonwealth Government approval of the Alwest project in Western Australia? Does the Prime Minister expect to relax or to amend the Commonwealth’s grounds for withholding until now its approval and, if so, when and in what particulars? What are the reasons for any relaxation or amendments to the Commonwealth’s conditions which he may propose?
Will environmental studies additional to those already undertaken by the Western Australian Government be undertaken? If so, why?
– This matter was put to the Government only early last month, and it was considered within about 10 days of being received by the Government.
– May I interrupt? Received from whom?
– From the partners in the project. I think they are News Limited.
– Reynolds.
– Reynolds and Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. I was looking to see whether I could find the exact date on which the letter came. The submission by the joint venturers dated 1 1 February was received by the Government on 14 February. The matter was considered last week by the Government and it decided to do 3 things. The first was to refer the proposals to the interdepartmental committee on foreign takeovers because there is a very large foreign component in the proposals and it could become larger. There will also be a report from the Minister for the Environment and Conservation and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development on the environmental and regional aspects of the proposals.
– Will you table those reports?
– I would expect so. These reports from the interdepartmental committee and the 2 Ministers are to be before the Cabinet committee, probably the Cabinet itself, on Monday week. The Leader of the Opposition specifically asked me whether an environmental study wil be undertaken by the Australian Government in addition to that already undertaken by the Western Australian Government. The answer is yes. In fact I wrote some weeks ago to all Premiers suggesting that thereshould be joint environmental studies in all those projects, government and private, in which the Federal Government has some responsibility. Specifically we believe that where government loan funds are being used with the approval of the Australian Loan Council, as for instance in the LakePedder enterprise, a joint impact statement ought to be prepared beforehand. Secondly, where private projects are involved, as with so many of the mineral projects in Australia, principally in Queensland and Western Australia, where one of the principal objectives of the project is to export the extracted ores in either their rudimentary or processed form, a joint impact statement should also be prepared. It is only in those circumstances that the Australian Government’s responsibility to approve export licences can be properly anticipated.
page 15
– I address to the Treasurer a question which relates to the devastating flooding which occurred in Queensland earlier this year. Has his attention been drawn to advertisements inserted in Queensland newspapers by the Queensland Government early in February which draw attention to State Government assistance available to flood victims but which make no reference to the Australian Government or its mammoth financial contribution to the relief scheme? In order that there may be a proper understanding of the role played by the Australian Government in providing relief and assistance to Queensland flood victims, I ask whether the Treasurer will provide this House with particulars of the sterling work carried out by personnel from the armed forces and Australian Government departments, and of the Australian Government’s involvement in making finance available to the Queensland Government to assist the people of Queensland.
– I thank the honourable gentleman for giving me the opportunity to outline just what has been done in this unfortunate context. The Australian Government, like everybody else in Australia, has been deeply concerned about the plight of those affected by the floods and the Government has been, and is, providing assistance on a scale and in a range of ways surpassing anything that has been done on any past occasion.
– There has never been a disaster like this before either.
– That is right, and when disasters like this occur we must meet them sensibly, and I hope that nobody seizes the opportunity to take political advantage from this disaster. Direct assistance began immediately, with the defence forces rendering most praiseworthy help with evacuations, provision of emergency supplies and in many other ways to minimise or alleviate hardship and damage. This assistance was available wherever it was needed and for as long as it was needed. Direct Australian Government assistance to flood vic tims also included provision of special services by the Department of Social Security, an offer of temporary accommodation help by the Minister for Housing, and assistance from other departments. Australian Government donations totalling $600,000 have been made to the various public relief funds. Private donations of $2 or more to these and other public funds are allowable deductions for income tax purposes. So indirectly a significant part of such donations will fall on the Australian budget.
However, by far the largest call on government funds will be made by measures which the Queensland Government has implemented with the agreement of the Australian Government, and which the former Government is administering. At the onset of the floods the Australian Government offered to provide financial assistance to the Queensland Government to enable appropriate relief and restoration measures to be undertaken by it. The measures that have been introduced include grants of up to $3,000 per family for immediate relief and emergency house repairs, grants of up to $15,000 for major repair or rebuilding of private homes, loans to flood affected primary producers and business firms for whom needed finance is not available from normal commercial sources and grants to local authorities for restoration of their assets.
What the cost of these measures will be is not yet clear, although on all the indications so far it will dwarf the largest amount of expenditure on national disaster assistance in any previous year. What is abundantly clear is that only a very tiny fraction of the funds required for the measures just mentioned will have to be provided by the Queensland Government. For this financial year it will provide $2m of these funds. The remainder will come from the Australian Government Budget. In addition, the Australian Government will be providing assistance for restoration of State Government assets and will be providing half the funds required for loans to be made from the Queensland Housing Commission in supplementation of the scheme mentioned earlier. Already, $8m of assistance has been passed to the Queensland Government and we expect to provide at least several times that amount over the coming months. For most of the assistance from government level, it will be seen that the Australian Government has been meeting the bills. Viewed as a whole, the assistance that has been and is being provided by the Australian Government is far more extensive and far more liberal than on any previous occasion and we are of course also taking other important steps to help to mitigate the effects of future natural disasters.
page 16
– Is the Minister for the Environment and Conservation aware that defence personnel are at present on Lord Howe Island to commence shortly construction of an airstrip suitable only for light aircraft? Is he aware that great concern has been expressed as to the effect of such an airstrip on the extremely fragile environment of Lord Howe Island? Has there been a complete environmental impact study on the effects of the suggested airstrip? If so, does it support the construction of the airstrip and will he make it public? If not, will he intercede immediately to halt construction and prevent the potential environmental disaster many believe will occur if the airstrip is constructed, until such time as an environmental impact study has been completed and published?
– The Government received pressing requests from the Premier of New South Wales, Sir Robert Askin, about this question because he is most concerned since responsibility for the island is his in the sense that it is part of New South Wales, as honourable members are probably aware. For many years the airline has been threatening to withdraw the services of the flying boats, leaving the Government with the prospect of either letting people rot on the island or supplying them with their requirements by means of a shipping service. A shipping service would not be very helpful because of the difficulties of landing on the island. I take it that the facilities are not the best. The Government was faced with the prospect of either evacuating people or seeking to provide some emergency transport by way of light aircraft which are presently available but which would require the construction of an air strip. 1 did not view that prospect with equanimity.
However, a study of the environmental consequences was undertaken. I am not sure whether the report is available but I will check to make sure that it is available. I am sure that people passionately associated with the island view the prospect of the building of an air strip with some concern. Nevertheless the alternative of waiting for another type of aircraft - an amphibian - will not resolve the problem because the present air service is about to be stopped. There is no amphibian which could cope with the task of communications in view of the distance, the fact that it must use land facilities at the Australian end of the service and the desire to close down the Rose Bay flying boat base. Notwithstanding all these difficulties the environmental impact statement suggested that despite the anxieties there would not be major disruption of the extremely fragile environment as the honourable member suggested. With this assurance a decision has been taken - I assure the honourable member regarding the anguished entreaties of the Premier of New South Wales - to go ahead and construct the air strip.
page 16
– Has the attention of the Minister for Secondary Industry been drawn to renewed Press reports that a multi-million dollar steel plant - what has been referred to as a jumbo steel plant - has been proposed for construction in Western Australia? In view of the interest in such a project by Western Australians and the need to broaden the industrial base of the Western Australian economy - a need which I believe the Minister himself acknowledged on his recent visit to that State - can the Minister inform the House of. the current status of the jumbo steel plant proposition? In particular, can he indicate the attitude of the Australian Government to it?
– I am familiar with some of the newspaper publicity that has been given to the so-called jumbo steel plant which has been talked about as being appropriate for Western Australia. Of course I cannot say that I have read all the newspaper publicity dealing with it. The matter first came to my attention when I saw a copy of a letter written by the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Tonkin, to the Prime Minister urging full support for the proposition and drawing attention to the fact that from the Western Australian point of view there was advantage in it because it would create diversity of employment opportunities in and capital for Western Australia. In that context there were discussions between representatives of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and officers of the Department of Secondary Industry late last year and early this year. There has been correspondence on the matter.
I recently wrote to the General Manager of BHP, Mr McNeill, and although it is inappropriate to make public all the contents of that letter at this stage the general tenor of it was that the Government welcomed the initative taken by BHP and its Mt Newman partners in regard to the establishment of a steel plant of this kind in Australia, particularly one of this magnitude, and that the Government recognises that the establishment of such a plant could bring important benefits to Australia and Western Australia in particular. The Government hopes that the feasibility study that BHP has put forward as a possibility, as a probability, as something that it is interested in, will proceed. Obviously there are other matters that are the subject of consideration, such as a variable deposit scheme and the tax issue, which obviously is involved because this is a proposition, as I understand it, whereby a consortium with a high element of overseas ownership and control would become involved on a take and pay basis. There is also the question of exchange control. But generally the Government welcomes the initiative and we hope that BHP will initiate the study that has been talked about.
page 17
– I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. Is it true that during the recent Queensland floods either the Minister, as the Acting Prime Minister or as the Minister for Defence, or an officer of his Department declined an offer by the United States Government to provide helicopters and helicopter crews to help in flood relief work in spite of a critical shortage of aircraft at that time? Is it also true that the Minister landed at Mount Isa during the floods, ostensibly to talk with local people about flood problems but in reality to refuel his VIP aircraft at a time when aviation fuel was in critically short supply in that community and at a time when it was needed urgently for humanitarian purposes? Does this not completely belie the concern which the Treasurer, a few moments ago, suggested that the Labor Government has for those who are bereft as a result of the floods and does it not again demonstrate that the Labor Party is inclined to provide too little too late?
– I am surprised at the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party. The second part of his question is not in accord with fact but I should first answer the first part. The honourable member referred to an offer made by the United States authorities to provide helicopters to assist in the operations that were necessary as a result of the flood disaster in Queensland. I have no knowledge of a request having been made to my Department. But even if a request was made I am sure it not only would have been sympathetically considered by the Department but naturally would have been considered on the basis of what was required in terms of aircraft in Queensland during that period. I do not believe anyone can suggest that all the assistance asked for, whether by the Royal Australian Air Force or by the Army, was not provided.
There was no shortage of aircraft and no request came to the Department of Defence for assistance with aircraft - helicopters or transport aircraft - without that request being met. I do not believe that anyone, more particularly the Queensland Government itself, would suggest that the circumstances were otherwise. All the aircraft required were made available. However I will inquire from my Department whether a request was received or whether an offer was made to the Department of Defence by the United States authorities.
I come now to the second part of the honourable member’s question, which was in keeping with the usual way in which he directs a question in this House. The Treasurer and myself, as the Acting Prime Minister at that time, immediately went to Brisbane when it was made known to us that certain discussions were necessary as a result of representations made by the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Treasurer, Sir Gordon Chalk. The Treasurer and I went to Brisbane and had long discussions with both the Premier of Queensland and the Treasurer of Queensland. I think they were very satisfactory discussions from the point of view of the people of Queensland, as outlined and indicated a short time ago by the Treasurer. During my discussions with the Premier and the Treasurer of Queensland it was indicated to me that it might be advisable for me as the Acting Prime Minister to look at the problem in greater detail, that is, to look at the result of the flood in the Gulf country and particularly in Mount Isa where people were experiencing difficulties. The Minister for Social Security was to return to Canberra with me but, as a result of the representations which were made to me, I altered my itinerary and went to the Gulf country and to Mount Isa. I indicated to the officials in Mount Isa that I would be there the next day. Incidentally, on that day I covered 3,000 miles in looking at the flood problem in this area.
The manager of Mount Isa Mines Ltd and the Mayor of Mount Isa were notified of my intended visit to that city. They met me and I heard their representations. It was during this discussion that I indicated to the Mayor and to the manager of the company that I would be prepared to recommend to the Department of Defence that engineers be provided to assist in restoring the railway line to Mount Isa, which was their greatest problem. I then conveyed that information to the Queensland Premier, and it was up to him, together with officials from Mount Isa, to determine whether that assistance was required. If it is required it will be given. I think that honourable members will be in a position to judge whether, in all the circumstances, my visit to Mount Isa was profitable or whether we should accept what was stated in the question by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party, which I believe was designed purely to cast reflections not only on me but also on other members of this Government.
page 18
page 18
– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. It is a fact that the Minister recently officially opened the North Rocks Defence Service homes scheme which, when completed, will provide hundreds of top quality homes for eligible applicants at prices very much below the ruling market rates? In view of the benefits accruing to these applicants, has the Minister considered any plans to extend to a much wider range of people good quality homes in planned surroundings at prices which they can afford? In other words, if the Defence Service Homes Section of his Department can organise the construction of such high quality buildings and achieve very worthwhile economies of scale, what is to stop the Government attempting to extend these benefits to a greater number of people in the community?
– It is true that a fortnight ago I opened the first phase of the Defence Service project at North Rocks which is a northern part of Sydney. The houses made available to the personnel cost between $23,000 and $27,000 and were said to be valued at between $40,000 and $47,000. It is a clear indication of the kind of thing that governments can do when economies of scale are pursued and put together with a proper approach to land acquisition. There is considerable scope for the development of this scheme. At the present time my Department holds some 44 estates which I think can accommodate approximately 9,000 houses. In all, about $236m would be involved in developing these estates.
The honourable gentleman asks whether such a scheme could be extended. In that regard I should mention that there is some spread-eagled constitutionality which could be brought together since the Commonwealth has the constitutional prerogative in regard to housing in the Territories and for such categories of people as Aborigines, students, public servants and a wider range of defence personnel than at present are covered by the Defence Service Homes Act and for certain recipients of social security benefits. There is no question that the Commonwealth could, in its own right, establish a very substantial presence in housing and bring about a fulfilment of the kind of development in the North Rocks area to which the honourable gentleman referred.
page 18
– My question to the Minister for Housing and Construction is supplementary to that which he has just answered. Does the honourable gentleman recall stating that the Government would bring home building and home ownership within the reach of the average citizen in 1974? Is the honourable gentleman aware that the housing industry estimates that in the absence of specific Government action, home ownership will be a sterile dream for perhaps 50 per cent of these seeking homes? I ask the honourable gentleman: What action does he intend to take to rectify what I am sure he must recognise as the appalling escalation in housing prices and the increasing shortage of houses throughout Australia which are making home ownership an impossible task for lower and middle income earners? I hope, Mr Speaker, that the answer to this question will have far more substance in terms of specific initiatives than did the answer which the Minister has just given to the honourable member for Mitchell.
– I can understand the honourable gentleman’s sensitivity on this matter. He is among the Ministers who prevailed in the previous Government which created the situation which, in turn, has given rise to the problems referred to in the question. The fact of the matter is that housing approvals in 1973 were of a very high order. It is interesting to note that even last January, although the approvals were 8 per cent below the December figures, when this is seasonally adjusted the approvals had actually increased by 2 per cent. So a considerable degree of housing construction is taking place in Australia. The honourable gentleman would be well aware of the fact that in the building industry we have a very serious liquidity demand problem which has been brought about by the recklessness of the previous Government. (Opposition members interjecting).
-Order! That sounds like a Country Party conference.
– If the honourable gentlemen are not aware of what they did, it is no wonder that they are marvelling at the difficult situation that prevails at present. Surely they were not unconscious of the fact that they were creating a very serious crisis in the housing industry, when in a 2-year period they allowed the money flowing from banks, building societies and insurance companies to increase by 300 per cent without a comparable increase in the supply of materials or the size of the work force.
– The situation is worse than ever.
– If honourable gentlemen opposite, including the former Prime Minister, do not know that it is essential to have a relationship between materials, manpower and money, we can understand the reasons they have brought the mess to this country which the present Government is trying to resolve. The honourable gentleman asked what might be done in the short and the long term. I think he would be interested to know that for the first time in Australia’s history we are now in the process of setting up an indicative planning authority which will determine the housing requirements of the people and seek to bring in its wake a proper supply of money, manpower and materials. Moreover, the honourable gentleman who asked the question would certainly be aware of the significance of the financial corporation legislation which will be before the Parliament this session and which is designed to regulate effectively the flow of money and to restore the relationship of those 3 factors to which I have referred.
page 19
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Northern Development. Are there any reliable estimates available yet as to the extent of cattle losses experienced in the major breeding areas of the Gulf region of Queensland? Is it a fact that some cattlemen have lost all their cattle as well as fencing, yards and buildings? If this is so, will the Australian Government take immediate action to rehabilitate this area which has suffered so tragically?
– At this stage there are no reliable estimates of the extent of the losses of cattle in the Gulf country of Queensland. A very large proportion of the country, as the honourable member well knows, is still under water. It can be said, however, that in the areas worst hit - that is those areas through which the Mitchell, Staaten, Gilbert, Norman, Flinders and Leichhardt Rivers flow - there have been tremendous losses. Thousands of square miles of this country were completely under water. Evidence has now come to light that hundreds of dead cattle have been found 15 to 20 feet up trees. Mobs of cattle were found 60 to 70 miles out in the Gulf waters. Cattle had swum or floated hundreds of miles to other places.
It is certain that this tragedy has caused a tremendous setback to the cattle industry in the Gulf area. Rough estimates of the loss of cattle in these areas have been made. Some estimates suggest that approximately 300,000 to 350,000 breeding cattle and their calves have been lost. The estimates, of course, are based simply on the fact that thousands of square miles were covered by water and that nothing could possibly survive except some animals that are up trees. The position in relation to that area is quite tragic. This is the greatest natural disaster ever to hit northern Queensland, which is the most important breeding area of Australia.
The great problem now is what to do. Many people have lost everything. They have lost all their cattle, fences, buildings, structures, water points and dips. Many of them now are bankrupt. The question now is: When the flood waters recede - and they are slowly receding - how do those people re-stock? One cannot manufacture breeding cattle. There must also be some acclimatisation of breeding stock taken to the area. Breeding cows can come only from the Northern Territory or from Cape York Peninsula. In both of those areas there is a deficiency of breeding cattle. It is quite clear that the cattle industry in this area of northern Australia is in serious trouble.
– They have never had it so good.
– The second part of the question asked by the honourable member sought information as to what the Government is doing. The honourable member heard the remarks of the Treasurer. As far as that area is concerned, the Australian Government has agreed to make finance available, by way of loans of up to $40,000, to allow for carry-on and re-stocking and for essential repairs to be made. The Government appreciates the fact that this finance will not buy many breeding cattle - even if the cattlemen could get them. At the same time, the Government has given urgent priority to rebuilding the top arterial and feeder roads in the area to allow equipment to get into the area and to allow at least some store cattle, if possible, and some breeding cattle into the area. Financial provisions have been made available in relation to people in distress and in relation to personal losses, housing and so on. Irrespective of which way honourable members examine this matter, it is a major tragedy. In some areas the cattle population has disappeared. The losses cannot be replaced. The only means of replacing the losses is by transferring cattle from point A to point B. What really is needed is major cooperation between the Australian Government, the State Government and the cattle industry to try to do something to overcome the devastation that has occurred in this area.
-I call the Leader of the Opposition.
– Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask that the honourable member for Gippsland be required to withdraw the interjection he made when the Minister for Northern Development was talking about the plight of the people in Queensland. He interjected that they had never had it so good. I ask that the remark be withdrawn.
-Order! There is no point of order involved. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
– I wish to make a personal explanation.
-Order! I will call the honourable member for Gippsland when question time has concluded.
– Mr Speaker-
-Order! Look, I cannot cut into the time allowed for question time by permitting personal explanations. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
page 20
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. It will be a rare occasion for him to receive a question without notice. I ask him: In view of the increasing price of rock phosphate on the world market and the expected shortfall of rock phosphate from Christmas Island this year, does he agree with the Prime Minister’s decision to abolish the superphosphate bounty at the end of this year? Does the Minister believe that the decision was untimely and should be reviewed?
– The Government has had this matter under consideration for some time. A decision has been taken and the Prime Minister has made an announcement.
page 20
– Is the Treasurer aware that later this year the Commonwealth Bank and the other major trading banks will issue bank credit cards which will give to the people who receive those cards instant credit to the value of $300. If the credit is called on, a staggering amount of $600m will be floated into the Australian economy. Is it a fact that the rate of interest will be li per cent per month, or 18 per cent per annum, and, if the scheme goes the way intended by the banks, interest will be paid on interest making an effective rate of a usurious 21 per cent? Is it true that this money will be available for sundry items such as smallgoods, clothing and entertainment and therefore will tend to create appreciable extra demand? Would the issue of these unsolicited credit cards at usurious rates of interest have an inflationary effect contrary to current
Government economic policy which is of limiting excessive demand? Can the Treasurer say why the Reserve Bank approved the use of the bank credit cards with all the bad features inherent in the scheme? Will he investigate the issue of these cards with a view to refusing to allow the banks to continue the scheme?
– A number of technical matters are associtated with this problem and I will be glad to treat the question as a question on notice and obtain the information.
page 21
– As the Postmaster-General will be aware, between 2 and 3 weeks ago Saturday mail deliveries ceased. I ask the Minister: Were postmen given the opportunity of voting on this proposal? Specifically, were all Melbourne postmen given the opportunity of expressing an opinion on this issue? If the answer is ‘No, not all of them’, what proportion of them were given a vote on this matter?
– All postmen were given the opportunity to vote. The vote was 4 to 1 in favour of not reporting on a Saturday morning.
page 21
– My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration. Has the easy visitor system been generally suspended? If so, will the Minister reconsider the suspension in view of the advantages of the system in facilitating family visits? Particularly, will the Minister indicate how many people abuse the system, which has led to the suspension?
– It is not true that the easy visitor system, which was introduced on 1 September last year, has been generally suspended. It has been suspended only-
– Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I think that this question is on the notice paper in my name. It is No. 144.
– Speaking to the point of order, I had taken note of the question asked by the honourable member and I would not infringe on that, but it seemed to me when I rose to answer the question that it was not the same as the one asked by the honourable member for Wannon.
-Order! Will the honourable member please repeat his question?
– My question was: Has the easy visitor system been generally suspended? If so, will the Minister reconsider the suspension in view of the advantages of the system in facilitating family visits? Particularly, will the Minister indicate how many people abused the system, which abuse has led to the suspension?
-Order! I believe that that part of the honourable member’s question concerning the number of people who have abused the easy visa system is contained in question No. 144. Therefore I would ask the Minister not to refer to that part of the question at this time.
– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will, of course, obey that injunction. The specific answer to the question asked by the honourable member about the suspension of the system is that the system has not been generally suspended. People come to our country from 70 other countries and locations around the world. The easy visitor or easy visa system which was introduced on 1 September last year remains in force for all those locations except Columbia and Fiji and a number of other locations in relation to which the visa system was suspended in the interests of international security. I might say that these steps were taken about 6 months ago. Therefore the system did not operate for very long in a number of locations in which there was unrest or war or some concern about terrorist activity. But apart from those locations, and apart from the specific-
– What ones?
– I am just about to tell t.’ic House. Apart from the specific announced suspensions in Colombia and Fiji the system is working particularly well. This was a noble experiment which was designed to facilitate the reunion of people overseas with their families here. As I have said, it has worked particularly well. From 1965 up until 1973, which was the time when the new visa system came into force, approximately 2.5 million people had come to this country as visitors and only 1 per cent of them had abused that system up to that time. It was because only 1 per cent had abused the system that was already in existence that it seemed to us in government that we should assist further in the streamlining of procedures to bring people together. I might say that I believe the great majority .Have honoured the arrangement particularly well. The scheme has worked particularly well. I am only sorry that a small number of exploiters, a small number of racketeers, have caused embarrassment to the Australian people and to the people of the countries from which they have come.
– I would suggest that the Minister is now infringing part (4) of question No. 144.
– Yes. I ask the Minister not to touch on that matter.
– I was about to conclude my answer. However, may I assure the honourable member for Wannon that his question No. 144 will be answered completely and fully as soon as the data is available. But I am telling him in the interim - I am sure that he must be interested because I understand that he is the shadow Minister for Immigration - that the system has not been suspended except in those locations and the other instances’ which I have mentioned. I would hope also that there would not be anybodyin the Parliament who would want to penalise genuine f amily reunions because of the activities of a small number of dishonest people who have abused the hospitality of Australia and have abused the system which we introduced in good faith. It is indeed a noble experiment. It is continuing.
page 22
– I have to present pursuant to Statute a report of the Auditor-General upon the Department of Aboriginal Affairs dated March 1974.
Motion (by Mr Daly) - by leave - agreed to:
Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:
That the House take note of the paper.
– This is an extremely unusual circumstance. Normally nobody knows what is likely to be in a report of the AuditorGeneral until it is presented to the Parliament. Consequently, it would be appropriate for the report to be examined and then debated. The motion proposed on this occasion will send the report to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts for examination, and I have no objection to that. Indeed, as has been apparent, I voted in support of that motion. But what I want to draw attention to now is the sorry mess that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is in, as evidenced by reports in more than one newspaper which all were made at the same time and which indicated that there was not just a mere casual leak but that there was a positive flood - a deliberately designed flood - of information to newspapers to prepare the Australian public and the Parliament for the sorry news that was yet to come. So that the Australian public and the Parliament would not be taken totally by surprise the idea of the Government was to leak out what was contained in the AuditorGeneral’s report so that there would not be the shock which I have no doubt that this document when read ought to provide.
The Sydney ‘Sun’ of 15 January carried the headline: ‘Spending Probe on Government Department’. The newspaper stated:
The Auditor-General, Mr D. Craik, has asked the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to ‘please explain’ expenditures running into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh, said this today.
A headline in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 16 January read: ‘$40,000 boat trip: Cavanagh wants to know why’. It is as though Senator Cavanagh, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, is in some way a hero, whereas in fact he is the Minister responsible for the administration of the Department. The article in the ‘Age’ stated:
A spokesman for Senator Cavanagh said last night a report on the spending was expected to come from the Department today.
The spokesman said the figure was ‘astounding’.
It would include the cost of docking fees, salaries, shipping fuel and food for the crew.
Then in quotation marks is this statement:
But God knows how it could total $40,000’.
Apparently $40,000 was spent on the boat to get it to a refit which could cost $170,000 or $190,000. The Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ of 15 January carried the headline: ‘Aboriginal department bungle - “money wasted” charge’. The newspaper stated:
The Australian Auditor-General. Mr D. S. Craik, has uncovered financial bungles in the Aboriginal Affairs Department.
The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh, said last night that he was most concerned with the situation.
Well he might have been. He followed up his concern about the situation. By the time 25 February this year had arrived - only last week - the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh, said according to a report that the implementation of the Labor Government’s aboriginal affairs policy had been a disaster. Given that it is a disaster, on the full acknowledgement of the Minister himself, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has remained totally mute on the subject. He has the overall responsibility for the administration of Government affairs. One of his Ministers has described his own Department as a disaster, but no explanation has been offered by the Minister as to why it is a disaster, nor has there been a call by the Prime Minister to the Minister to explain why it is a disaster.
This is not good enough in 2 senses. One is that if the implementation is a disaster it is the Aboriginal people who are suffering from it. A government which came into office announcing such high flown attempts to raise the status of Aborigines is now mutely, meekly abdicating its responsibility to those people, and not a single attempt has been made by the Prime Minister to set things right. The second thing is that clearly on the admission of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs there has been financial bungling. I wish to read from a report which has been provided to me by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch). He has drawn my attention to a section of it which I shall read unseen because as you know, Mr Speaker, the report has been produced by you but I have not had an opportunity yet to open my copy. I read this part:
It seems to me that it would be helpful if I express at the outset my general conclusions on the situation as it is known to me. To the present I have no positive evidence of misappropriation of public moneys but there is ample evidence of unorthodox and irregular practices resulting, in many cases, in the non-observance of the requirements of the Audit Act, Treasury Regulations and Directions. In some instances, ‘insufficient regard was given either to Treasury regulation 93 (1) which requires the exercise of due economy or to the application of normal financial prudence.
– Who says that?
– The Auditor-General says that. He also says:
Non-compliance with accepted procedures was also evident in the control by the Department over expenditure on the establishment and election of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee; temp orary cash advances to officers; travel; and certain other expenditures from the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account.
He then goes on to say:
The inescapable conclusion is that from the outset the Department failed to organise itself so as to control the expenditure of large amounts of public moneys according to the tenets traditionally applicable. It is also apparent that the Department, while admittedly burdened with new initiatives which occupied the attention and energies of what it claims to be its inadequate, and in many cases, inexperienced staff, failed to take early and resolute action to ensure that proper financial controls were instituted throughout its organisation.
It appears to me that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has been somewhat less than rigorous in its control of expenditure of public moneys, in part because it has had access to the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account which has received progressively increased appropriations from the Parliament.
In these circumstances, whatever the Standing Orders are at the moment, they should be suspended to allow the Prime Minister to stand in this House and tell the people’s elected representatives the way in which action will be taken immediately to stop wrong expenditure and to make sure that in future all expenditure is according to law and according to the proper regulations. It is encumbent upon the Prime Minister to do it. Following the statement a week ago by Senator Cavanagh that the implementation of the policy has been a disaster, the Prime Minister should state to this House in clear, unequivocal terms what he has received from Senator Cavanagh detailing the disaster, what instructions Senator Cavanagh has given to the Department and what instructions the Prime Minister has given to Senator Cavanagh. In the interests of the proper running of government in this country, it is encumbent upon the Prime Minister to do so. If he has any respect for his position of trust as Prime Minister of this country and accountable to this House on these matters, he will do so immediately. He should not have required my invitation to do so; we should have been informed by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) that it would happen.
The final point I make is this: I supported a public inquiry by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts into the Auditor-General’s report. I presume that the Committee will hear public evidence and cross-examine witnesses. That may take a very considerable period of time. Although the Opposition parties have not had an opportunity up to the moment to consult on the report, because the report has just come in, I am sure that I speak on behalf of both the Opposition parties when I say that we are not prepared to allow the debate on this matter to be put off until after we get a report from the Public Accounts Committee. The matter is far too important. The whole issue of accountability for public funds is raised here. We have the Auditor-General’s report before us. The responsibility of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and of the Prime Minister is at issue. I ask that this matter be brought before the chamber for full debate in the next week of sitting.
– Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
-Order! Does the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented?
– Yes. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) misrepresented me. I would direct the attention of honourable members to an answer I gave on the last sitting day last year - it appears in Hansard on page 4820 - in answer to a question which the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) placed on notice 8 days before, 5 December. The honourable gentleman’s question was in these terms:
Is the Auditor-General carrying out a full inquiry into the specific recommendations by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Conservation arising from its investigations into the turtle farming project in the Torres Strait; if not, why not.
I gave the answer on that specific question by the honourable member. I then went on to give information certainly in addition to that for which the honourable gentleman had asked, and it will appear from this answer what was in train and what has happened now on the first working day of this new session. I particularly quote the concluding half of my reply to the honourable member for Gwydir. It states:
The turtle farming project was mentioned in the Auditor-General’s supplementary report for the year ended 30 June 1973 tabled on 29 November 1973 as one of the matters on which audit representations had been recently made to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and comments sought from the Australian National University. The Auditor-General and the Secretary of the Department are in correspondence on all the representations, including particular queries put to the Department. The report which the Auditor-General will make after considering the Department’s replies will be presented to the Parliament in due course pursuant to the procedures laid down in the Audit Act. The Public Service Board has, after consultation with the Secretary, decided to institute an examination of the administrative procedures of the Department.
I conclude with the comment that it will be clear to every honourable member who reads his Hansard that I was taking a very close interest in the administration of this Department, including the deficiencies of the legislation which this Government inherited. My answer was much more comprehensive than was required by the question.
– Whilst not wishing to preclude any debate in this House on the matter of the expenditure of funds in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, as Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I have been asked by the Committee to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts has already resolved to conduct a public inquiry into the whole financial administration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. This resolution followed the Committee’s consideration of the Auditor-General’s supplementary report for 1972-73 where reference was made in paragraph 3 to apparent departures from the requirements of the Audit Act and Treasury Regulations and on certain deficiencies noted in the financial and administrative control over the receipt and expenditure of public moneys and of moneys of the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises. The Committee also resolved that it would not proceed to public inquiry on these matters until it had examined the special report which the Auditor-General was expected to table early in the autumn session.
The duties of the Committee as set out in sections 8 (a) and 8 (b) of the Public Accounts Committee Act make it mandatory for the Committee to examine each statement and report transmitted to the Parliament by the Auditor-General in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Audit Act 1901-1973 and to report to both Houses of Parliament with such comment as it thinks fit any items or matters in those statements and reports, or any circumstances connected with them, to which the Committee is of the opinion that the attention of the Parliament should be directed. It will be the duty of the Committee, therefore, to examine the special report of the Auditor-General which has been tabled today and to decide on the information that will be requested from the Department by way of a submission on which to base the public inquiry.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hansen) adjourned.
page 25
– For the information of honourable members I present a report on the ANZUS Council meeting together with the communique dated 27 February 1974.
page 25
– For the information of honourable members I present the interim report of the Priorities Review Staff - Goals and Strategies - dated December 1973.
page 25
- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
– Yes. During the course of question time, the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron), taking a point of order on an interjection of mine, said that I had cast some reflection on those suffering in Queensland by quoting what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had to say to the farmers of Victoria, namely, that they had never had it so good. The point I wish to make is that the Minister for Labour in his newfound concern failed to note the latter part of my comments. It was a quote from the remarks of the Prime Minister at Warragul, Victoria, on 19 February 1974. All I wish in making this personal explanation is to express the hope that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour will put the Treasury’s pocket where their mouths ale in respect of the problems being caused by the floods.
– Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
– I am not given to putting words into other people’s mouths. As the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) was describing the plight of the people in Queensland, the honourable gentleman looked at the Minister and grinned and quite clearly said: ‘They have never had it so good’. It may be true that back in his mind there were the unspoken words that that was what somebody else said but all I know is that all the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) said and all I could hear him say about the Queensland people who suffered from the floods was that they have never had it so good.
Mr NIXON (Gippsland)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
-Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? You have the last turn.
– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am in continuation. The Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) is trying to continue the misrepresentation, when I made it clear that what I said about the farmers never having it so good was a quote from no less an authority than the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) himself. We cannot do better in this august chamber than to quote the Prime Minister.
-Order! The honourable member will not debate the question.
– It was a quote of the remarks of the Prime Minister at Warragul on 19 February 1974.
– Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
-Does the right honourable the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented?
– Yes. I did not use those words about the victims of the Queensland floods, as the honourable gentleman quite well knows.
– Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
– Who started this? Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
– Yes, Mr Speaker. During question time, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) made certain allegations about a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft which landed at Mount Isa. His remarks were a reflection against me also. I was in that aircraft and it was at my invitation that the Acting Prime Minister came to the north to see the suffering of the people. The points made by the honourable member for New England are utterly untrue. I do not believe that the honourable member manufactured them himself. All I can say to the honourable member is that whoever told him those things ought to be ashamed of himself because what the Acting Prime Minister did at an important, urgent conference was to make provision for Caribou aircraft to go to Gunpowder, to make provision for Army engineers to work on the Mount Isa railway and to give an undertaking to the people that the defence forces would continue to work for as long as they were required in the Gulf country of Queensland.
page 26
– I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to maintain adequate postal and post office services to the Australian community.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places.)
– Over the last two or three weeks we have seen a farce in relationships between the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and various postal unions, and the only persons who are going to pay the penalty for that are the general Australian community and the Australian public. We have seen a situation in which electoral promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) have been broken as a result of the activities of the Postmaster-General and we have seen the incompetence of the Postmaster-General in incurring the hostility of unions over matters that have arisen because the Postmaster-General was unwilling to consult and negotiate. Because he thought that unions would have to support the Labor Government, he took for granted their acquiescence in any action that he might want to undertake.
But the Postmaster-General is much more culpable in these particular matters than the general Australian public realises because it was the Postmaster-General himself who, on 2 October last year, led a march of the Amal gamated Postal Workers Union. He led that march, and over his head were banners which referred to a 5-day week for all postal workers and the closure of post offices on Saturday. By participating in that march on 2 October 1973, the Postmaster-General clearly condoned, acquiesced in and supported the abolition of Saturday services to the Australian community and to the Australian public. If there are any who doubt this, they would do well to look at the photograph which appeared in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ at that time. There are copies for any who might wish to see the photograph. The Postmaster-General was supporting a 5-day week for postmen and he supported it on a later occasion. By his presence at the march he was supporting the Saturday closing of post offices but on a later occasion he pretended that he was not supporting such a proposition. He then ran into conflict with a one-time Senate candidate for the Australian Labor Party and various postal unions.
The record is a record of mismanagement, humbug and ultimately of a reversion to his attitudes on 2 October 1973 involving a complete and cowardly capitulation to unreasonable union demands. Even the Melbourne ‘Age’ was prepared to say that the unions, in some respects, have been outrageously arrogant in these matters. Again, it is the Australian public and the taxpayers who are the inevitable losers. It was very much at the eleventh hour when the pass had been sold that the PostmasterGeneral remembered that there was a public to be served and a public which was certainly concerned in these matters. The record is clear. There was the Labor Day march and then there was the sweetheart deal to end postal deliveries on Saturdays. This was negotiated. The Postmaster-General was in full agreement. I do not think he announced the decision. He got an officer of his Department to do that. The Postmaster-General announces the good news and an officer of his Department announces the bad news. However, the decision was something upon which the Postmaster-General had agreed, despite the impact of the decision in the city and the country - in the country leading to some deliveries being 4 days later than would otherwise have been the case.
There was again no concern for the public. There was no attempt to arrange overtime for postmen or to arrange a roster system. It was not a question of trying to change, alter or downgrade the circumstances in which postmen worked but of achieving sensible arrangements that would safeguard the public interest and the service to the public which the Postmaster-General had completely ignored by participating in a particular Labor Day march with particular objectives, which have now been achieved with his shaky, but sometime support. These 2 events - the Labor Day march and the sweetheart deal with the postmen - opened the door to 2 other unions, namely, the Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists and the Australian Postmasters’ Association. As the Postmaster-General expected and as he would have known, both unions walked right through that door and ended Saturday post office services in the official Post Offices. So 1,500 official offices are closed. There will be somewhat lesser services from the 5,000 unofficial Post Offices. In the Postmaster-General’s own words - if some of the newspaper reports ‘are correct - 300,000 Australians will be affected on each Saturday morning. There are many people who, if they work in normal Post Office hours, can get to a Post Office only on Saturdays. There are many people without telephones. There are 7 million articles normally delivered on Saturday that will not now be delivered and many other articles that will be delivered up to 4 days late.
The Postmaster-General tried to compare the working conditions of clerks, telegraphists and postmasters with postmen and said that the latter were in a much worse position and therefore the agreement that he had come to with them was all right but that the action of the others was not. That is not the point. It completely misses the point. Few would argue postmen need upgraded conditions of service, but surely it was not beyond the Postmaster-General’s devising to offer overtime for Saturday postal deliveries or to offer and negotiate a roster system that would keep Post Offices open on Saturdays. But did he attempt to do any of these things? No, there was immediate acquiescence with and immediate acceptance of the end of postal deliveries on Saturdays in conformity with the Labor Day march of last October. The Postmaster-General had already sold the pass and other unions walked through to end Post Offices services in their entirety on Saturdays. 1 turn now to examine the curious way in which the Postmaster-General conducts business with the unions. This, I think, is especially important in view of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) which appeared in November or December 1972 in one of the little ‘It’s Time’ pamphlets entitled ‘Economies’. He said:
Because Labor will have the confidence of the union movement it will be able to reduce the incidence of strikes.
We have seen the incidence of strikes rise steadily since the Labor Party has been in office. If some of the views expressed by officials of the postal unions are true, it is quite clear that they do not have a great deal of confidence in the Postmaster-General. They have asked for his resignation. They have bypassed him in direct approaches to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron), neither of whom is in this House at the moment to support the Postmaster-General. We had the situation on 18 February when the Postmaster-General said that he was seeking the co-operation of the Australian Postal Workers Union and accused the other 2 unions of spite against the APWU. According to the Press he was going to a meeting in Hobart to discuss the matter with the APWU. That was a good way to start an operation to negotiate a sensible solution to a difficult situation. George Slater, a might-have-been senator elect, on 19 February said:
There ought to be discussions. Discussions have not taken place. We have not heard his side.
His side’ was a reference to the PostmasterGeneral. The Postmaster-General was going off at a tangent. Where is all this great business of confidence, co-operation and consultation with the union movement and the union movement being involved in decisions of government with respect to matters that affect employees and employers jointly? The Postmaster-General, as a large government employer, had gone off completely on his own without any regard to consultation or involvement. He led himself down a road which ended definitely and obviously in very severe industrial trouble. Before the meeting in Hobart took place - if, in fact, the Minister attended that meeting - the Federal Vice-President of the APWU made it plain that he was amenable to compromise. He said that Post Offices could stay open on Friday nights. At least that indicated that there was not a completely closed mind. Even George Slater made a proposal to the Prime Minister some time after this indicating that the APWU in certain circumstances might be prepared to work on Saturdays. Certainly his proposal was not one that could have been accepted by the Opposition parties but at least it indicated a willingness to sit down, consult and negotiate. We have heard nothing about that particular offer. The only thing that has emerged since then is that the milk bar plan apparently has been ended.
Did the Minister or did he not attend the meeting of the Federal Executive of the APWU on 21 February in Hobart? It may be that he did because both the Minister and George Slater came out firing hard at each other. The Minister was alleged to be furious that he had been turned down by the APWU and the APWU was saying that it was going to strangle the milk bar plan and it would throttle and boycott any small business that attempted to set up other services. A UPCT officer, Wal Rowlings, accused the Minister of introducing scab labour and shortly afterwards that union called for the Minister’s resignation on the ground of his anti-Labor and anti-union attitudes in these particular matters. How much does this say for the Prime Minister’s claim to be close to the union movement? The Postmaster-General could not be further from the union movement and the dispute that has come about was promoted initially by the Minister’s participation in that Labor Day march which had specific industrial objectives which would clearly downgrade services to the Australian public. If the Minister has had trouble with the unions he has brought it on himself by his own initial encouragement of those particular objectives. This surely indicates an incompetence which has hardly been paralleled even by Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs in the last 12 months.
The Minister announced after the Hobart meeting his plan for milk bar post office services on a reduced basis to try to help the public on Saturdays. That seemed to be an emotional response to his rebuff at the meeting of the APWU on 21 February. It was one that clearly could not work in the atmosphere that had been created by the Minister with the unions concerned. It was the Minister himself who created a situation of confusion. He is responsible for his own dilemma and he put himself and the Government in an impossible situation leading to the degradation of services to the general Australian community. It is worth noting that he was the rising star in the Australian Labor Party hierarchy. Now ha has adopted an equivocal and contradictory position. He supported the 5-day service and the Saturday closing in the Labor Day march. Later, when he apparently realised that there was a public to be served, he started to attack the unions and said that he was trying to keep services going on Saturdays. As a result we have the UPCT saying that the PostmasterGeneral should resign because of his anti-Labor and anti-union attitudes and the Secretary of the APWU, Mr Slater, resigning from the Labor Party Senate team. We have had one resignation. That may be a good job; it would be a much better job if it were followed by another. The Prime Minister is involved in these matters. He said:
Today we have a new understanding and a new trust between government and unions.
Is that really so? He said that Labor would be a better employer with fewer strikes. Is that really so? The Minister for Labour is not here to support him in that statement. The Prime Minister also said in election policy speeches: We will restore the second mail delivery’. Instead the Prime Minister has continued to participate in the degradation of the postal services of Australia. Had the PostmasterGeneral not read that election promise of the Prime Minister? Is he now aware of it? Is that why he switched his attitude expressed during that Labor Day march to recognising a requirement for the public?
A postal inquiry is in being. The first term of reference of that inquiry concerns the quality of service to the public. The Postmaster-General ignores that first term of reference and acquiesces and connives in actions that would diminish the service to the public. The inquiry has been bypassed. The incompetence and the bungling have put the Postmaster-General and the Prime Minister in an impossible situation. Promises have been broken and the public has been cast aside. Simple concepts of consultation and negotiation have been ignored. The Postmaster-General will have the Caucus at his back. Members of Caucus do not like Ministers who incur the wrath of unions and George Slater wm be directing the barbs. The public unfortunately will be the ones to pay and pay and pay for this Government’s incompetence and callous disregard.
– -In reply to the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser), I well remember sitting on the Opposition side and hearing a Minister resign - a Minister who was critical of his own leader, a Minister who gave background briefings to the Press. What sort of credibility does the honourable member have when he comes in and talks about the performance that his side put up while in government?
– It is you he was talking about.
– It is not I; it is a question of the performance of the previous Government. Is it any disgrace to walk in the Labor Day march? That is something that the honourable member would never do and would not be allowed to do. Honourable ‘members opposite would not want to admit that there was a semblance of trouble in the mail centres of Sydney at the time they were in office. It is as a result of being able to talk to unions that those troubles have been kept at a minimum. Honourable members opposite should look at their own record. Let them consider the concept of the Redfern Mail Exchange where strike after strike took place.
– Would you like to look at the photograph?
-I have read it all. The honourable member sounds like a spokesman for the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’. It used to be a Peter Samuels, or some such person, to whom he talked before. Let us look at the record of the previous Government in relation to the continuation of strikes in the 1968 era. What happened? In October 1968 the then Postmaster-General announced, following Cabinet endorsement, that all official post offices not closed before 11 a.m. would be closed at 11 a.m. That was the start in 1968 and it was the outcome of a strike settlement. That is how the Post Office started to become involved in the Saturday question. What was the position when I took over the portfolio from my predecessor? There were 239 post offices closed on a Saturday morning, 275 open for 1 hour and 930 open for 2 hours. The service was semi-paralysed then. Why is it that the only way in which the previous Government could settle an industrial dispute was to grant things to 2 unions with members in the Post Office, unions whose members do not sort the letters or deliver them? By way of a settlement in December 1970 the previous Government said to 2 unions that their members may work only 36 J hours, from Monday to Friday, and that it would pay them overtime. However, it said to the postmen: ‘No, you will have to work 40 hours and a 5i day week’.
The honourable member for Wannon has had the audacity to stand here and speak as he has. Few would argue that postmen were suffering from poor conditions. I would not argue against that proposition because the conditions were those of the previous Government. It compelled one segment of the Post Office, the postmen, the most valuable segment of the postal service, to work every Saturday; but in a strike settlement in December 1970 it said to 2 other unions with many members in the Post Office that they may only work 36$ hours. Who was running the previous Government’s industrial relations on those occasions? Is it any wonder that the postmen said to me: ‘Do you think it is fair that we are compelled to work 40 hours and 5i days a week and never have a Saturday off when the other 2 unions, as a result of the decision of the previous Government, work only 36 J hours and only need to work on a rostered basis on Saturdays’? I said that they should make representation to the Department to get a better roster on that basis. They did that through the Department. They are still working 40 hours. There has been no reduction in their hours, because such a decision requires industrial arbitration. They are still working 40 hours on a 5-day week while others are working 36i hours. That is the underlying factor. Yet the honourable member for Wannon came in here and made out that nothing was done about closing post offices. As I said, the patient was dying then. There had been amputative surgery all the way through on the basis of services being closed down.
The Redfern Mail Exchange is a disaster and I have to spend most of my time trying to solve industrial disputes created because of its concept. The honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) asked a question today about the voting of postmen. It is true that some postmen want to work on Saturdays. That is true in a couple of areas because those postmen were working a 5-day week as a result of negotiations commenced under the previous Government. It is an incredible situation when we realise that they were given that blessing and would then work overtime on Saturdays. The whole of the previous Government’s post office counter services so far as Saturdays are concerned were based on overtime. It never had anybody working normal hours on a Saturday.
It was the previous Government’s concept to downgrade 300 post offices in 1970. Everybody, particularly those in the Country Party, says what a disastrous thing that is. That matter could be solved quite easily now. It just means that we need to have a new concept in industrial relations. We ought to have a concept whereby we can have official offices and not close them down but this does require co-operation. But it is not very easy to get co-operation from the postmasters’ association particularly, which I might say seems to be very close to the philosophy of the Opposition on most occasions. I saw the Association last year and said: ‘Do you know that there is a plan envisaged to downgrade 300 offices, although it is not official in the sense that it always has been a plan? We ought to look at this situation. We ought to consult and discuss matters.’ The next thing I knew was that some months later it was announced by the postmasters that they had heard of a plan. They did that. So I cannot object to their doing it because it was true that it was a plan.
We talk about consultation. I spoke to the postal clerks union about a streamlining of the money order system which we wanted to put in and which can come in if there is some ready co-operation in looking at it from the point of view of the public service. But there have been all sorts of difficulties. Perhaps some are major and some are minor. There have been questions raised in this House about why a union is boycotting a $20 postal order. This all relates to the fact that one union does not want another union to sell postal orders. This is the sort of structure I have inherited. If someone wants to sell a money order that person has to be in one union but if he wants to sell a postal order he has to be in another union. If that person wants to sort mail he has to be in another union still, and if he is a postmaster he has to be in a fourth union. So it is an incredible bungle of administration, is it not? This was the hierarchy that was created. Therefore in some cases these people feel that they are going to be redundant and they are not readily amenable to any change. If we say that we will streamline the money order system a black ban is placed on the postal note system and the money order system cannot readily come in. Honourable members opposite should not dare suggest that there have been no consultations. There has been consultation after consultation and the unions now say that they think the scheme will work.
– George Slater said there was no consultation.
– For the information of the honourable member for Wannon, I did not go to Hobart and it is a pity that he cannot assess the situation more accurately. There was never any suggestion of my being in Hobart. By the same token, I want to talk about this milk bar concept. We did refer to newsagencies. It is easy to have vanilla malted milk on postage stamps and everybody thinks that is smart. The honourable member should look at the tragedy of the post office structure about which he did nothing. He should refer to the closures of the post offices which the previous Government ordered. He should refer to the previous Government’s failure to have any industrial relationship with the unions. That is the indictment of the previous Government.
– You are the one that we are asking to resign.
– People can always ask you to resign. If you were silly enough to resign that is your problem, not mine.
– It is a pretty powerful union.
– Yes, it is a powerful union but if I do not resign it might be because I have a case. Let us look at what has happened in this situation. The postmen were granted a 5-day week as a result of fair negotiations. Because of that and because of the underlying factor that the only way in which the previous Government was keeping the Post Office going was by working overtime, 2 other groups became involved. One was the postmasters’ association. The 2 groups did not send me any indication of what they were going to do. That is their privilege. When they want to talk about conditions they come to see me but when they want to talk about what they are going to do they send a telegram to the Director-General saying that they do not think that they should report for work on Saturdays. The Director-General had a discussion with them and pointed out their responsibilities and they said that they would reconsider the matter. Then we had the clearcut ultimatum from the postal clerks that they were not going to report and that effectively closed the offices. On 13 February I went to Melbourne to consult with the clerks.
– The postal clerks.
– Yes, the postal clerks. The Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists is the appropriate union. On that basis I saw the 2 representatives of the union and I said: ‘Why is it that you are taking such an attitude?’ They said: ‘Because we want Saturdays off, too, and because negotiations took place with the APWU and we were not involved in the negotiations. I said: ‘You know, you have only been working on a roster basis on Saturdays and you have always had a 5-day week since December 1970. You also know that the ACTU told you on that occasion that you would work overtime as and when directed.’ They said: ‘Yes, we know that, but we are not going to do it. On that basis we will not be reporting’. I said: ‘Will you consider an alternative where, if you do work on Saturdays, there could be some day off in lieu, the same as happens with shop assistants?’ They said: ‘Yes, we will consider it and we will let you know on Monday’. They did not wait until Monday. They made a Press announcement on Friday saying that they totally rejected the proposition.
At that stage the question was what was in the public interest, what should be done to try to maintain some sort of a service. It was then that I indicated that there would need to be the concept of agencies. Of course, all supplies for the agencies were to come through the Postmaster’s Association. Never at any stage did the members of that Association indicate that they would not do it. In fact, they supply 4,000 non-official agencies now This is the position. Apparently on this occasion they felt they were in the position that they could not co-operate. But they did not dare tell me and they did not tell the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs. The agency concept ran along until last Friday. More than 200 agents had been appointed. They indicated that they were prepared to do a job on the basis of operating only on Saturday mornings. They were to get their supplies from the postmaster’s in the same way as any non-official agency gets its supplies. At 20 minutes to 1 last Friday the executive of the Postmaster’s Association said that thu postmaster’s would not give supplies to the agencies.
It is all right to attack me and to say that I am to blame, but let us have a look at what could have happened. There would be no problem in giving supplies to agencies on Saturdays if that situation developed. The people who would run these agencies are not scabs. It is a question of providing a service for the public. At this stage we are all caught up in the old hierarchy structure of having a postmaster, a clerk and an assistant and everybody having to do separate jobs. It is for that reason that a royal commission is to report within one month, and I am certain that in the report the royal commission will recommend a complete new structure for the Post Office. Honourable members opposite could have done it years ago, but they did nothing about it. They capitulated on every problem that came before them by saying: ‘We will close some down. We will open up a private courier service cr something; that will do’. The Post Office has never been allowed lo run a courier service itself. It is a very bountiful way of conducting mail business.
We are saddled with the interest burden which the previous Government imposed, That interest burden now totals S200m. Honourable members opposite did nothing about that. When we tried to increase postal charges, particularly for country newspapers, the Country Party quickly and violently launched an attack. We had to get a compromise arrangement in order to get the Bill through the Parliament. But the losses in the Post Office are still there. They are now up to $35m. Honourable members opposite knew this when the Bill to increase postal charges was debated in the Parliament. Postmen are working in an area of loss, but they are desperate to get overtime and they are prepared to engage in militant action at any stage in order to try to improve their conditions. They have to start work before half past 6 in the morning in order to get some measly 15 per cent loading. That is the carrot which is held out to them.
It is about time that we took the opportunity to look at the Post Office, and that opportunity will come within the next 2 months. It will be interesting to see the report of the royal commission. I am certain it will say: ‘Scrap this old system of the Public Service and everybody having a different grade, having to do a different job to be entitled to that grade because they then get more money’. But let it not be said that there has been a failure to have consultations. There has been nothing but consultations. It is only because of consultations that we are able to get some results. There have been no strikes in the Redfern mail exchange recently. Productivity in that exchange is up. We have established area mail centres in Sydney which are now distributing, over 1 million articles a week within their own area. We have all these problems of trying to keep afloat a rickety old ship, which is what we inherited. We need a brand new design and it has to come.
– And a new Minister.
– Yes, you might want another Minister, but it does not make any difference. The royal commission w£!l clearly indicate the position. It will indict the situations that honourable members opposite created - the failure to negotiate properly for the postmen in settling strikes for others employed by the Post Office. Honourable, members opposite left the postmen for dead; they did not care about them. Now when postmen are working their 40 hours in a 5 day week, honourable members opposite complain that the other 2 unions really are the ones that matter; that they are the ones who want my scalp, or something like that. But they are the ones who have failed to give a service in order to enable the agencies to operate on Saturday mornings. So if there has to be some assessment of the situation, let us have proper industrial consultation. Do not have it as a blackmail proposition, and do not walk into this chamber with an old article out of the Herald’ and say that somebody marched in an 8-hour day procession. That is something which the honourable member for Wannon would like to do, but he cannot do it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! The Minister’s time has expired.
– The Government has acted irresponsibly in its administration of the Postmaster-General’s Department which now faces massive financial difficulties. In fact, this afternoon in this House we heard the admission officially for the first time that this year the expended loss on postal services will reach a staggering $35m. This is after 15 months of Labor Government. In the past year union demands for concessions which have been met have cost millions of dollars. The Government has sold out to militant unionists to the disadvantage of union members and of the general public. The management of the Post Office by the PostmasterGeneral (Mr .Lionel Bowen) has been a disaster. This all began with a phony claim that the Post Office was to eliminate uneconomic areas of service. It was said that this would solve the Post Office’s problems, and that the previous Government was to blame for many of the difficulties that existed in the Post Office. Of course, we have seen those assertions effectively exploded by the Postmaster-General himself this afternoon. I was appalled to hear him talk about industrial relations in the way in which he did so and to say that the previous Government failed in its approach to industrial relations. What an admission for the Postmaster-General, the Minister in charge of the biggest employer department of Government, to make - to say that no normal hours are worked by Post Office employees on Saturdays and that they have to be paid overtime. Let him look at every other award for those people who work on Saturdays, and let him prove that there are not penalty rates and special arrangements for Saturday work for just about every other section of the work force of this nation. I see the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) looking a little surprised. At least he knows something about these industrial matters and he ought to have a talk with his colleague the Postmaster-General and put him right on these issues.
What we are suffering today is the backlash of under the counter deals between the unions and the Government which have now ended up in a pretty unhappy situation. We find the early love affair really breaking up drastically. I guess this happened because Mr Slater got the No. 3 position in the Labor Party team in Victoria for the forthcoming Senate election. He did not like it and as a consequence resigned. His resignation made headlines in the Press the other day. No answer has been given to this Parliament by the Postmaster-General concerning the real breakdown in services and the sudden termination of Saturday mail deliveries and Post Office services. What he has done is to engage in a subterfuge of dilly-dally talk about what he said to the unions and what they said to him. But he has not put one constructive proposition to this House, beyond saying that in fact he has pre-empted the possible report of the royal commission on the operations of the Post Office. What he has said is that he foresees a complete breakup of the Post Office as we know it today. This evidently is a further stage in the step by step wrecking of the Post Office which the unions want. We have it from the Postmaster-General himself. Would he be game to say in this House what he said this afternoon if he did not feel that he had some union support for saying it?
Of course we have heard his story of the phoney agency proposition and that those agencies could not have been given supplies.
But he did not tell us whether those supplies include mail operations. Obviously they do not. He did not explain the difference between the operation of a non official post office and the proposed agencies. That difference, of course, is that non official post offices handle mail, but his proposed agencies would not have handled mail. Therefore the proposition was phoney and there was nothing in it. It was just an escape route for the Minister personally at the very delicate stage at which he found himself in his relationships with the union. He has failed to inform the Parliament of the concessions which have been granted since the Whitlam Government came to power which have really been the catalyst to give us an anticipated loss factor of $35m in this financial year.
Let us go back to December 1973. When the present Government came to office there were in existence claims by the unions, particularly one on behalf of van drivers who wanted an increase in salary. Van drivers do not form part of the 12 grades of the Post Office service. Outside those 12 grades the drivers have a special rate. It is quite interesting that at that time the industrial trouble that had been threatened did not occur. It was eased off and a settlement occurred very quickly which had the veneer of respectability of an arbitration determination.
I pass from that matter to a number of other very pertinent factors which have to do with the economics of the operation of the Post Office. Let us consider conduiting in the sister department of telecommunications. A virtual ban was placed on contracting which could be done at half the cost.- What is the position today? No contracting is allowed so much more expense is involved in getting this sort of work done. If we go through every facet of the operation of the Post Office step by step, we see that in 15 months it virtually has been white-anted by what the PostmasterGeneral this afternoon admitted was a pally situation between himself and the union. In relation to the disparity between the postmen and other Post Office staff he said - these were his words - to the postmen: ‘Go and put up a proposition to the Department’. Of course we want good relations. We want a PostmasterGeneral who will be constructive and who will look at these problems objectively, but apparently his approach has been to say to the postmen: ‘Put it up. You will not have any trouble. You will get it’. He went so far in this regard that he finally reached the stage where he agreed to the termination of Saturday mail services. He thought he had done wonderful things. He thought that he had satisfied the unions and that he had achieved for them in 15 months something that they had aimed to achieve for years. But there was a backlash. That backlash was the dissatisfaction of two other unions led by that very militant man, Slater, who was determined to get into politics and at that stage suffered a disappointment. So now the Minister and the nation have on their hands a crisis in the Post Office which will not be settled easily.
I think this Parliament must be dismayed this afternoon to find that in this crisis situation there is no positive approach on the part of the Government. We have the circumstance where the strongest union has made a demand on the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). We have the circumstance where the PostmasterGeneral this afternoon has not referred to that demand. He has not told this Parliament exactly what he foresees or whether in fact any negotiations are being carried on at all. One can only conclude that no negotiations are in progress. Certainly there has been no report of them. Therefore, it is obvious that service will not be reinstated, that the existing disability within the postal service will endure, that the Government will take no action to remedy it whatsoever and that all the Government will do now is to allow the unions to run over the top of the Government and increase the $3 5m loss that has been forecast. That has been suggested, and in fact admitted, by the PostmasterGeneral this afternoon.
The critical issue in this situation is that it has ‘been leaked through Mr Slater that in order to carry this loss the postal rate for ordinary letters would have to exceed something of the order of 9c or 10c. There was not one word of that from the Postmaster-General. All we can see is a complete shambles, a complete breakdown of services in the country and city, the depletion of the one great institution in Australia in 15 months at the hands of Labor and the sheer humbug of the Government saying that this problem was inherited from the previous Government. There is no proof of that and no evidence whatsoever to support it. But there is plenty of evidence that there is a complete failure now even to make a tacit approach to settle this crisis with any advantage at all to the public, the nation, or anyone else.
– I have always held the view that when members of Parliament speak in this place they should first of all make certain that there is at least some basis of fact or reality in any assertion they wish to make. I have also always held the view that when there is an industrial dispute which affects the convenience of the general public, there is an onus or responsibility on persons such as members of Parliament to make suggestions and to use their best efforts to try to resolve that situation rather than try to exacerbate difficult situations already existing. Such cannot be said for the Opposition this afternoon. The time of this Parliament has been taken up with the discussion of a matter of public importance which can be described only as containing a cheap barrage of squitter
What has been said so far? We have seen honourable members opposite display their irresponsibility and advance an argument which is both illogical and contradictory. On the one hand, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser), said that the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) should be condemned because of his incompetence in incurring the hostility of the unions. In the very next breath he said that the Postmaster-General is guilty of a complete and cowardly capitulation to union demands. Then the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) said that the PostmasterGeneral had sold out to militant unions. Which of the accusations does the Opposition really mean, that he has incurred the hostility of some unions because he has not agreed to every claim, or the other charge made against him that he has meekly laid down in front of every claim that was made irrespective of its merits? The honourable member for Wannon aspires to great heights as the prospective Minister for Labour. I understand that he is known as the shadow Minister for Labour. On this afternoon’s performance he is not a Minister for Labour’s shadow. His performance was very poor indeed.
Let us look at the industrial record of the Post Office in the last year, 1973. The number of stoppages represent about one-eighth of the national average. That is not a bad record. But the envy and jealousy of the Opposition comes out. It was displayed when the honourable member for Wannon criticised the Postmaster-General, indeed I think almost condemned him, because he was invited by the Australian Postal Workers Union to march with the unionists in the last Sydney Labour Day procession - a great honour indeed. The Postmaster-General is not a member of that union. It was a very unusual and singular honour bestowed on him that the men who work in the Post Office should ask him to march with them on that day. If one contrasts that with what occurred previously one gets some remarkable comparisons. For example, under the present POSt.masterGeneral a deal of confidence is displayed between the trade unionists who work in the Post Office and himself. There is a ready and quick access in terms of communication. A sharp reduction has occurred in the number of industrial disputes in the Post Office during 1973. In fact, in the ‘Redfern Mail Exchange, which was notorious for bad industrial relations, no stoppages at all occurred during that period. The Post Office as a whole in that period had the smallest amount of industrial unrest for the last 20 years.
Let us examine what happened previously in relation to industrial unrest in the Post Office. In 1968 there was a dispute and 11,000 men walked off the job. What was the answer of the previous Government to this problem? The Government of 1968, in which the honourable member for Wannon had a part to play, had an instant and brilliant solution. It dismissed or suspended all of the men. That is one way tq overcome the problems - sack or dismiss the workers so that there are no more employees and therefore in some way the problem does not exist. Of course, the men to whom I have referred were subsequently reinstated. That is an indication of the level of ability which the previous Government had in settling disputes. The attitude of the previous Government if men went on strike or stopped work, was to suspend them or dismiss them from service.
From December 1971 to February 1972 - a period of 3 months - the previous Government stood by like stuffed goslings and watched a complete ban on the installation and maintenance of all business telephones. What did the previous Government do about that ban? It let nature take its course. That is what it did about that ban. The previous Government had no answer to the problem and it waited, hoped and possibly prayed that in some way the matter could be resolved. Ultimately it was resolved. But for 3 months no business telephones were maintained and no business telephones were installed. Members of the
Opposition have the gall, the colossal nerve, to stand in this place and seek to have the Postmaster-General condemned. The Postmaster-General has achieved the smallest rate of industrial dispute for 20 years and has not had a single dispute in one of the most notorious places for bad industrial relations that this country has seen.
The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) then sought to criticise the Postmaster-General because he said that he did not know the industrial conditions under which postal workers were employed. The honourable member for Cowper said that in all other awards there is some provision for penalty rates oh Saturdays. For the benefit of the honourable member for Cowper, I point out that there is provision also in the Public Service determinations - which, incidentally, cover the Post Office - for penalty rates on Saturdays. What the previous Government did, of course, was to create a kind of industrial apartheid. It had one group being paid overtime for working on Saturdays - that is the group which worked a 5-day week plus overtime^ - while another group was being paid on a 5i-day week basis and receiving merely a loading for Saturday work. Is it any wonder that this position eventually erupted and that those people who were receiving the loading said: ‘We just will not work on Saturdays because it is not worth it’.
Let us examine the positive side of the matter. I am sure that every honourable member in this House agrees that the Post Office is not an easy institution to administer and its services are not easy to provide. This is so because a service needs to be spread over a very large area with a very uneven distribution of population. It should be remembered at all times that Australia has approximately the same land mass as the United States of America but it has approximately 6 per cent of the population that the United States has. That population is concentrated in the southeast corner of this vast land. Of course there will be difficulties and of course there will be problems in trying to give an efficient, uptodate, modern service in such circumstances. The Post Office does not receive the full public support it deserves. How often have honourable members gone to a public telephone box to see it inoperable, smashed by vandals, at a cost of approximately $5m every year?
The long delays in mail deliveries which occurred in the past have been largely over come. .The service is working better, delays have been reduced and the innovation of decentralised mail sorting facilities has immeasurably improved the postal service in Australia. What did the Opposition Parties do when they were in Government? They had no answer to postal problems. I think it is significant that in all of the criticism that members of the Opposition have atempted to level at the Postmaster-General today not one word was spoken about the improved services which the Postmaster-General has achieved during his 12 short months of office. So jar the criticism has been made on the basis that the Postmaster-General either gives in too quickly to the unions or, alternatively, does not ‘give in to the unions at all.
The other point to remember is that the amount of mail handled by the Australian Post Office during 1973 increased by approximately 15 per cent. It is significant that there was no increase in postal staff and no significant increase in the number of hours worked. In other words, the Postmaster-General has been able to get such co-operation from the employees of the Australian Post Office that they have been able to process 15 per cent more mail, without any additional assistance, thereby establishing the fact that they are working harder, better, and certainly more efficiently, than they did under the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. It is no wonder, in such circumstances, that the attack on the Postmaster-General should be so illogical, contradictory and irresponsible. There are no facts to support the proposition before the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
Mr MALCOLM FRASER (Wannon)- I wish to make a personal explanation.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
– Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan). The honourable member for Phillip said that I had condemned the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for marching in the Labour Day march last October. That is not correct. What I did seek to condemn him for was supporting Saturday closure of post offices and ending Saturday deliveries of letters, and then pretending later that he had some concern for the public interest.
– The honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) suggested that when members on this side of the House make charges they should have some basis to support them. I remind the honourable gentleman that the matter for discussion before the House now is:
The failure of the Government to maintain adequate postal and post office services to the Australian community.
I believe that I can substantiate this charge and
I propose to do so. I believe that at a time when charges made by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department are increasing the service is deteriorating. Let us examine mail deliveries first. Until recently mail was delivered on 6 days a week. Now it is delivered on 5 days a week because there is no delivery on Saturdays. It is a fact - I have experienced this at home and at my office - that the mail which we receive on Mondays is now delivered considerably later than it used to be delivered because 2 days’ mail has to be sorted before that delivery can be made.
Today I directed a question to the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Lionel Bowen). He referred to it when he spoke in this debate and he suggested that I asked about something else altogether - about overtime or something else. I have the green Hansard proof here and I shall read the question I asked the PostmasterGeneral. I asked:
Were postmen given the opportunity of voting on this proposal?
His answer was an unequivocal yes. I believe that someone has misled the PostmasterGeneral because I do not believe this to be the fact. I have been told by quite a number of postmen-
– Tell us.
– I will tell you. I have been told by a number of postmen that they did not have the opportunity to vote. They just did not get a vote. They made the point that they had to make up the time that they lost on Saturday during the week and it was costing them up to $10 a week. I prefer to believe these postmen rather than the person who gave the information to the Postmaster-General.
– Who are they?
– You must think I am naive. I name them and then they are victimised.
– Tell us the area.
– You know very well. If they are willing to make statutory declarations to that effect, I will get them to do so. I am not accusing the Postmaster-General of doing anything wrong. I am saying that whoever told him that the postmen were given the opportunity to vote misled him because all of them did not get a vote. I quote the Postmaster-General again. In case I do him an injustice, this is a quotation from the ‘West Australian’ of 18 February 1974. The Postmaster-General, according to that newspaper, in referring to the staff of post offices stated:
Their position could not be compared with postmen, who up to last week worked 40 hours in Si days with no overtime for compulsory Saturday work.
Today he referred constantly to the overtime they are receiving. If that statement is incorrect he ought to say so. The point is that the postmen have told me themselves that they were receiving overtime, and this is why they will lose up to $10 a week for not working on Saturday. So that argument is not correct.
What I am saying is not a criticism of the postmen, for whom I have the highest regard; it is a criticism of those who push them around, and if that cap fits any one at all I suggest that he wears it. The ‘Australian’ of 22 February said:
Australia’s 7,000 postmen will stop Saturday mail deliveries from tomorrow under an agreement with the Post Office.
I would like to know by whom that agreement was made. It might have been made by Mr Slater from the union. The postmen suggested to me that he made the rules, on which they did not receive a vote. On 11 November last year during the adjournment debate I raised the matter of increased postal charges. I said that the Minister had stated in this House that postal rates had not been increased. He said that in answer to the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly). He repeated it to me. I do not have enough time to read the exact words but the fact is that prior to the last Budget up to 28 grams or 1 oz could be posted for 7c. Today it costs 7c to post up to 20 grams. This represents an increase of at least 40 per cent. One could have posted 2 oz or 56 grams for 12c. It now costs 15c to post 40 grams. This represents an increase of 75 per cent. The Minister claimed that a letter could still be posted for 7c and that there had been no increase. I suggest that he try convincing a housewife who buys breakfast foods or soap powders that, if she pays the same price but the contents in the carton are severely reduced, the price has not risen. Let him try convincing a person who smokes cigarettes that, if the price remains the same but the number in the packet is reduced, the price has not been increased. Let him try that. I think he will have a rude awakening.
The Minister also said that Australian postal rates were better than those in most other countries. He pointed out that in this country first class mail goes by air and he said that there were very few countries which had to carry mail by air as far as we do here. He mentioned the distance from Sydney to Perth. Let us take the countries comparable in size with Australia or larger than Australia. In the United States of America, which has a slightly larger area, the rate for surface mail is equivalent to 6.7c Australian for 28 grams and 4.8c Australian for 20 grams. If they want to send it by air the rate is equivalent to 6.2c Australian for 20 grams, as compared with our rate of 7c. Let me cite Russia, a country which honourable members opposite are fond of citing. If the Minister doubts my figures let him talk to members of the delegation who are here today. In Russia it costs the equivalent of 4c Australian to post a letter by surface mail. The internal airmail rate costs 6c as against 7c here. In Canada, which is again of comparable size, it costs the equivalent of 5.5c Australian for 28 grams and 3.9c for 20 grams. In Canada all first class mail goes by air. The Minister can see that the story he told in regard to Australia’s distances and rates is not accurate.
For the information of the PostmasterGeneral, post offices are open on Saturdays in Russia, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. They have mail deliveries on Saturday in Russia and in the United Kingdom. I was not able to obtain up to date information for the United States, but until 2i years ago, which was the time covered by the latest information I received, they were still delivering mail on Saturdays. I have taken countries - the United Kingdom still has 2 deliveries a day in London and the suburbs - which should be acceptable to the Government as examples and which are of a comparable size.
The Minister referred to providing services to the public through milk bars. What did the great Amalagmated Postal Workers Union do?
It threatened anybody who sold stamps in that way that if his telephone went out of order it would not be repaired, his milk bar would be boycotted and there would be no mail handled either to him or from him. I believe that the Postmaster-General’s Department could provide a 6-day service to the public and still give the postmen a 5-day week by rostering the staff. It will interest the Postmaster-General to know that the information I obtained from the Russian Embassy was to the effect that not only are post offices in Russia open on Saturdays but they are open on Sundays also. They provide a 7 day a week service.
The Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ of 17 February referred to the action of the unions in banning Saturday work. I say ‘the unions’ and not ‘the postmen’. The article said:
If others took the same approach there would be no power, no water, no public transport, no police, no shops, no flying, no entertainment, no petrol, no milk, no television, radio or newspapers - in fact, the community would come to a standstill.
I would like to refer the Postmaster-General to an experience I had on Saturday night. He has said that one can still send telegrams by phone. What he did not say was that they will not be delivered. Perhaps he says: ‘Yes. You pay a porterage charge’. In case anyone thinks that it is 50c or $1, let me tell him that the porterage charge is a taxi fare from the capital city to the place where the telegram is being sent. It may be 30 miles, 40 miles or even interstate. If it is the fact that the message could be delivered by telephone, the staff did not tell anybody. Before I sit down I want to point to the fact that during the speech of the last honourable member on the Government side, in addition to the Minister-
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. (Mr Fox continuing to speak) -
-Order! If the honourable gentleman wishes to conduct himself in a manner not proper in this House he has a perfect liberty to do so for a limited time. When an honourable member’s time has expired he is required to sit down, irrespective of which side of the House he is on. I ask Hansard to ignore any remarks made by the honourable member after I called ‘Order’.
– I claim to have been misrepresented. The honourable member for
Henty (Mr Fox) said that I had misrepresented the position as to the rates of pay for postmen on a Saturday morning as compared with the rates for members of the other 2 unions involved. I did not misrepresent it at all. The postmen were paid only a loading for Saturday morning work; members of the other 2 unions were paid overtime. That is the difference.
– The discussion of the matter of public importance that appeared on the notice paper today was, right from the start, badly conceived. It was badly worded. The debate from honourable members on the other side of the House with the facts that they have been able to advance in criticism of the standard of service being offered by the present Government and the Post Office has been equally badly put forward. The submissions made by the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) sounded more like something that he should have been putting to a royal commission on the Post Office than a debate on this issue this evening. It boils down to the fact that the Opposition is attempting to criticise the Government for the problems that exist in the Post Office with respect to Saturday closing. As my colleague the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) pointed out quite effectively, it is certain that the raising of this matter in the Parliament today has done nothing to contribute to the settling of the problem. The main thing with which the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Australian Labor Party in general are concerned about is to see that the problems that have arisen over this industrial matter are solved as quickly as possible.
I must say that the Minister has not spared himself in his efforts to overcome the current problems concerning the Saturday closing of official post offices. The Minister has been responsible for the administration of the Post Office. He has done everything possible to negotiate with the unions concerned and for the most part the dispute - if it may be referred to as a dispute - is well on the way to being settled to the satisfaction of the Government and to the satisfaction of the unions concerned. So the rather belated entrance of the Opposition here today to suggest some grey cloud hanging over the Post Office services at the moment due to the problem that arose recently can be seen by the general public, from the effectiveness of the answers given today by the Postmaster-General in particular, to be the malicious attempt that it is.
It has been suggested that suddenly in December 1972 everything started to go wrong with Post Office services. The suggestion has been made by the Opposition that in the 12 months that this Government has been in office the Post Office suddenly has become a monster, that its operation has been fraught with industrial problems and that these things never occurred before. The general public is well aware that the monster to which the Opposition is referring was something of which the Labor Party was well aware before the present Government came into office. In fact, as long ago as the 1969 election Senator Willesee, . the Labor spokesman on the Postmaster-General’s Department, advocated as the policy of the Labor Party the holding of an inquiry into the Post Office immediately it came into office. Of course, this opportunity has come our way.
The present Postmaster-General quickly moved to implement that inquiry. He set up a royal commission to inquire into the problems of the Post Office when he became responsible for its administration. This inquiry is looking not at problems that have suddenly come to light overnight but that have existed for 23 years and have grown progressively worse because of the maladministration of the previous Government particularly during recent years when to some extent, I suppose due to the tiredness and the impending retirement of the Postmaster-General of that time, no efforts were made to make a business concern out of the Post Office.
The statement that the present PostmasterGeneral made when establishing the inquiry into the Post Office revealed that the Government had plans to increase postal and telephone charges by a further 20 per cent to 25 per cent in 1974. Yet today we hear members of the Opposition state, on the basis of a confidential communication that passed between the Postmaster-General and the Secretary of the Australian Postal Workers Union which suggested that it may be necessary in certain circumstances to increase postal charges, that it is the intention of the Government to raise them. Members of the Opposition have suggested that this has been disclosed by the contents of the letter. But we have information that the Government that was in office until 1972 had planned to do just that - to increase substantially postal and telephone charges by 1974. We know that these matters were of particular concern to the Government of the time and were among the many reasons that influenced the Minister to move quickly to establish a royal commission.
When announcing the establishment of the royal commission the Postmaster-General said that in 1970 the then Government recklessly adopted a policy providing uneconomic telephone services. The Cabinet of the day was warned that unless special Treasury resources were provided for this purpose there would be most severe repercussions in the activities of the Post Office. But the then Government went ahead and introduced these uneconomic services. The Government was dictated to by the sectional interests which supported the political parties that were represented in the coalition.
If more time was available to me I could show some of the facts that we have available to us because they are now public knowledge. The present Government and Minister have been prepared to make these facts available to the public - facts that were hidden and secretly kept away from the glare of public attention because of the virtual dishonesty of the policy the previous Government put into force and followed over a number of years. It is because of the implementation of these policies that the service provided by the Post Office deteriorated to the extent that it has been necessary for the Government to move quickly to introduce a means of determining the future operations of the Post Office, and this was done by the establishment of a royal commission. The report of the royal commission will be presented shortly to the Parliament. This report will open a new era in Post Office and telecommunications administration. The recommendations of the report will help to overcome the problems that we inherited from the previous Government and which this Minister has very courageously and very capably endeavoured to deal with in the short time that he has been responsible for the administration of the Post Office.
I would like to quote one glaring example of how the previous Government mishandled the finances of the Post Office. This example shows how that Government was dictated to by sectional interests and how it was prepared to look after the people who supported it and kept it in its position of political power. An automatic telephone exchange was installed in the Maranoa electorate for 11 new applicants and a total of 52 subscribers at a cost of $216,000. The revenue from the exchange was estimated at $8,000 a year which is less than 4 per cent of the total cost. This revenue, of course, would not even meet the interest charges on the capital let alone the maintenance and operating costs. This illustrates the dishonest attitude of the previous Government in its administration of the Post Office.
We have seen the lie and the hypocrisy of the Opposition’s challenge to this Government in suggesting that the industrial problems that have occurred in the Post Office are the responsibility of this Government. The industrial problems related to Saturday morning closing with which the Post Office is concerned at the moment are the outcome of a union principle that has operated for some years.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
The debate on the Post Office-
Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:
That the business of the day be called on.
page 39
– I move:
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent each of the following Bills being presented and passed through all stages without delay:
Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill 1974 (No. 2)
Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1974.
There is a reason for this procedure which I shall outline to the House. The first four Bills have previously been debated in this place and another place. The Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill was introduced into this House on the first reading on 8 November. The motion for the second reading was debated for a period of 4 hours 10 minutes. The Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill was debated for 3 hours 10 minutes. The Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill also was debated for 3 hours. The fourth Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill was debated for 4 hours. So in all there were 14 hours of debate during which 22 divisions were held. I do not have with me the number of speakers who took part in the debates but I think it is fair to say that there was adequate time to explore and debate practically every avenue opened up by these Bills. That means that within the last 3 months we have debated these measures.
The Government is determined to bring these Constitution alteration proposals before the people as soon as possible. The Prime Minister has indicated his wish for the referendums to be held together with the Senate election, thus avoiding any unnecessary additional costs in mounting separate polling days for ‘the referendums. That in itself makes it a matter of extreme urgency that the Bills pass through this House this week in order that the constitutional provisions regarding timing shall be adhered to. Since the Senate has either rejected or failed to pass these proposals, the Government is availing itself of the provisions of section 128 of the Constitution and is re-introducing the proposals, so that should the Senate again reject or fail to pass the Bills the proposals can be put directly to the people. The Bill dealing with the interchange of powers has been prepared in consultation with the States, and it would be wrong to suggest that it should not follow the same time scale as do the other 4 Bills.
So, broadly speaking, it will be seen that these Bills are extremely urgent. Having in mind the extensive debate that took place in regard to them about 3 months ago, it will be seen that no good purpose could be served by continuing the debate indefinitely at this time. It is also reasonable to say that the constitutional position is that if the proposed referendums are to be held with the Senate election, thus preventing the huge expenditure of having a separate polling day for the referendums, it is necessary for the Bills to be passed or rejected, as the case might be, by this House and another House so that the people can judge whether they want these changes in their constitutional procedures. Hit is not a question of what the Government wants or what the Opposition wants. This is a simple democratic proposal to let the people decide whether they desire to change their own Constitution. This is an urgent matter. We on this side do not think that the people should ever be denied the right to pass judgment on what should be legislated on in this Parliament. If others who sit opposite think along those lines that, of course, is not exactly a democratic approach. We do not believe that the people should be held up unnecessarily in the course of making these decisions by the Parliament again hammering out a debate on these Bills on which, as I have said, over 14 hours was spent a short time ago. Therefore, as I have no desire to pursue this matter further at this stage, I put those salient points as reasons why I ask that the Bills be dealt with forthwith. I hope that the Opposition will see fit to support them.
– This of course is a very unusual procedure for the House to follow. The Leader of the House (Mr Daly) on behalf of the Government seeks to pre-empt the normal convention that a Bill should not be introduced and debated on the same day. Of course we recognise that four of the Bills covered by the motion have in fact been the subject of debate in this House on a previous occasion. With respect to these Bills the Opposition parties, although opposed to the concept of consideration of legislation in haste, under pressure and with a limitation of time, will not object on this occasion to a debate commencing immediately at the discretion of the Government. The attitude of the 2 Opposition parties is clear. The Bills will be vigorously opposed and we will seek their rejection in this House and in the Senate.
There is one Bill to which I draw particular attention. It is the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill. We see that Bill in a completely different light. The Bill has not yet been circulated to the House. I have not seen the Bill although I understand that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) was given a copy of it by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) a day or so ago.
– I gave it to him last Thursday.
– It was given to him last Thursday. Because the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill is included in the terms of the motion and to obviate the need for an Opposition amendment, I ask the Leader of the House to make it clear that that Bill will not be debated today but will be debated tomorrow at the end of the debate on the first 4 Bills which, as the Leader of the House has foreshadowed to us, will, with the consent of both Opposition parties, be debated cognately. The Leader of the House is nodding his head. I take it that assent to that course being followed is confirmed.
– I give the honourable member that assurance.
– I join with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) in expressing concern at the introduction of this procedural motion at this stage of the session. It is understandable that the Government wishes to introduce legislation into the Senate for discussion at the earliest possible time. However, the Opposition believes strongly that in any matter involving a change to the Australian Constitution there should be no specification which reduces the opportunity for adequate debate of the substance of the matters proposed to be submitted to the Australian electorate. In fact, that will be the result of the motion now before us. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already said, the first 4 measures included in the motion are matters which have been debated in this chamber before. The strength of my opposition, therefore, is not «s great in relation to those 4 measures as it is in relation to the fifth.
I am delighted that the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) has seen fit to give the assurance that he has just given the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but even so I regard it as objectionable that there should be included in a procedural motion a new Bill, albeit some minimal notification was given to this House in the speech by Her Majesty the Queen last week. But there has been to date no opportunity for any member of this chamber to see the detail of the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill. This is the piece of legislation which is subject to active and critical scrutiny by a committee of the Constitutional Review Convention. The delegates to the Convention have asked that the debate on this Bill be deferred, yet on the first working day of the new Parliament included in the procedural motion is a request that the normal processes be suspended so that the Bill can be passed through all stages without delay. I regard that as objectionable and regret that the Government has found it necessary to include that Bill in the motion.
– I say briefly but bluntly that I think this is a disgraceful proceeding. I am not particularly interested in any arrangement which may or may not have been made behind the Chair. I believe in the authority of this Parliament. I have asserted it against those on my side when they commanded the numbers, and I did not find myself on the honours list as any consequence of the protest that I made. I want to say to my friend, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), and to the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), the Minister in charge of this legislation, that this is a shabby way in which to treat the national Parliament. It is to no avail the Leader of the House saying that these 4 Bills were debated for 14 hours or 16 hours before. I invite the Leader of the House to reflect upon the fact that on that occasion the Bills were gagged and a number of them were considered together. How on earth will he secure a sensible, rational approach to constitutional reform in this country when he has such an asinine approach to it? I happen to know that the Minister agrees with me on this point. I do not embarrass my honourable friend by taking the point any further.
I say to the honourable gentleman, however, that when I discussed my concern with him about some measures regarding this legislation, he rushed into the Labor Party Caucus room and made a passionate appeal for Party honesty. Fortunately for the honourable gentleman cooler counsel prevailed and today we are confronted with this disgraceful procedure. I suppose I am one of the few in this place who has had an opportunity to look at the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill which is the fifth Bill proposed to be introduced by the Prime Minister. I saw it at a Constitutional Convention subcommittee meeting. I am sure that the honourable gentleman would agree with me when I say it is a Bill of extraordinary complexity. My regret is that the Labor Government has set back genuine constitutional reform in this country 25 years by the hamfisted approach that it is adopting to the problem. A Constitutional Convention is in progress at this very moment and there are prospects of agreement by every major political party in a number of areas. What person with a good conscience could entertain an approach of this character when he sees that 4 Bills to alter the Constitution are to be debated cognately? I think it is a travesty and I think that the House, and I hope the country will understand that that is my deep conviction.
– I would like to correct the remark made by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) that the first 4 Bills mentioned in the motion before the House had been debated sufficiently. That is not so. The Bills were brought in without proper consultation. They were gagged through without proper debate and the House did not have a chance of looking at them. The Leader of the House (Mr Daly) has misinformed the House and the country of that specific point and it is quite wrong that he should be allowed to go uncorrected on that. He says: ‘We are democrats’, ‘Let the people decide.’ Fair enough, but what should the people be allowed to vote on? We know about the first 4 Bills that are before the House. I say nothing about the fifth Bill, which is unseen. Sure, we have seen the text of the first 4 Bills. Sure, we have not been allowed to vote on them. Sure, we have seen that these texts are quite deficient in matters of detail. But - and this is much more important - we know that some of the Bills are a mixture of good and bad, and the good has been put in in order to disguise the bad and to deceive the people who will come to vote in these referendums. These are treacherous Bills brought in by a rogue government for its own purposes.
– You would know all about rogue governments.
– Yes, a rogue government that is out to socialise by stealth. I use those words quite deliberately. I speak first of the 4 Bills which have been debated previously, or should I say half debated because they did not go through their committee stages. I am saying that more than one of those Bills is a deliberate mixture of good and bad, and that the good things in the Bills are meant to cover up the bad. They represent an attempt by this Government to deceive the people voting at a referendum. The Government will be able to put forward good things and say: ‘Look, if you oppose this Bill you will be opposing something good’. The good is there as a bait to cover up the bad that is in the Bills. It is quite wrong for the Leader of the House to say, as he said a moment ago: ‘Let the people decide’. The people have a right to decide on things which have been properly debated by this House, and they have the right to have the questions before them divided properly, so that they can accept the good without having to accept the bad.
– How do you tell the good from the bad?
– The honourable member is quite right when he says: ‘How do you tell the good from the bad?’ Let the people make that decision. It is their right to make the decision at a referendum and, therefore, let the questions that come before the people at the referendum be properly framed and divided so that the people can tell the good from the bad. Do not do what is done in some of those 4 Bills, namely, mix up good and bad so that the people do not have an opportunity of accepting the good and rejecting the bad. The people will be given an opportunity only of accepting a mixture of good and bad which this Government has arbitrarily laid down and which it is attempting to put before the people without giving this House an opportunity to debate it.
I say that my friend, the Leader of the House, attempted to mislead us and the country when he said a moment ago that we have had ample opportunity to debate these 4 Bills. As I have said, the reason we have not been given an opportunity to debate them in detail is that the Government is using these Bills as a means of deceiving the electors. I am afraid the Government will not be able to deceive the electors even at this second attempt. In its first attempt, in the referendum on control of prices and incomes, the people showed what they thought of the Government’s attempts to do this kind of thing. However, in this case the reason we are not being allowed to debate in detail these 4 Bills and the reason why we were not allowed to debate them in detail when they were previously before the House is that the Government is endeavouring to use some good features as a bait in order to get the public to approve of bad features. The Government is not allowing a separate vote on the good and the bad.
My friend opposite, the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), said very appositely and correctly: ‘How do you tell the good from the bad?’ The answer is, quite frankly, that the people should have an opportunity of telling the good from the bad and of being able to vote separately on the separate features, instead of having them lumped together in a way which the Government has decided arbitrarily and which it is not going to give this House an opportunity of debating or considering. The Committee stages of these Bills were gagged. They were not debated. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is not being honest when he says that he is endeavouring to bring in a Bill that can be put before the people honestly. These are dishonest measures. They were not debated during the last session and they are not going to be debated in detail during this session because the Government is going to gag the Bills through in order to conceal its own inherent dishonesty. This above everything else shows the importance of the Senate and the importance of keeping the Australian Labor Party out of the Senate at the next election.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! The honourable gentleman is straying a little wide of the subject matter of the debate.
– Thank you for bringing me back to the point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that it is probably the most important point in this matter but, as you say, it may be a little extraneous to this present debate. All I say at present is that since these Bills have not been adequately debated in this House in the past, since their details have not been examined in the House and since the bad and the good in them have not been separated in this House, then thank God for the Senate because it is only the Senate that stands between Australia and socialism.
- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am dealing with the Bills that are before us. We cannot debate them in detail in this House, but the Senate will be able to do so. Thank God for the Senate. I am sure that the people will realise the importance of the Senate and the importance of their vote at the coming Senate election.
-Order! If the honourable gentleman insists on taking the line from which I have now asked him twice to desist, I will have to sit him down.
– I have finished with that point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I come now to the fifth Bill. The fifth Bill is one which, so far, I have not seen although I understand that my friend, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), has some kind of incomplete text in front of him relating to this Bill.
– It is a preliminary draft.
– I have not even had an opportunity of reading this preliminary draft as yet. It is quite extensive and complicated. That I can say. But to ask the House to deal with this Bill tomorrow without adequate debate would be in itself another outrage on the real substance of democracy. We are told that at the breaking of the seventh seal there was silence in heaven for the space of half an hour. I think that if this be so, we should have at least a week’s grace to consider the contents of this fifth Bill. I am not saying that the fifth Bill is altogether bad. I do not know; I have not seen it. It is probably like the other Bills, a mixture of good and bad. But at any rate it is clear that it is a very complicated and long Bill. It is an insult to this House for it to be asked to consider this Bill without a week’s grace. Do let us have silence for a little while while we think about the matter. We may not be quite as quick witted as heaven and we are therefore entitled to a little more grace than the half hour which heaven allotted itself on the breaking of that seventh seal.
– You want the week.
– I want the week. Nothing less would be any good because I believe that this fifth Bill will follow the same kind of treacherous pattern that we saw in the other Bills which have been previously debated in form but never adequately debated in this House. I believe that in its complex convolutions it will probably have some sting concealed. I am against the suspension of Standing Orders in this way. I believe that the Government is doing this in bad faith and doing it to enable it to try to put one over the electorate when the time for the referendum comes. If there is any decency in the Government and if there is any content in democracy, let us have a chance, even at this stage, to consider all these matters in detail. Let us have a chance to sever what we think good from what we think bad so that the public will have an opportunity when it comes to the referendum and they cast their votes to be able to do so in a way which will be significant and whereby they will not have to reject some things that are good because they want to reject some things that are bad.
The fact that the Government is unwilling to allow a detailed consideration of these Bills in Committee is, in itself, the most apt and revealing commentary on the nature of the Government and on its motives in putting before the House this extraordinary procedure.
– I also protest about this procedure. It is all very well to say that these Bills were partially debated last year but I have not seen them. The Bills have not been circulated as yet so how do members know whether they are in exactly the same terms as the Bills which were before the House last year? In connection with the fifth Bill it is suggested that we should read it overnight and debate it tomorrow. Are we to consider it while other debates proceed? The House will rise tonight at 11 o’clock. I understand that the fifth Bill is rather lengthy, will take some reading and that it will take a considerable amount of time to digest its implications. To suggest that members will be informed and able to participate in any intelligent way in a debate on this Bill by tomorrow is ludricous, particularly in view of other work which the House has in front of it. I do not think, just because the Government gets a notion on the spur of the moment that it wants to do something that honourable members should be bulldozed into debating it as a matter of national importance. So many of these matters which the Government has introduced as urgent have proved not to be urgent at all when examined.
It has been suggested that this time table is necessary because of a desire on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to hold all these referendums at the time of the Senate election. He has not announced the date of the Senate election so how do we know whether it is urgent to have these Bills panicked through the House at this point? If he were fair dinkum about it the Prime Minister would announce the date of the Senate election. He would then let us know the time table for getting these Bills through the House and to the Senate so that the questions could appear on ballot papers at the time of the Senate election. If he were fair and open to members of this House that is the course he should propose. He should not bring in the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) as a hatchet man to force these measures through without adequate time for members to read the Bills and without adequate discussion of their implications.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 44
[No. 2]
Bill presented by Mr Whitlam, and read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Mr Speaker, in November last the House of Representatives passed, by absolute majorities, the following four Constitution Alteration Bills: Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974, passed on 14 November;
Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections). Bill 1974, passed on 15 November; Constitutional Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill 1974, passed on 15 November and Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering The Constitution) Bill 1974, passed on 21 November.
On 4 December 1973 the Senate referred to the Senate Standing Commitee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, rejected the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill, rejected the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill and amended the Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill, amendments which were rejected by this House.
In accordance with the provisions of section 128 of the Constitution in respect of Constitution Alteration Bills passed in this House by an absolute majority and which are rejected, which fail to pass or which are unacceptably amended in the other, the Government re-introduces these 4 Bills so that it can proceed towards referendums on these matters - referendums that the Government intends be held concurrently with the next Senate elections.
I shall not take the time of the House to put forward again the reasons that have led the Government to initiate these amendments. They are sound and reasoned. They were spelt out by me in my second reading speeches in the House, and honourable members have them recorded in Hansard - pp 3053-3055, pp 3055-3056 and p 3057 of 8 November 1973 and pp 3398-3400 of 15 November 1973. I commend to the House the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974.
Debate (on motion by Mr Snedden) adjourned.
page 44
[No. 2]
Bill presented by Mr Whitlam, and read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
In doing so I invite to the attention of honourable members the second reading speech I have delivered this afternoon in presenting the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974.
Debate (on motion by Mr Snedden) adjourned.
page 45
Bill presented by Mr Whitlam, and read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
In doing so I invite the attention of honourable members to the second reading speech I have delivered this afternoon in presenting the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974.
Debate (on motion by Mr Snedden) adjourned.
page 45
Bill presented by Mr Whitlam, and read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
In doing so I invite the attention of honourable members to the second reading speech I have delivered this afternoon in presenting the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974.
Debate (on motion by Mr Snedden) adjourned.
page 45
Bill presented by Mr Whitlam, and read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Constitution to enable interchange of powers between the Australian Parliament and the State Parliaments. The Government proposes that this Bill, along with several other proposals for constitutional amendments already submitted once to this Parliament, will be put to the people by referendum at the time of the forthcoming Senate elections. There already is a provision in the Constitution, in section 51, paragraph (xxxvii), for reference of powers by State Parliaments to the Australian Parliament. However, there are several unresolved questions on the operation of the existing provision for the States to refer powers to this Parliament which have made them reluctant to do so. There is, moreover, no provision for references the other way - from the Australian Parliament to State Parliaments.
Honourable members will recall that, during the first meeting of the Constitutional Convention in September last year, heads of delegations agreed in principle that the Constitution should be altered to allow for interchanges of powers and to remove the existing doubts about the operation of the present power. Honourable members will also recall that, during the Convention, I announced that we would seek to amend the existing power by referendum and have a new provision included to permit matters to be referred by the Australian Parliament to the State Parliaments. Further, I announced our intention that, in any interchange of powers, whether from the Commonwealth to the States or the States to the Commonwealth, the same provisions should be available as to duration, revocability and the power to apply terms and conditions.
The Bill before the House, therefore, covers both the introduction of the new power and clarification of the existing power and makes corresponding provisions with respect to both. The Bill has been settled in consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel of the States as I foreshadowed at the Constitutional Convention. The State Governments have also been kept informed of progress with the drafting. The relevant standing committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention was also given the opportunity of commenting on a draft of the Bill. The committee asked that a few matters be looked at again. The text of the Bill reflects their principal concern as to its operation. This was that there be no discrimination between States in any designation by the Commonwealth.
I turn now to the details of the Bill. The new power of reference by the Australian Parliament is dealt with separately by the proposed new section 108a. The other proposed new section - section 108b - contains the provisions concerning terms and conditions, duration and revocability applicable to interchange of powers whether from the Commonwealth to the States or the States to the Commonwealth. The existing section 51 (paragraph xxxvii) will remain unaltered in form, but will operate in conjunction with section 108b, thus removing the doubts the States have felt on these matters.
For technical reasons, in the case of references by the Australian Parliament, the terms ‘designate’ and ‘designation’ have been used. To illustrate, if the Australian Parliament desired to empower the States to levy a tax which technically came within the category of excise duties - as to which the powers of this Parliament are exclusive - it would not seem appropriate to speak of the Australian Parliament referring the matter, for the power of the Australian Parliament as regards excise is to levy a Commonwealth tax to be paid into the Commonwealth Treasury and not a State tax paid into the State Treasury. In accordance with what I understand to be the express wish of the States, section 108a ensures that, if a designation is made, it is available to every State, so far as it deals with a matter that is relevant to the peace, order and good government of the State. Of course, no State will be bound to exercise the new power so conferred.
A designation of a matter by the Australian Parliament is to be possible - indeed, this is the principal purpose of the new provision - in respect of its otherwise exclusive powers. But State laws passed in pursuance of a designation by the Australian Parliament will be subject to the general limitations applicable under our Constitution to State laws. For example, section 92 will apply. The provisions of section 108b are, as I have said, to apply to references - 1 will use that term for simplicity - by either a State or the Commonwealth. The doubts that the States have felt about their powers to revoke or impose conditions should be removed by the express provisions of this section. A reference will be revocable at any time and will be able to be made subject to conditions.
I hope that these provisions will encourage the States to refer to this Parliament powers such as family law, defamation and shipping and navigation which, in this context, have been raised at the Constitutional Convention. On the other hand, it might suit this Parlia ment, as well as the States, to refer to the States, the power to make laws with respect to Commonwealth places within the States. Provision has not been made for a reference to be made so as to be irrevocable during a fixed period, although careful thought was given both by the States and the Commonwealth to including such a provision. I think it is fair to say that it was generally agreed that the absence of such a provision would encourage references and that, given goodwill on both sides, such a provision would be unnecessary. Without goodwill, a reference power will not be of any value anyway.
The proposed alteration to the Constitution contained in this Bill, if approved by the people, will introduce a degree of flexibility in the distribution of powers under our Constitution that has been lacking for far too long. II hope this House and the Senate will pass it speedily, so that it can be submitted to the people at the time of the Senate elections. I commend the Bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Snedden) adjourned.
page 46
Debate resumed (vide page 44).
– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure in regard to this legislation? Before the debate on this Bill is resumed I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill as they are all associated measures. Separate questions may of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest that you permit the subject matter of the 4 Bills to be discussed in this debate.
– Order! Is it the wish of the House to adopt this procedure?
– On this question of indulgence, although I am unhappy about it I would not stand in the way of the House provided, of course, that the normal procedure of the House is followed and that the Committee stage qf all the Bills will be taken separately.
-Is the wish of the House that that procedure be adopted?
– Could I ask, before I give my indulgence- 1
-Order! The honourable gentleman is not in order in debating a request for leave.
– I am entitled to refuse leave, Sir-
– And I will refuse leave unless I-
-Order! I think the honourable gentleman is aware of the procedures of the House. Separate questions must be put on all Bills at the Committee stage. The House will deal with the question when it arises. That will be done under the normal Standing Orders of the House. It is not any special favour. Is leave granted?
– Mr Deputy Speaker, on a personal explanation, may I say that all I was seeking was to be put clear on that point before granting leave. That point having been made clear, I am happy to concur in the proposal to grant leave.
-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The cognate debate is so ordered.
– Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has come into the House and produced what he calls a second reading speech. His second reading speech consists of 2 pages. Part of what it says deals with the outcome of the consideration of these Bills in the Senate. There is no provision whatever in his second reading speech to justify these Bills. That is not surprising, because there was nothing in the speeches that he made last November to justify the Bills then, and he has progressed nowhere since that time. The first Bill that he introduces is the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. We should look at a little of the background of this matter. We are told that we must conclude the debate on these Bills by 6 o’clock tomorrow evening, and that includes not just the 4 Bills which are the subject of this cognate debate; it includes the Bill which has just been introduced, which relates to the interchange of powers between the Commonwealth and the States.
The Government says that it needs this timetable in order to have the referendum pro posals dealt with at the same time as the Senate election is held. We have to take the Government on trust - which we do not, but it has the numbers and we have not. Therefore, the Government will assert its will by the sheer power of numbers. But how can we know whether this matter is urgent when we do not know the date of the Senate election? The point was made by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Cooke). The plain fact of the matter is that nobody has been told officially what the Senate election date is. We all know the standard practice of the Government. It feeds out bits of information here and there through the public media in order to get the public used to what it proposes to do. The public media have been saying that the Senate election date will be 11 May. Now they say that perhaps it will not be 11 May; perhaps it will be 18 May. Why cannot the Prime Minister say when the Senate election will be held? Then everybody would have the opportunity to judge whether in fact this is a matter of urgency.
I come now to the next Bill which deals with simultaneous elections. This Bill is quite remarkable in that the question which will be put to the public contains these words:
To alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections.
That is not a correct statement. What is a correct statement is that the Constitution is being altered so as to take away the 6-year term from a senator and give him an unknown term which will be 2 lifetimes of the House of Representatives. It means that it could be anything from one year to 6 years. Nobody knows what it will be. What the Government ought to do is to put the question honestly to the people. It is not putting the question honestly to the people.
– At least it is consistent.
– It is consistent in lacking honesty. That is certainly true. I come to the next point. The Prime Minister says that we must have a referendum in order to have a Senate election at the same time as a House of Representatives election. If that is not blindfolding oneself to reality I do not know what is. The Prime Minister is committed to hold the Senate election before 30 June next. He has the complete freedom to go to Government House and say to the GovernorGeneral: ‘I want a dissolution of the House of Representatives’. He can go there tonight. he can go there tomorrow, or he can go there at any time and say: ‘I want to bring the elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives into the same time frame. Therefore, I want a dissolution of the House of Representatives’. I would go with him and support him. But he would be the most reluctant lamb led to the slaughter that we have ever seen.
– I think that you need 2 witnesses.
– Yes, we certainly need 2 witnesses. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) is trying to interject. He should make his interjections sensible. Let him say that he is in support of this proposal. Then we can see that he, as President of the State branch of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria, is confident of a Labor Party victory in Victoria in the forthcoming Senate election. Where is his confidence? If he wants to show his strength of purpose and character and his influence as President of the State branch of the ALP in Victoria, and if he is prepared to vote for this Bill, then he should say to the Prime Minister: T want this; I want simultaneous elections. Prime Minister, go to the Governor-General and have the House of Representatives dissolved’. If the honourable member is not prepared to do that, he should not be prepared to vote for this Bill. But in the extraordinary convolution of logic that he will apply to this matter, he will vote for this Bill, that is to say, he wants simultaneous elections, but then he will sit back meekly and mildly and not insist on an election for the House of Representatives.
There is the extraordinary curiosity about this matter: What honourable members opposite want to achieve by this referendum proposal can be achieved by the Prime Minister of his own volition, entirely constitutionally within his own power, just by going in his white Mercedes-Benz to Government House, and the Governor-General would not refuse his request. But the curious thing about this matter is that probably the Government will not be able to put this proposal to the people at a referendum because in order to do so the Bill has to be introduced in this House at least 3 months after it has failed to be passed or been rejected by the Senate. What the Senate did with his Bill on, I think, 5 December last year or thereabouts, was to refer it to a Senate committee to examine all the implications. Then (he Prime
Minister, by his action, dissolved the Parliament. When the Parliament was dissolved the Senate committee which was considering the matter went out of existence. I do not give this as a concluded opinion, but I think the probability is that if the Senate does the same thing with this Bill the Governor-General will not be able to authorise this referendum proposal - and only the Governor-General can decide that. Against the possibility that the Government may not be able to achieve this brilliant thing of simultaneous elections, why does it not now dissolve the House of Representatives? The Government oan do, by a simple act of the Prime Minister, exactly what it wants to do by this referendum. That is the first proposal relating to simultaneous elections. I will not go into the proposal in depth now because I did that previously when I spoke about it If we get on to the hustings I will speak about the proposal then.
The Senate is a very important chamber. lt has the balance of power. The Government comes into this chamber claiming that it has a mandate, but it does not have a mandate because it never openly presented its proposals to the people. The Government puts a proposal before this House and then the proposal goes to the Senate. If the Prime Minister claims that the Senate is obstructing him, there is constitutional power for calling a double dissolution. The Government has had the grounds for calling a double dissolution on the Electoral Bill. We all remember the Minister in charge of electoral affairs saying: This is the most important electoral reform that there has ever been, and we will go to the people if it is not passed by the Senate*. The Senate rejected the legislation, but what happened? The Government just meekly walked away from it; it did not take the opportunity of calling for a double dissolution. The Government did not call for a double dissolution on the off-shore legislation. We believe in the importance of the role of the Senate.
I turn to the next Bill which is designed to enable the Government to create the most giant gerrymander in the history of any country - not just of this country.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.
– The next Bill in this quartet of Bills is one which has the euphemistic title, which is what the electors will read when they go to vote on this referendum, of a Bill for an Act:
To alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the members of the House of Representatives and of the Parliaments of the States are chosen directly and democratically by the people’.
I regret to say that this is falsity at its highest level. The clear implication is that up till now the House of Representatives has not been elected democratically. What right has the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) to be sitting at the table if he was not elected democratically? I think it would be to the great good of democracy if he were removed, but the fact is that he was elected, one would assume, democratically.
– One of the few.
– Yes, and the Minister has the same wobbly wings as those few have. The implication is that we were not elected democratically. The facts are these: There has not been a single occasion in my political lifetime when the Party that gained the majority support did not gain the majority of members in the House, with one exception - 1954. In 1954 we had an election on the boundaries which were determined by the Labor Government in 1949. Although we got a minority of the votes we remained in government because the then Labor Government wanted a gerrymander in 1949 to preserve its own skin. What Labor did not realise was that the marginal seats would come to us. The Labor Party made life comfortable for itself and left us the marginal seats. So it is real when I say that this Bill is the basis of a giant Labor gerrymander. There are plenty of facts to show it. The basis of this giant gerrymander is to take away any capacity of the electoral distribution commissioners to make adjustments for distance, size or community of interest. That is the first point.
The second point is that the Bill proposes that the distribution of electorates shall be on the basis of people, not on the basis of electors. The result is that electorates will be distributed on the basis of unnaturalised citizens, those under 18 years of age and those who just have not registered. Honourable members all know plenty of areas where the majority of people are in middle or later age, and other electorates in which the majority are young married people with lots of kids. This policy will mean that some electorates will probably have twice as many electors as do others. If this represents democracy, I fail to understand the meaning of the word.
One likely result is that the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick), dear chap that he is, whose main centre is Broken Hill, will not remain in Broken Hill. He will come within the area of the Riverina electorate. It is also likely to mean that the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton), who together now represent nearly 50 per cent of the land mass of Queensland, will between them represent 60 per cent of the land mass. What about Mr Collard, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, who now represents almost three-quarters of the land mass of Western Australia? If this proposal goes through he will represent eleven-twelfths of it. Is that democracy? Is that the way we want this country to be run? The Government is not doing this from any intuition that it is serving democracy; the Government is doing this because it believes that such a policy will favour the Australian Labor Party in votes. The Government wants to achieve’ a situation where the Liberal and Country parties will have to poll 60 per cent of the votes to win government and so that the Australian Labor Party will be able to win government with only 40 per cent of the votes.
– We could win on that basis too.
– We could even win on that basis, but there is no reason why we should make our task more difficult just because the Government wants to do it. What about this wonderful democratic principle that everyone over 18 years of age will have a vote? Can anyone tell me the person in Australia today who is over 18 who does not have the vote unless he is disqualified for reasons such as being in gaol or of unsound mind or something of that kind? The Government wants to go to the people with a referendum proposal to provide a vote for persons over 18 years, to distribute boundaries on the basis of people instead of on the basis of electors and to take away any possibility of distributing electorates on the basis of community of interest, distance and the whole geography of the country. Are we to pretend that the whole of Australia is urban? I have heard the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) condemning the fact that there is too much urban population. Now he wants a referendum which assumes that the totality of the Australian mainland is urban. It is nonsense to suggest that.
As I have said, the Government has in mind a giant gerrymander. It is very generous with its wisdom, and it has decided that the bureaucrats in Canberra can run all the agencies of the State governments. It now proposes that the Commonwealth Parliament should run all the State parliaments because it says that whatever may be good for the Commonwealth Parliament, according to our likes, is good for the whole of the State parliaments so it will apply to the State parliaments exactly the same provisions. The Government proposes this extraordinary thing of going to the people in a referendum and saying: ‘Command not only that the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be chosen directly, but that every State Parliament shall be also’. The only House of any State Parliament in Australia that is not chosen directly is the Upper House in New South Wales. Does anybody remember the referendum of the people of New South Wales on that very issue?
– The result was overwhelming.
– The result was overwhelming, as the honourable member for Mackellar reminds me. But this Government will not accept the people’s will. It proposes to impose its will. Next this Government says that every State electorate must be distributed on the basis of electors instead of people. It may interest the Government to know that democracy is not served in this way. Just to cite an example, in South Australia, the State electorate of Eyre is held by Graham Gunn. He has 9,441 electors in that electorate which covers 50 per cent of the area of South Australia. The adjoining electorate is Frome which covers 38 per cent of South Australia. That means that 88 per cent of the land mass of South Australia is in 2 electorates. Under the proposals put forward by this Government those 2 seats would become one seat; and that is democracy! What a lot of nonsense to give the Bill this title upon which people will have to vote. The wording was designed deliberately to deceive the people into voting on the basis that they want democratic elections. In fact what the Government is trying to do is to create the gerrymander of which I have spoken. We will oppose that referendum.
The next Bill is another piece of deceit. This is what is being put to the Australian people as a matter of deceit. The fact is - this will not be denied because any honourable member opposite who denies it would be expelled from the Labor Party tomorrow, and I would like an honourable member opposite to tell me if he denies it - the Labor Party’s policy is that there should be one House of Parliament for the whole of Australia, namely, the House of Representatives. The Prime Minister wants just this one House of Parliament. He wants a majority in it and he wants to treat his own people in the cavalier and dictatorial way that he has shown. He wants no balance of power at all. He wants to get rid of all the State governments. His method of doing this is to pretend to local government that if he were able to get rid of the State governments local government would be better off.
Services in Australia are provided by the Commonwealth Government, by the State governments and by local governments. The taxpayers of Australia collectively contribute to provide the funds for the distribution of those services. The only way in which services will be upgraded is by greater efficiency or greater taxing. But the Labor Party pretends that it has a magic wand and that by a wave of that magic wand it can have a single House of Parliament, a single government, get rid of the States and have some sort of provincial arrangement. Members of the Labor Party think that that will serve their interests - the interests of socialism, the interests of authoritarianism and the interests of bureaucratism. They have the idea that the people in the Government buildings across from Parliament House possess all the wisdom in Australia. Can honourable members imagine a man sitting up on the ninth floor of the Treasury building - or are there only 6 floors; whichever floor he may be sitting on - saying: ‘I believe that local government in Western Australia, out at Mukinbudin, would be better off by my wisdom than that of the local people*. That is exactly what he is saying. He is being invested by this Government with the. power to say that. Therefore the situation exists that the Labor Government asks: ‘How are we going to persuade these hard-headed local government fellows to go along with this referendum?’ So, the Government says: ‘We will give you direct grants and we will raise loan funds for you’.
– And there is only one reason.
– There is only one reason and that is to serve their own interests. The
Government will put conditions on the grants. Conditions are already put on grants made to the States. Can honourable members imagine those conditions being carried through to the level of services of the local government? And that gentleman in the Treasury building, or, say, in DURD - incidentally, what a magnificent name - is making these decisions. These decisions will be made on the basis that that Department will determine the conditions upon which money is granted and will audit the spending of it - that is, provided Senator Cavanagh does not run the Department. If he runs the Department there will be no audit at all.
– Come on, put some pep in it.
– Thank you. You will be gone after the next election and we will all be happy about that.
– You have been saying that for 6 years. I won by more votes than you did.
-Order! The honourable member for Robertson will be gone before that if he does not stop interjecting.
– What will happen is that the Commonwealth Government will impose conditions on the grant of money. Then, when it comes to borrowing funds for local government, the Commonwealth Government will become the single borrower of money. The Government’s reputation in borrowing money is immense. It inherited a long term bond rate of 6 per cent from the McMahon Government with myself as Treasurer in December 1972. Within 9 months of the present Government coming to office it had lifted the long term bond rate to 8i per cent - an increase of 24 per cent. The interest rates paid by home purchasers went up at least 2 per cent. Some home buyers were subsidised and the increase was kept at 1 per cent. But for the ordinary person the interest rate increased by more than 2 per cent. That is the record of borrowing capacity of this Government. It is asking every local government body in Australia, which is trying to be as frugal as possible and as efficient as possible in providing these services, to let it borrow the money for them. We oppose that particular proposal.
I come now to the fourth proposal, which would provide 2 things. Firstly, it would provide that the electors of all the territories should have a vote in referendums. The Oppo- sition accepts that proposal. The Government is unwilling to separate the issues because what it. wants to do is to carry one proposal which is unpopular with another which is acceptable to the people. That is exactly what the Government wants to do. The Opposition has to oppose the whole proposal because the single question to be put to the people is: to facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow Electors in Territories, as well as Electors in the States, to vote at Referendums on Proposed Laws to alter the Constitution.
Did any honourable member read into that title that for a referendum to be carried the number of States needed to support the referendum proposal would be changed from 4 to 3? It does not appear in the title at all. It is false.
– It is a fraud.
– It is a fraud. This is the basis upon which the Government is to put recommendations to the people. It is a fraudulent base from start to finish. Let us quickly examine each of these 4 Bills. The fraud emerges in each of them. Firstly, I refer to the Constitutional Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974 (No. 2). It is said that there needs to be a constitutional referendum to alter the laws for simultaneous elections to be held. As I said this afternoon, the Prime Minister needs only to go to the GovernorGeneral and to ask for a dissolution of this House and the elections will be simultaneous. As a matter of fact, I would be prepared to go out with him to support the application.
– That is what Heath said.
– Any honourable member on that side of the House who is going to vote for this referendum proposal ought to go to the Prime Minister and say: ‘Look, stop this rubbish and nonsense and fooling about. Let us have a general election now’. That is a fraudulent approach-
-Order! There are too many interjections.
– The second proposal to which I refer is contained in the so-called Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974 (No. 2) The fraud in that legislation is the proposal to put to the people the question: ‘Are you in favour of democratic elections?’. The Government hopes that a person will respond unthinkingly ‘Yes’. The fact is that we do have democratic elections in Australia. The Government wishes to get other proposals accepted by the people. They are: To impose its will on the States but, most importantly, to enable a giant Labor Party gerrymander which will keep that Party in office forever.
The third Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill 1974 (No. 2) is fraudulent because it states that the proposed alteration is just a mere provision to borrow money for local government and to grant money to local government. If honourable members read the title of the Bill it indicates nothing about conditions being imposed, interest rates being high, or the wiping out of the State governments. For that reason it is fraudulent. The final Bill, the one with which I have just dealt, does not indicate in its title the true purpose of the Government. The Government’s true purpose is to reduce from 4 to 3 the number of States that must support a referendum proposal for a constitutional alteration to be made. This Bill was born in deceit. It will be put to the people in deceit. The people of Australia are not willing to be deceived. Each of these referendums will be defeated - of that I have no doubt.
– Mr Speaker, I suppose that one could describe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) more aptly as Mr Negative’. He has been negative because he wants no change in the Constitution. Everybody in this Parliament knows that the Constitution which was created in 1901 needs alteration. Every Government that has governed this country and every parliamentarian that has sat in this place knows that the Constitution as it was drafted in 1901 is not suitable for the needs of government and the people in this country today. It needs alteration. That is why before the House today there are 5 Bills seeking to alter the Constitution.
The first of the 4 Bills being debated cognately is the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974 (No. 2). Does anybody deny that we should change the procedure by which a Senate election is held one year, 18 months later an election for the House of Representatives is held and some 18 months thereafter a further election for the Senate is held? Of course simultaneous elections need to be held so that government can be continuous. Too many elections are held in this country and therefore the Constitution should be altered to enable simultaneous elections to be held for the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with that alteration.
– Sabotage.
-Order! I will issue one more warning to anyone who interjects that if he continues to interject I will name him. I intend to get complete silence in the chamber. I call the Minister.
– Let us consider next the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974 (No. 2). I ask honourable members on the opposite side who sit behind the Leader of the Opposition to examine the figures for Queensland to see whether there are not gerrymanders and whether there is no necessity for democratic elections. A government led by the Country Party in Queensland governs with approximately 19 per cent of the vote, yet the Liberal Party which in fact received a greater percentage of the votes but fewer seats cannot govern the State because of the gerrymander. Normally, simple arithmetic shows that the procedure is that a government needs at least 51 per cent of the votes. But we find that a government in Queensland led by the Country Party governs with 19 per cent. Other parties make up the remainder of the votes but have not got the majority of seats. The Liberal Party of Queensland with approximately 30 per cent of the votes has fewer seats than the Country Party. So do not let us talk about democratic elections. For a time a Liberal Party government governed in South Australia with 32 per cent of the votes because of a gerrymander. (Honourable members interjecting) -
– Order! I give another warning. I will name the next person who interjects.
– However provocative the Minister is?
-Order! That includes the honourable member too.
– He should know. He has been warned before. This is after the dinner adjournment.
– You filthy swine.
– You are. You are just following your Leader.
– Mr Speaker, did you hear what the honourable member said?
– Yes, I heard, but I did not hear what you said. In any case I am issuing my last warning. I will name the next interjector.
– 1 am not going to be in this House while you are Speaker.
– Apologise before you go. All right. The honourable member will not get in until he apologises.
– I am glad the House has come to order because it is about time it did so. I was talking about this so-called democratic structure. I gave 2 instances of ‘Lower Houses in this country which have governed for many years by gerrmanders. I think the time is overdue that the people of Australia should see all houses of parliament elected in a democratic way.
This cognate debate covers the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill. Tonight I want to deal specifically with the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill. There can be no doubt that at the last election this Government received a mandate to carry out, to formulate and to implement policies for our cities both old and new. Equally, there can be no doubt that the Government received a mandate to implement certain policies for local government. The Australian Labor Party’s policy stated its determination to make local government a genuine partner in the federal system. At last year’s Constitution Convention the national Government proposed to bring local government representatives onto the Loan Council. This proposal was blocked by certain States. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) then determined that the national Government would still try to involve local government as an equal partner in the federal system by proposing this alteration to the Constitution. We have pledged ourselves to this reform and we are seeking to make this reform in our democratic way. We have a mandate from the people to carry it out.
This Bill dealing with local government bodies will enable the Government to fulfil its responsibility. The way in which the Opposition parties carry on demonstrates clearly that they are interested only in cliches and worn out dogma. They are interested only in ‘busi ness as usual’. The Leader of the Opposition said: ‘Just business as usual. Let us not make any alterations at all’. Could one be any more negative? The Opposition did not offer anything to local government. For 23 years honourable members opposite allowed the position of local government in this country to deteriorate. They condoned the States’ action in negating local government. Local government is a creature of the States. We all recognise that. The States have repeatedly downgraded the position of local government. They have done it in 2 ways. On the one hand they have passed increasing responsibility to local government, such as for child care centres, assistance for aged persons and environmental protection. On the other hand they have failed to match this increase in responsibility with an increase in financial assistance to local government. Local governments are so poor that in many cases they cannot even afford to police their litter laws let alone to expand and police the environmental laws to -protect the environment which becomes a more important responsibility of local government each day. Whenever the ‘Labor Party proposed to do something about this position the same State governments could only cry ‘centralism’.
Members of the Liberal and Country Parties in the national Parliament share responsibility with the States for downgrading the position of local government. Not only did they condone the States’ actions but they also condoned the States’ cliches. They, too, rely on cliches to hide their lack of positive policies. When we talk about centralism we ought to be quite clear about it. What greater centralism is there than the centralism of Brisbane over the whole State of Queensland, of Sydney over the State of New South Wales and of Melbourne over the State of Victoria? What greater concentration of power and what greater centralisation could there be in those 3 cities? Yet the States are talking about centralism. Let us stop talking this rubbish about centralism. In fact the Whitlam Government has been the most decentralising government in the history of this nation. It wants to create responsibilities within regions and to give power back to the people, where it should lie. The reforms we are proposing for local government will enable it better to carry out its responsibilities.
Some State governments appear to want local government to stay exactly as it is now. But this Government does not believe that local government bodies are as conservative as those States.
Whatever the Liberal and Country Parties may say, I am confident that local government itself supports our proposal to alter the Constitution. I could quote ample evidence for the support which is gathering for the proposal to enable local government to receive direct financial assistance from the national Government. Let me confine myself to an instance which occurred in Hobart in November of last year. At a meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government Organisations it was decided to unite in a public campaign in support for local government representation on the Australian Loan Council. The delegate from New South Wales, the Honourable Harold Coates, M.L.A. - every honourable member opposite knows that he is an independent member who has supported the Libera] Party in New South Wales in 95 per cent of its actions - said:
Local government has ‘been battling for a long time for assistance, and for the first time the Commonwealth had come to the party.
He was talking about the Whitlam Labor Government which had come to the party with financial support for local government, which had been struggling for so long. I emphasise the words: ‘For the first time, the Commonwealth had come to the party.’ He went on to say:
It should be a backward step if local government did not show support for the Commonwealth in what it was trying to do.
That is the voice of the Australian Council of Local Government Organisations which met in Hobart last November. This body is the elected leadership of the local government authorities throughout Australia. This body said that it wants to support the Australian Labor Government even though many members of the local governments involved are normally not Labor Party supporters. They may be normally non-Labor supporters. But they know that the new Whitlam Labor Government will give a new deal to local government. The Council clearly expressed support for the Australian Government’s initiative.
This Government believes that federalism means 3 equal tiers of government. The fear and jealousy which some State governments and the Federal Opposition parties are exhibiting towards our policies for giving local government some muscle only demonstrates the narrowness and backwardness of their approach to federalism. As far as these States and representatives of the Opposition parties are concerned, co-operative federalism is all right as long as only the States and the national government are involved. But that is not a genuine partnership. Can anyone doubt the strength of local government’s case for more financial assistance? Some of the figures which are available on the financial situation of local government are quite disturbing. I might say that it is fitting that a former Federal Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition who followed disastrous financial policies in the field of local government, should be here to listen to some of the figures. For example, in January 1971 local government authorities in New South Wales alone were $77 lm in debt. In Australia as a whole local government authorities had $l,730m outstanding in debt. When we examine the percentage change in the public debt position in Australia since 1949 we find that the position is just as disturbing. Between 1949 and 1970 the public debt of the Commonwealth increased by 5.4 per cent, the States by 323 per cent but that of local government by 845 per cent.
The figures relating to the interest liability during that period of time also are interesting. The Commonwealth’s debt increased each year by 54 per cent, the States by 571 per cent but that of local government by 1,931 per cent.
So one can see why local government wants to support the Labor Party. Even though the debt of the Commonwealth has remained at a static level and the debts of the States have increased greatly the debts of local government have increased astronomically. Do members of the Opposition deny that local government needs more money? Do those opposite still believe after all these years of neglect that the States will provide this money? They are not being honest with themselves if they claim after years of a worsening financial position that the States will suddenly change their colour and grant local government the money which it needs. When he was the Prime Minister of this country a few years ago, John Gorton tried to assist the States which had incurred certain financial debt. But at no time did the States pass on some of that assistance, which was provided to ease their debt burden, to local government. The debt of local government has continued to spiral and no assistance has been given although more and more responsibility has been thrown onto local government. Why do not those opposite ask local government itself whether it wants access to Federal finance? They do not ask local government because they already know the answer.
The third tier of government in this country has waged a long and effective campaign to gain recognition at the national level and to gain access to national finance. The Liberal and Country parties continue to deny them that access. Why do the Liberal and the Country parties object to equality between the 3 levels of government? It is because they want feudal kings in feudal State castles to preserve the present system of keeping local government as the poor relation in our federal system. Why are the critics of this Bill so reluctant to see local government authorities have access to national financial resources? The amendment that we propose to the Constitution will enable local government to get on with the jobs for which it is best suited.
The referendum goes even further than merely providing money. Its real basis is the place of local government in our system. We need co-operative federalism in which there are 3 equal partners in which each have the right of a say and the right of a vote. But unless it is equal partnership we will not be able to solve our problems. Honourable members opposite cannot say that they want a strong and vigorous local government and then vote against this Bill. This Government believes that local government wants to be an equal partner in our federal system. This Government believes that that is what the people want. This Government is determined to meet the legitimate demands of local government and it will ask the people to give it the support and power under the Constitution to do so. I ask honourable members to support this Bill.
– We are discussing a group of Bills relating to the Government’s desire to hold referendums on a number of questions. I think it is rather a ludicrous situation that we should be asked to debate together 4 Bills which are all very important Bills dealing with the Constitution. But the situation is made more ludicrous because the 2 referendum questions on which the people recently voted and which might have had some appeal to the Australian people were overwhelmingly defeated because the Australian people were suspicious of the motive of the present Government, which is to bring about unitary or centralised Government.
To imagine that the Australian people would accept the new referendums is just kidding oneself beyond belief. I think that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) does not care. He has set this course and he is going to follow it irrespective of what happens. His conceit is too important for him to back down at this stage. It might be to the electoral advantage of the Government to hold these referendums. Because these questions would be decided at the same time as a Senate election is held the attention of the people may be diverted away from the domestic issues. This might help Labor in the Senate campaign. The questions to be asked certainly will be defeated. It is the job of the Opposition parties - the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party - to see that they are, because they are important in determining the destiny of this country.
In the short time that is available to me I will concentrate only on two or three of the Bills. Firstly I would like to deal with the Bill which has a very curious reference in its title to democratic elections - the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill. This is a euphemism for the Government’s plans to tamper with the electoral system for its own advantage. That is what the proposal is all about, no matter what fancy language the Prime Minister might use about democratic principles. The Government hopes that the Australian people, through ignorance of what they are doing, will become accomplices in the Labor Party’s plans to seriously damage the democratic processes.
The genuineness of the Prime Minister’s concern for democracy is put to a very severe test when we set his statements against his intentions. For example, he claims that 40.3 per cent of the population of Victoria can elect a government, and 44.1 per cent of the population of Queensland can elect a government. Yet this crusader for enlightened democracy wants to introduce in Australia a voting system which would result in much smaller percentages of the population electing governments. Under the first past the post system which the Prime Minister intends to impose upon Australia even 30 per cent or 20 per cent of the voters might be able to elect a candidate, or elect a government. What price democracy then? We have just seen an election in Britain under the first past the post system. Mr Wilson’s Labour Party, with the support of 37.2 per cent of the voters, is to govern. Over 60 per cent of the British people voted against that Party. That is the kind of enlightened democracy for which this Australian Labor Government stands.
The Prime Minister’s bleatings about democracy should be exposed for what they are - clever words designed to mask his plans to prostitute the electoral system of this country and to extend far greater any deviations he imagines are contained in the present law. He wants to institute a voting system which does not reflect the wishes of the people. The preferential voting system does reflect the wishes of the voters, not perfectly but to the greatest extent possible under our method of dividing the nation into electorates represented by a single member. The Prime Minister wants to take a giant leap backwards to a system that takes away from the people their right to elect the kind of government they think is best for this country. He stands for minority government, not government which reflects the wishes of the people as a whole. But we do not have to look ahead to first past the post voting to discover the Labor Party’s forked tongue. We need look no further than the Bill before the House.
The Government’s motives in bringing forward this Bill the first time have already been exposed, but in view of the Government’s persistence in this attack on the electoral system those motives must be exposed again. The Labor Party’s objective is to give the Labor Party an electoral advantage. Whatever the Prime Minister may say, that is his objective and everyone knows it. The Government tried to do this last year with the Commonwealth Electoral Bill and failed. Now it is taking another tack. The astonishing thing is that what is being put to the Australian people now is a proposal that takes us much further away from Labor’s long held principle of one vote one value than we have been, or would have been under the Government’s proposals in the Commonwealth Electoral Bill. The present proposal is that electorates should have equal numbers of people as distinct from equal or nearly equal numbers of voters. If this proposal is put into effect we will see the Labor Party gaining enormous advantage at the cost of sound and democratic electoral principles. For example, if this proposal had been operating at the time of the 1969 election the greatest advantage in Victoria would have gone to 8 Labor seats, and a disadvantage to 11 Liberal seats. Again if this proposal had been operating in 1969 there would have been 38,788 voters on the roll in the electorate of Melbourne and 64,709 voters in Diamond Valley.
This is the kind of distortion of the electoral system which this great champion of democracy, the Prime Minister, wants the Australian people to approve at a referendum. What an insult to the intelligence of the Australian people. What a revelation of the Labor Party’s professed respect and manifest contempt for democratic principles. Surely if anyone had any doubts about the Prime Minister’s motives this attempt to secure political advantage by manipulation of the electoral system would have dispelled them. Clearly the objective is to fiddle with the electoral laws to give the Labor Party more seats, and the prime target in this assault is not the Country Party, as it usually is, but the Liberal Party. One can have some sympathy for the Labor Party’s traditional espousal of the principle of one vote one value even though one cannot excuse the Labor Party’s utter lack of understanding of the reasons why this theoretical principle cannot be applied with justice in a country like Australia. But one cannot, no matter how hard one tries, find any reason to sympathise with the Labor Party’s efforts now to change the electoral system in a way that completely ignores one vote one value. This is nothing more than a blatant and contemptuous move to gain political advantage by a gerrymander of a magnitude that makes anything that has ever happened before quite insignificant. That such a sweeping gerrymander should be proposed by the Labor Party is one of the great ironies of Australian politics.
Another proposal in this Bill is that the States should be told how to manage their own affairs. The Prime Minister says the States must change the methods they use to elect their parliaments. What business is it of the Prime Minister - a Prime Minister, remember, who is going all out to perpetrate the worst example of electoral fiddling and funny business to help his Party that this country has ever seen? If there is a need for State constitutions to be changed, surely it is for the people of the States concerned to make that decision and not a Prime Minister determined to crush the States and dedicated to the establishment of a unitary system of government.
The Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill, while it has a complicated title has a very simple purpose. Its purpose is to make it easier to change the Commonwealth Constitution. Its purpose is to make it easier for the Labor Party to do the things it wants to do but which it knows it cannot do unless the method of changing the Constitution is watered down. The Labor Party knows that many of the things it wants to put to the Australian people in referendums will be rejected, as they should be, but it hopes that by lowering the threshold, by making it easier to change the Constitution, it might be able to get some of its changes through. I hope the Australian people realise the dangerous course being followed by this Government.
The Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill seeks to take two constitutional proposals to the people for judgment. The first is to empower the Parliament to borrow on behalf of local government bodies and the second is to empower Parliament to make grants for financial assistance direct to local government. As part of this objective local government would be given direct representation on the Australian Loan Council. The immediate consideration is whether these questions are reasonable ones to place before the Australian people for decision. In the view of the Australian Country Party it is reasonable to suggest special arrangements to assist the financial position of local government. It is not reasonable to propose fundamental constitutional amendments as being a necessary condition to do this. If the people are to be asked to exercise a choice it should be clearly established that the proposition before them seeks to alter the Constitution because it is both necessary and desirable to do so. It is neither necessary nor desirable to alter the Constitution to assist local government.
The financial problems of local government have been well documented and relate mainly to its serious debt burden and inability to increase revenue at a sufficient rate. The aggregate debt of local government bodies amounted to $600m in 1960 but a decade later totalled $ 1,600m. It has increased at a faster rate than has State government and Federal government debt and its legacy is an unevenly distributed but generally substantial interest burden. The increase in local government revenue has been less marked than the increase recorded for Commonwealth receipts, being 94 per cent between 1960 and 1970 compared with 128 per cent for the Commonwealth. This situation has been accentuated considerably in recent years.
It is the view of my Party that the Labor Government’s approach to the problems of local government is wasteful of resources and confuses administrative authority. The expansion of the operations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission to promote equality between regions as well as States is a duplication of existing State government expertise and administrative structure. For example, the New South Wales local government assistance fund was set up in 1969 to provide additional assistance to local government on much the same basis as the newly enlarged Grants Commission. It started with $4m and now allocates $6.5m annually with the intention to increase this to $10m by the end of the lifetime of the current New South Wales Parliament. Indeed a New South Wales Grants Commission exists to administer this fund and assess the relative financial requirements of local government bodies. The New South Wales Department of Local Government employs about 140 people involved in local government matters. This expertise and these channels will be duplicated and consequently wasted. I ask whether it is consistent with the overriding abjective of efficient allocation of resources to duplicate the functions of entire State departments, of entire State commissions and expert committees by the establishment of additional Commonwealth bureaucratic apparatus.
One may expand on the political implications of the legislation, on the implications of a loan council in which State governments would be outvoted, and on the implications for regional planning of direct government allocations to local government capital expenditure. Road works by local councils would be at the direction of Canberra, as would library projects, bridge construction, kerbing and guttering, water supply and the whole range of local government activities. This financial leverage will carry in its train, as a logical consequence, political control, yet the castrated State governments would retain the meaningless constitutional responsibilities of legal control over local government.
The Country Party’s approach is positive and logical. We recognise the compelling nature of the problems of local government, but emphasise that financial arrangements must serve and strengthen the Constitution, not undermine it Given the existence of existing State government machinery and expertise, it is a more rational use of resources to increase the flow of Commonwealth funds through those existing, or enlarged, channels. We would seek to make local government not simply a passive recipient of increased finance, but would seek to ensure that it was well equipped to make effective use of additional assistance. We recognise that even if Commonwealth borrowings on behalf of local government authorities resulted in very marginal benefit in interest rate repayments, the problem of debt servicing would remain, and we see strong local government administration as one means of ensuring financial strength.
We call for a meeting to be held with State Premiers to identify the scope and nature of local government requirements and shortfalls. This conference could establish the magnitude of assistance required over a fiveyear period and the relative contributions of State and Commonwealth governments. The objective would be to establish a 5-year program on a continuing basis to help equalise the facilities available in richer and poorer local government areas - that is, on a needs basis. In line with this approach there is no need to establish new regions through an expanded Grants Commission and impose political change for financial purposes. The Commonwealth assistance could be channelled through State machinery, such as the New South Wales Grants Commission, on the basis of priorities determined by State governments and their advisers.
We see the need for assistance to be on a grants basis in recognition of a serious indebtedness position. The Loan Council borrowing entitlements for local authorities can be enlarged if required. In the meantime we believe that it is important that local government be encouraged to take full advantage of the financial resources available to them. There may be some scope for councils charging for some services which are free.
The legislation to expand the operations of. the Grants Commission duplicates State Government expertise. It will no doubt impose profound political change as a consequence of financial change. It creates political units not as a response to community pressure, but on the assumption that future demand could be stimulated and anticipated. This legislation is similar in character. It leaves the States impotent, like flowers in a vase, fair to behold but doomed to wither. It does not even offer major financial gains to offset the decisively heavy political liabilities of this legislation.
Again, to use the New South Wales example, loan programs are organised by the local government bodies through the banking system. But these applications must be approved by the New South Wales Government which screens the financial ability of local government to service commitments under the long-standing Loan Council gentlemen’s agreement. What we need is clarification of whether or not the Commonwealth is going to help contribute to alleviate the financial indebtedness of the State governments. On balance, the only advantage of Commonwealth loan raising for local authorities would be a possible marginal benefit in the interest rates on borrowed money. Against this must be offset the possibility of increased interest rates payable by State governments, the increased concentration of borrowing power in Canberra and the duplication of existing machinery in State departments and, indeed, local authorities. The debt servicing problem remains, as would the broad problem. (Extension of time granted.) I thank the House. Certainly a reduction in overall interest rates from their present high levels would be of more benefit.
The allocation of Commonwealth grant assistance is desirable, but should be on the basis of an agreed long-term program and should be distributed at the individual discretion of State governments. For these reasons we oppose this legislation as a wronglydirected answer to local government finance problems. We propose positive alternatives instead. We look for increased quality of local government administration and an increased flow of Commonwealth grant finance through State government channels. We reject the Bill for its political implications and financial inadequacies. We therefore recommend that the Australian people vote firmly ‘no’ on this question of involving the Commonwealth in local government affairs, as we recommend a no’ vote to the other 3 questions that are before the House at the moment.
– The very mention of the word ‘electoral’ is enough to send any member of the Australian Country Party, particularly the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) into a frenzy. He states that this is a monstrous proposal by the Australian ‘Labor Party to change the electoral system and gerrymander the Australian electorates. He further states that he does not want any change in the system. Neither would ‘I if I were he because when I look at the votes received by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Hewson) I see that he got in with only 17 per cent of the primary vote. Why should the Country Party want to change the system when in Queensland, with 19 per cent of the votes, not only is it beating the votes of the Liberal Party but it also has a member who could not obtain one-fifth of the votes and yet is Premier of that State.
– Order! The last 2 speakers were heard in comparative silence. I give a warning that if there are any interjections, I will name the interjector. The last speaker was heard in comparative silence and I ask honourable members to extend the same courtesy to the Minister.
– Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you know, I am not a provocative speaker. But I should like to instance these things for the House and the people. Why would members of the Country Party want to change a system that can give them a Premier with 19 per cent of the votes of the people of Queensland? Why change a system which enabled the honourable member for McMillan - not a very good member - to get here on 17 per cent of the primary votes? Why would they want to change a system that has been used by the people, particularly those who sit in that corner of the Parliament, to elect minority governments for as long as we can remember? No wonder the great democrat who has just spoken does not want a change. I remind him that all the Labor Party seeks to do with any legislation affecting electoral boundaries or any other electoral matter is to see that the Party that gets the majority of the votes gets the majority of the seats. That is not possible under the present system. He said that the policy of the Labor Government was for first past the post. As a matter of fact it is not. At this stage the Labor Party is investigating various systems associated with voting and there is a great body of opinion that thinks proportional representation may be the fairest system. For my part I favour optional preferential voting whereby a person can vote for the number of candidates required to fill the vacancies or all candidates according to his desires. If members opposite think that is no good, why did they support it in the Australian Capital Territory for so long when they were in government for 23 years? This is the situation and to say what was said was completely false.
I say to those honourable members who sit opposite that it is time in Australia that systems were devised whereby the majority vote elected the majority of members. As I look at those who sit in the corner opposite I cannot but think that when that system is introduced to Australia there will be a lot of vacancies in that corner. If one has regard to their performance and to their approach one must realise that they could not win a majority of the votes because the majority of people are more sensible than to elect Country Party members because they know they are the types of people who are elected only because boundaries are gerrymandered and rigged to their advantage. These facts are available for all to see. The papers and records show that it is a minority party of minority votes. What members opposite are opposing in this legislation is giving the people of this country a chance to say whether there shall be equitable voting systems throughout the length and breadth of Australia. It is not a policy that Labor is sponsoring or forcing down their necks. We are asking the people of Australia to judge what kind of system should be instituted in Australia. Members opposite fear the people. They are frightened’ to let the people pass judgment on what is the best voting system which is all the Government is asking of the Australian people.
The Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill is largely designed to enable the will of the people, when clearly expressed, to be implemented. It is designed to avoid perpetual deadlocks between both Houses of this Parliament. It is ironic that this very Bill should suffer the very fate it was designed to avoid. The fate of this Bill in the Senate shows clearly the ‘do-nothing’ and obstructionist policies of the Liberal and Country Parties. They would not admit publicly whether they supported or opposed the Bill but instead they resorted to the age-old device of referring the Bill to a committee. Of course, we are all familiar with the image of a camel as a horsedesigned by a committee. This is how the government of this country has stumbled along for the last 23 years under Liberal-Country Party administration. Now that they have lost control of this House the Liberal and Country Parties and their Democratic Labor Party running mates - the wedding mate of the Country Party - are abusing the power of the Senate to frustrate the popular will. Even the Liberal loves opposite are breaking out. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) is courting the
Australia Party at this stage. These romances, of course, are most strange. No wonder they do not want simultaneous elections for both Houses of this Parliament. A dying dog will clutch at any straw.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the alteration of the Constitution in such a way that elections for the Senate and for the House of Representatives will be brought into permanent alignment. The proposed legislation seeks to give to the people the opportunity to decide whether they approve this proposal - an opportunity to which they are justly entitled. As I stressed when this Bill was first before the House, the proposed legislation does not interfere with the rotational system of elections for senators. Indeed, it can be said that by providing that the terms of the senators shall be for 2 terms of the members of the House of Representatives, with half the senators retiring on each occasion, the principle of the Senate as a continuous House is being safeguarded.
The essential provision in this Bill is to replace section 13 of the Constitution with a new section that defines the terms of senators as follows: the term of service of a Senator expires upon the expiry or dissolution of the second House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved after he was chosen or if there is an earlier dissolution of the Senate, upon that dissolution.
In general, the Bill proposes that senators will have a term of service equal to 2 terms of the House of Representatives rather than a fixed term of 6 years, consequently ensuring that elections for both Houses are held simultaneously. Transitional arrangements are proposed in relation to adjusting the new system to the terms of senators whose terms commenced in 1971 and whose terms will commence in 1974. These provisions are designed to ensure that in no case the term of a senator will be less than that for which he is chosen under the existing provisions. Of course, as at present, the terms of senators can be cut short by a double dissolution. A further provision of the Bill covers this situation. As honourable members would know, section 13 of the Constitution presently provides that, following a dissolution of the Senate, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into 2 classes whose terms shall be 3 years and 6 years respectively. It is proposed under this Bill that the terms of the senators in one class will be equal to 2 terms of the House of Representatives and the term of the other class shall be equal to one House of Representatives’ term.
Fewer national elections brought about by the holding of Senate and House of Representatives elections concurrently would simplify and sharpen the political process. Political parties would be better able to plan their campaigns and to formulate policies for government. Voters would know the choice before them - the election of a government which they could more confidently expect to effectively carry out its mandate.
We are firmly of the belief that the issue at stake here is of such vital importance that it must be presented to the people to decide. It is inherent in our democratic process that such an issue, involving an amendment of the Constitution, can be decided only by the people and I express the hope that this House will adopt a responsible attitude in allowing the early passage of the Bill.
I now turn to the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974. The word democratic’ frightens every Country Party member in this House. The Australian Constitution is our ultimate guarantee of freedom and democracy and this Bill, now before the House for a second time, seeks to strengthen those provisions of the Constitution. It is quite understandable that the vested interests represented by the members opposite should do their utmost to block the strengthening of democracy in this country. Fear and mistrust of the common man have always been a Tory characteristic. This country has suffered for 23 years from being under the control of men who were so fearful of change as to seek out every avenue in order that it might be blocked. We will now appeal directly to the Australian people who have been so frustrated for so long. We will give them the opportunity of writing essential guarantees into our Constitution. If the proposals are rejected they will still have had the opportunity - something which the so-called democrats opposite denied them. They will surely endorse our basic proposal to ensure that all electorates for all Parliaments in this country are represented in direct relation to the populations they contain.
It is also proposed by this Bill to write into the Constitution a guarantee that each House of the various State Parliaments must be elected directly by the people. Do democrats opposite object to that? Thus we will no longer have the situation where entrenched vested interests are able to frustrate the popular will. It is proposed to provide, for all time, a direct guarantee of the suffrage to all Australian citizens over the age of 18 years - subject, of course, to the usual restrictions relating to persons of unsound mind, etc. These rights are only partially protected by current legislation. The Government proposes the permanent protection of these rights by an amendment of the Constitution so that they may never foe taken away by the enemies of democracy. It is also proposed to remove from the Constitution explicit provisions for discrimination on the grounds of race.
Not only do we seek a constitutional guarantee that State Houses of Parliament shall be directly elected by the people, but also it is proposed to guarantee the suffrage in State elections to Australian citizens on terms and conditions analogous to those operating for electors to this Parliament. These measures will place democratic institutions in Australia on a firmer foundation and will forestall the possibility of democracy being usurped by totalitarian parties of the right or the left. It will prevent vested interests ruling on behalf of the >few in the name of the many.
The Bill we now have before the House is necessary in order to protect our parliamentary system against the gerrymandering of electorates so frequently achieved through the techniques of zoning, restricted franchise and indirect elections, of which those who sit opposite are pastmasters. I detailed the extent of these malpractices when this Bill was before the House 3 months ago - before the Bill was defeated in the Senate by the same gerrymanderers who drew the boundaries previously. The need for the electoral system to be placed beyond the meddling hands of the descendants of the squatters should be obvious. It is useless to attempt to do this by altering the Constitution of a particular State, for any such Constitution can be altered at will by the Parliament concerned. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia is the only Constitution which cannot be altered without the express permission of the people. It is in this document that we must provide permanent guarantees of the rights and privileges of the Australian people.
Finally I turn to the Constitution Alteration! (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill 1974. Honourable members will recall that the Bill now before the House proposes two basic changes to the mode of altering our Constitution. The first is to ease the existing provisions relating to the passage of a referendum. We propose that a referendum be carried if a majority of voters in not less than one half rather than more than one half of the States vote in favour of a proposed change to the Constitution. The second proposal is that electors in the A.C.T., including Jervis Bay, and the Northern Territory be given the right to vote at constitutional referendums. Do honourable members opposite oppose that democratic move?
Like other Bills for proposed referendums, this Bill has suffered at the hands of an obstructionist and reactionary Opposition in the Senate. Honourable members will again recall that this House rejected an amendment made in that place which omitted that clause in the Bill providing for a majority of voters in not less than one half of the States voting in favour of a referendum proposal. This manoeuvre is typical of an Opposition left with nothing constructive to say in the face of a Government which is providing this great country with the kind of leadership it needs and wants after so many years of Liberal and Country Party turpitude. Fortunately, Mr Speaker, the Constitution provides for this sort of situation. One House of the Parliament cannot prevent a proposal, which has been passed twice by the other House, being put to the people as a proposed law at a referendum. And ultimately it is the people who must decide. lt is just this that the Bill now before the House is designed to facilitate. In a democracy, the will of the people must prevail. This is particularly so in relation to the Constitution - that document which transcends Party politics or everyday political issues and has as its central purpose the conduct of government, no matter what the political complexion. This, above all, is a matter for the people to decide. We intend that they should have that chance. Those opposite do not trust the people. The method by which a Constitution can be changed is, therefore, of great democratic importance. All sides of politics agree that our Constitution has proved overly difficult to change. Our proposal, which has been treated in such cavalier obstructionist manner by the Opposition, aims simply to do that.
There is surely no need to go over the arguments for our proposal in any great detail. We say simply that a proposed law should not require a two-thirds majority of
States in which a majority of voters support the proposal, but something closer to a simple majority of States. This is obviously more democratic. If a simple majority of votes is sufficient for election to this Parliament, if a simple majority of voters in each State, and across the Commonwealth, ds good enough, then a majority of the States should suffice. This is clearly what the founding fathers would have wanted. But they foresaw the formation of new States. They did not expect that the requirements, as they wrote them, would turn out to be a two-thirds requirement. Hence our proposal that a majority of voters in not less than half of the States should be sufficient. Had our proposal operated since Federation, 2 proposals which were defeated would have been carried. That would have represented a substantial advance, but there is nothing in this to suggest that any radical or fundamental alteration of the Constitution would emerge if the people favour our proposal.
The second part of this Bill requires no argument. All parties agree that the right to vote at constitutional referendums should be extended to citizens of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. They have for too long been denied the right to vote on matters which affect them as much as any other citizens of this nation. It is time this fundamental democratic right was given to them. Nothing more nor less than the maintenance of democracy in this country is behind the ideas which brought forward this legislation. In addition to that, we on this side of the Parliament seek by these proposals to let the people decide - to have their vote on whether their Constitution should change. I ask all those honourable members opposite who do not trust the Australian people and say that they should not be given a vote on these great democratic proposals to stand and be counted.
– The Bills before the House seek parliamentary approval for the conduct of 4 referenda which the Government proposes to hold conjointly with the Senate election in May. They are conceived in deceit and in fact are designed to achieve the Australian Labor Party’s narrow political objectives. The Opposition outlined its views on each of the Bills before the House during separate debates last year. Those views, based on firm principles, have not changed. This is not an inflexible position. We accept that the
Constitution must be a dynamic charter capable of meeting contemporary realities. We also accept that the Constitution provides a principal safeguard against the excesses of government, particularly of the Whitlam Administration. The Whitlam Government sees the Constitution not as a charter but as a constraint to its political objectives. This, in part, explains why a total of 7 referenda proposals are to be placed before the Australian people in less than 18 months. It also explains why the Government, notwithstanding the current deliberations of the Constitution Convention, aims to press its own views on the people without full consideration, parliamentary debate and examination.
As a general principle we believe that no proposals for constitutional alteration should be developed prior to the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention. The Whitlam Government has effectively set back the course of constitutional amendment. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has abused the concept of the Convention and its continuing operation. The Prime Minister’s impetuosity and authoritarianism have taken this matter away from the processes of co-operative dialogue and considered examination. The Government has treated the Convention with contempt and we place on record our total opposition and regret at the Government’s misconceived and distasteful attitude towards the Bills which are before the House. These Bills represent political expediency rather than a genuine desire to seek constitutional alteration in the national interest.
The Constitutional Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill seeks to alter the Constitution to ensure that the Senate elections are held at the same time as the House of Representatives elections. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) has made abundantly clear, there is simply no requirement for a referendum to achieve the stated purpose of this Bill. There is no constitutional constraint to the holding of simultaneous elections for both Houses of the Australian Parliament. It is the Prime Minister’s prerogative to call an election for this House in May. The Opposition parties have repeatedly stated that a double dissolution would be welcomed on this side of the Parliament. We were and are prepared to fight an election on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, on the Commonwealth Electoral Bill, on the Health Insurance Bill or the 4 Bills now before this House. The Prime Minister repeatedly threatened to go to the people o these major issues and each time has been forced to acquiesce to the pressures of Government members, and, more particularly, his own realisation that an early election would see the defeat of the Whitlam Government.
The proposal contained in the Bill should be rejected on two principal grounds. First, because it is self-evidently unnecessary; and second, because its adoption would impair the proper functioning of our bicameral system of government. Tying the Senate to the House of Representatives in the manner proposed by the Bill would weaken its independence. This, of course, is clearly the Government’s objective. A more honest and straightforward approach would have been to seek amendment to section 53 of the Constitution which guarantees the Senate certain defined powers. In short, the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill is not simply unnecessary but also is cunningly deceptive in its intent.
The Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill is equally deceptive. It purports to guarantee equality of representation under the Constitution. But, in effect, it will guarantee the very opposite. The Bill proposes to add to section 29 of the Constitution the following words:
The numbers ascertained in respect of the several divisions of a State by dividing the number of people in each division by the number of members to be chosen for the division shall be, as nearly as practicable, the same.
In other words, electoral divisions are no longer to be determined on the basis of electors but rather on the basis of total population. This of course denies the very proposition of one vote, one value’. It represents a departure from democratic theory. We rejected the Commonwealth Electoral Bill because its provisions did not promote the principle of representational equality and we reject the proposition before the House now as an overt attempt to seek political advantage. There is no reason to seek a constitutional amendment of this nature. The Government can introduce legislation to the same effect. Moreover, the division of electorates on the basis of population rather than electors would pose considerable practical difficulties. Clearly a dependence on the periodic flow of statistics from a census is simply incompatible with the requirements for electoral data.
The Constitutional Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill seeks powers to make funds available direct to local government bodies. This does not mean, as the Govern ment has sought loosely to allege, that local government will receive increased funding. It simply provides a means for the Government to circumvent the State governments and to control, in considerable detail, the expenditure programs of local government. This is a concept that the Opposition Parties strongly reject. But it is also a concept which is under rigorous examination by a Committee of the Constitutional Convention. The proposal in the Bill effectively pre-empts any conclusions which may be drawn by the Committee or the Convention itself. We believe, as a matter of basic principle, that the viability of our 3-tiered system of government must be guaranteed. It cannot be guaranteed by the progressive intrusion of the Federal Government into areas of State and local government responsibility. Just as the present Labor Administration has sought to down grade the areas of independent action available to the States, so too it will further this principle with respect to local administrations. Just as the Government rejects the principle of revenue sharing of a fixed proportional basis with the States, so too it would reject this principle for local governments. Just as the Government has sought to intensify its financial controls through the application of section 96 grants, so too it would seek to condition and direct funds granted directly to local governments.
The argument surrounding this Bill is not one which derives from the amount of financial assistance to be made available to local government. It arises simply from two fundamentally different conceptions of national government. The Government seeks a unitary system of administration where local governments would be satellite administrative units. We believe that a federal structure can underwrite the substantial autonomy of both State and local governments. This is not an abrogation of national responsibility but an acceptance of the need for freedom, initiative and diversity within the Australian community. But equally we recognise that the current financial position of local government is not satisfactory. The burden of debt-financing, the availability of long term finance and capital and the differetial financial resources of particular areas clearly warrant a re-appraisal of existing arrangements. To a large extent, the increasing disparity between the aggregate financial positions of the Commonwealth and local government can be ascribed to the inadequate level of finance directed towards State governments. State governments, charged with the primary responsibility of local government, have simply been unable to discharge their responsibilities effectively. This is a set of circumstances which can be progressively rectified by a revision of the financial arrangements as between the Commonwealth and the States rather than the type of constitutional alteration proposed by the Bill before the House.
The increase in the public debt of local government authorities during the last 2 decades has been excessive both in comparison with the public debt of the Commonwealth and of the States. Under this Bill the Commonwealth is to be empowered to borrow on behalf of local government. Future Commonwealth loan issues will have to raise a greater relative proportion of finance if the aggregate available for distribution is to increase. If this does not occur any increase in loan funds made over to local government will necessarily be at the expense of funds for State governments. If the aggregate is to be increased, such an increase must be logically related to an increase in the terms of the loan - that is, an increase in the bond rate. Under the present Government, Australia is already experiencing the highest bond rate since Federation. The proposals in the Bill would only serve to drive up the overall structure of interest rates to even higher levels than otherwise would be necessary. If the aggregate is not to be increased through Commonwealth loan issues, then the additional funds required would need to be raised by either increased State or Commonwealth taxation.
Under the proposed re-structuring of the Loan Council, as publicly outlined by the Prime Minister, on matters affecting local government finance the States would be outnumbered by the combination of Commonwealth and local government representation on the Loan Council. This is clearly and totally undesirable when the States have a primary responsibility for local government administration. In addition, under the present constitution of the Loan Council, an aggregate borrowing program for large State, semi-government and local authorities is determined. Local government bodies borrowing less than $400,000 a year are unrestricted as to where they can borrow from. But the huge increase in the debt structure of the larger authorities which already have access to Commonwealth funds clearly discounts the argument that the Bill before this House will assist in reducing the debt burden of local government as a whole.
The next Liberal-Country Party Government will undertake financial arrangements which will guarantee local governments a more equitable share of the aggregate revenue. We will undertake a program which recognises that the debt-burden of local government must be lessened. In principal, we will appropriate funds to the States for distribution to local government. We will earmark funds for local government and the States will distribute and administer those funds in conformity with their priorities and policies. The creation of a centralised administrative capacity to examine the detailed affairs of almost 1,000 municipalities throughout Australia can be discounted on a cost-benefit analysis alone. We will campaign vigorously against the proposals inherent in this Bill.
The Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill seeks to change the present requirement that, before a referendum can succeed, a majority of the electors in a majority of the States must vote in favour of the proposal; that is, there must be a majority of electors in four of the six States and also a majority of all electors. This Bill seeks to substitute the requirement that there must be a majority of electors in only three States and a majority of all electors. The reason for the proposed change is simply to make constitutional alterations more easily effected. The Minister for Services and Property, while speaking on this Bill on 21 November 1973, referred to the Constitution in deprecating terms as a 72-year old document out of line with the social and political realities of this day and age. But his comment simply highlights the Government’s desire to facilitate its own political ambitions at the expense of the Federal system of Government. Were it not for the important safeguards of the Constitution circumstances in Australia today, particularly at Federal level, would be far more serious than in fact they are.
This Bill contains a subsidiary proposal which would enable electors in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to vote in referenda. This is a proposal which the Opposition parties strongly endorse. Equally we endorse clause 2 (c) of the Bill which also seeks to amend section 128 of the Constitution. However, because the Government has sought to carry these 2 subsidiary proposals in conjunction with the major revision of the voting requirement, they will be technically opposed by our attitude to the primary provision of the Bill.
The Opposition cannot accept the basic proposals contained in each of the 4 Bills which have been resubmitted for debate in this House under the duress of time and the pressure which the Government has applied in terms of the expeditious processing of the legislation before the House. Just as we will actively campaign against the Government in the forthcoming Senate election, so too will the combined Opposition parties campaign against these referenda proposals. In their philosophy and intent they are an accurate reflection of the Government’s authoritarian and centralist style. To a significant degree they attempt to prejudge and pre-empt the work of the Constitution Convention. They are directed against the constitutional responsibilities of the State governments and against the concept of federalism embodied within the Australian Constitution. Many of the proposals are selfevidently unnecessary in the terms in which I have submitted these propositions to the House.
In May of this year the Government will face the force of popular opinion. We believe that the neglect and mismanagement of the past 18 months of Labor administration will result in a decisive rejection of this Government’s policies - the referenda proposed by these Bills will be accorded the same fate. We decisively reject the 4 Bills which are before the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.
page 65
Suspension of Standing Orders
– Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave of the House to move a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders in respect of 5 Bills dealing with constitutional alterations.
– Is leave granted? Opposition members - No.
– Leave is not granted.
Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:
That in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills:
Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974
Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974
Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill 1974
Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill 1974.
Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1974.
- Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an expression by a Government which plainly is in a very desperate state of mind. In the 19 years in which I have ‘been a member of this Parliament I have always had very considerable sympathy with the concept that there should be alterations to the Australian Constitution. But I believe that those alterations should have been proceeded with quietly and reasonably with people seeking to inform their minds by rational argument and to encourage others to realise that there are problems in the Australian Constitution by resorting to the rational argument and nothing else. I am one who takes the view that in all manner of things reason is the ultimate controller, and if reason is rejected then sooner or later people will find themselves in distress; and tonight the national Parliament of Australia finds itself in distress.
No explanation is given by the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) as to why this legislation should be regarded as urgent legislation. To fall back on such banalities is to say: ‘Well, we have debated all this before; therefore, we should not consider it on this occasion’. This serves no purpose. It does not emancipate the Parliament in the eyes of the people.
– You have said all this before.
– If I have said it before I will say it again until sooner or later even such a thoroughgoing intellect as the Minister might understand it. This is a disgraceful procedure, and the prospects of the national Parliament ever coming to grips with the problem of constitutional reform is put off. We are now faced with the prospect of the time-table of the Minister for Services and Property. I do not know what it will be. But what he is aiming to do is put through these 5 Bills, one may surmise, in some ‘gravely short period of time. The Opposition will get itself into the mood where it will simply say: ‘What is the point in coming to Parliament if you cannot discuss issues?’ No opportunity was given to us when we last discussed these Bills to consider them in any leisurely fashion, and we are not to be afforded the opportunity on this occasion. There are some defects in the legislation. I venture to suggest that even the Minister for Services and Property - that wide-ranging Latin scholar - may be persuaded to realise that there are some imperfections in the legislation. It distresses me, it vexes me and it disturbs me to find that here, once again, the national forum almost on its first day back is now put in the position where the guillotine comes down.
– It is the jackboot system.
– It is a term that I hesitate to embrace, but I adopt it now because I think it so appropriately describes what the honourable gentleman is prepared to resort to.
– You made a speech this afternoon and you are repeating it now.
– The , Minister for Sport or Tourism or whatever it is is the most desperately unoccupied Minister on the whole of the front bench. Lord only knows what he will do. The only thing he will do is die of inanition. I want to come back to the moves made by the Minister for Services and Property. No explanation has been given. The Minister holds himself out as a great democrat. Democracy is a word that should have some difficulty in tumbling from the honourable gentleman’s lips. I say this to the honourable gentleman and to all those who sit behind him: You may have the numbers on this occasion and no doubt you may win on this occasion, but there will come a time when the people of this country will treat you in the fashion in which you deserve to be treated. Democracy is not something that people should incline themselves to when the occasion demands, and neither is it something to be treated as a toy of those who command power. The vindicating forces in this country will yet come to the rescue of Australia, and I hope that the Minister for Services and Property will be one of the chief victims. I assure the honourable gentleman that I will do everything I can to ensure that he goes into the tumble and faces the proper guillotine that is his fate.
– The motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) is disgraceful. This afternoon he sought the indulgence of honourable members on this side of the House to have a cognate debate on 5 Bills. If it was his intention to curtail debate by bringing down the guillotine and rushing these bills through, why did he not make that statement this afternoon? Why did he not tell us about his timetable at the time we agreed to have a cognate debate on these matters? The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) put this question to the Minister through the Chair: ‘Are we to have adequate time to debate these Bills in Committee?’ Obviously the answer is no. The Minister sat at the table and assured us that under the Standing Orders all the Bills would be discussed in Committee and votes would be taken. If that has not proved to be deception within the short space of a few hours, I do not know what it is.
It is typical that in these matters members of the Government Party do not tell people the whole of their plans. They tell a little at a time, hoping that no one will sit down and put the parts of the puzzle together until it is too late. As I said earlier this afternoon, a fifth and completely new Bill was introduced. How were we expected to read it? Were we expected to read it during the suspension of the sitting for dinner and in the course of the debate tonight iri order to understand all its ramifications? Now we are not to be given an opportunity to debate it at all because presumably the timetable will not allow us to do so. The Constitution is a document which has served governments of all political persuasions over the last 74 years. Suddenly, with the advent of the Whitlam Government, it has become necessary to amend it no fewer than 7 times, and each time the change is said to be urgent and pressing. It has been said: ‘We have to do it in a hurry’.
A few minutes ago the Leader of the House spoke about democracy and masqueraded as the great father of democracy in Australia. I believe that democracy would best be served by allowing the elected representatives of the people in this House to discuss measures which ultimately will be put to them for decision. What is the use of having a parliament if members cannot express their views? What is the use of having a parliament at all if we are not allowed to read the Bills and to understand them before they are forced through this chamber? As the honourable member for Mackellar said, democracy is kept alive in Australia under this Government by the activities of the Senate.
One has only to cast a glance at some of these Bills to see that their ultimate purpose is to try to downgrade the power of the Senate so that all political power in Australia will be placed in the hands of the Whitlam Government, if there is half a chance. I have no doubt that the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), who moved the motion we are discussing, has prepared maps for electoral redistribution and I will bet a fiver that they do not favour the Opposition parties. This is another demonstration of the principle of one step at a time. An insidious approach is used to beguile the Australian electorate into thinking that action is necessary and urgent. I assure the Minister that the people of this country have survived quite adequately for 74 years without the measures that this Government is now introducing. We should protest the motion of the Leader of the House. If he wants to use this brutal sort of tactic in the House, he ought not to expect any co-operation from private members on this side of the chamber.
– The honourable members opposite who have just spoken have said that no reasons were given for the use of the guillotine on this occasion. I inform them that the subjects covered by the Bills concerned were discussed for 14 hours a little over 3 months ago. I have here a list of the speakers who took part in that debate. Amongst the 24 speakers in the debate were some honourable members who have complained tonight, notably the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). The subject matter was gone into very fully-
-Order! I was not in the House at the time but I understand that the Minister moved the motion. Therefore he is not in order in speaking twice in the debate.
– I rise to voice my protest at the extraordinary approach adopted by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) in moving a motion to curtail debate without stating his intentions. If the motion were carried he could quite well rise a little later and all of these Bills would go through. Is this the way that the Whitlam Government proposes to handle the business of the national Parliament? After all, the business of the House is in the hands of the Government, but it also bears the responsibility of ensuring that both sides of the Parliament have a fair go. We have not been getting a fair go.
I have no hesitation in challenging the Leader of the House, despite all the references to 23 years in office of the previous Government, to tell us of any occasion on which similar action was taken by the previous Government. The Minister knows that there was none. There was always negotiation between the Government and the Opposition as to the number of speakers and the requirements of the Government in terms of the time to be taken for the passage of the legislation or other debates. There was a gentlemen’s agreement, and that position could still operate; but it seems to me that that is not sufficient for the present Government. It is a reflection on the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), the Leader of the House and the whole Cabinet that it wants to run the Parliament in this way. I am not listed to speak on these Bills; so I believe that I can express an independent point of view. Many other members are listed to speak, and for good reason.
These Bills are vital to the Australian nation. The Leader of the House has said that their subject matter was debated for 14 hours in the previous session and that many members will speak now who spoke previously. That is sheer humbug because the course of events since the last debate has changed the whole spectrum. An additional Bill has been introduced and it is right and proper to have a full debate. If this House is to be reduced to a rubber stamp at the whim of the Government by its taking action without any arrangement as to time, that is the end of the real principles of democracy in the national Parliament. If that is the Government’s intention, the Opposition must retaliate by using the Standing Orders in every way possible to ensure that the Government gives the Parliament proper opportunity for debate and consideration of legislation. I am certain that on this side of the House that approach will be adopted.
The Leader of the House has treated the Opposition very shabbily in what he has just done. He is seeking to establish a principle which, if followed through in this session, will reduce the effectiveness of debate in this Parliament to a level not experienced since its creation. Certainly it is not justified. There is a new approach to politics in Australia today, as exemplified by the attitude of the Prime Minister in relation to matters that come within the scope of this Parliament. Furtherhe now wants to tell all the parliaments in the States of Australia what to do, how they should run their business and so on. Undoubtedly this is part of a plan to change completely the procedures of this House. I believe it is my responsibility and the responsibility of every honourable member on this side of the House to speak up in opposition to that kind of action. If we do not, we are failing in our duty as elected representatives of the people and, Mr Speaker, in our obligation to you and your predecessors, because it is your responsibility to uphold the Standing Orders.
– I join with my colleagues on this side of the House in condemning the action of the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) in bringing down his guillotine. It has been said before that this action is disgraceful, and so it is. The Leader of the House blandly referred to the fact that there was 14 hours debate on the same Bills back in November, but I remind the Leader of the House that we have all been back in our electorates for 3 months and there has been much talk in the electorates about these Bills. There has been a growing awareness in the people of the implications of the Bills. The people see it as the obligation and the responsibility of the Opposition to probe these Bills, to probe the arguments of the Government, to criticise, to condemn where that is necessary and to expose to the glare of public opinion and publice awareness just what the Government is about in the program of constitutional reform, as the Government calls it, represented by these 4 Bills.
I remind the Leader of the House that a referendum was held on 8 December when a No-No vote was given in the most unmistakable terms by the people by which they denied to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) his desire for the aggrandisement of Commonwealth power. That is what the referendum sought and that is what these Bills represent, a desire by the Prime Minister to aggrandise the power of the Commonwealth and the position of the Prime Ministership which he holds. To adopt some of the terminology of Government supporters, the referendum on 8 December asserted the public will for the retention of State power in the areas that the Commonwealth sought to take over.
Those of us who attended at polling booths on that day know that not only Liberal and Country Party supporters voted no, but also that many Labor Party supporters voted no. Some of those whom I know voted for my Labor Party opponent at the 1972 election voted clearly and unmistakably for a No-No vote in that referendum. In the 3 months in which we were back in our electorates the people have gradually become aware of these referendum Bills to be brought forward. They have heard the statement of the Prime Minister that he intends to join, in the next Senate election, the referendum on these Bills and have realised that something is going on in the land about which they are not clear.
As I have said before, it is the obligation, the responsibility, the duty of an Opposition to probe, to criticise, to condemn and to expose what is contained in these Bills. The action of the Leader of the House, in so quickly in this session of Parliament guillotining debate, shows that the Government does not want a full debate on these Bills. It shows that the Government does not want the Opposition to reveal to the public what is involved in them. Of course, the pinnacle of the desire of the Government to deny a full debate on this subject will be shown when a guillotine is brought down on the fifth referendum Bill. There has not been 14 hours of debate on that Bill before. Is the Leader of the House going to give us 14 hours of debate on that Bill tomorrow and the following days? The Leader of the House does not answer, but we on this side of the House all know the answer. The Leader of the House will be as ruthless in his use of numbers on that fifth Bill as he proposes to be tonight and as we saw so often last year.
So there will be no hesitation in condemning the action of the Leader of the House and of the Government in bringing down this guillotine, and in denying a full debate on these Bills. No one, not even the Government, not even the Leader of the House, can say that these Bills are not of momentous importance to the people. Any proposal to amend the Constitution is momentous. It deserves more than the 14 hours that were given us under a guillotine last year. It deserves more than a few hours, which is all that is to be given to us under the guillotine tonight.
– It is interesting to be on this side of the House, after sitting on the other side of the House for 19 years, and to hear honourable members like the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) espousing twice in the one day, almost repeating word for word this evening the speech he gave this afternoon and complaining violently about the fact that this Government has not given to the Opposition the right to debate these Bills that are before us. I shall cite to the House some of the facts and mention some of the people who spoke in the debates that took place on the 4 Bills that are before us this evening. In the second reading debate on the first Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), the honourable member for Moreton, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) and the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) spoke, and in the Committee stage of the Bill the Leader of the Opposition spoke.
At the second reading stage of the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill the Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony), the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) and the honourable member for Moreton spoke, and in the Committee stage of that Bill the Leader of the Opposition spoke. At the second reading stage of the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill the Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable Leader of the Australian Country Party, the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) and the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) spoke, and in the Committee stage of that Bill the honourable member for Moreton spoke. In the second reading stage of the Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill, the right honourable member for Lowe, the honourable member for Moreton, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) and the honourable member for New England spoke, and in Committee stage of that Bill the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) spoke twice and the right honourable member for Lowe spoke 3 times on separate clauses.
Last Thursday it was clearly indicated that these Bill would be regarded as being urgent Bills. The opportunity was given in this properly elected House for the debate to go on. In the other chamber, which is controlled by the Liberal and Country parties, the Australian Democratic Labor Party and a few Independents - not the newly elected Government - the legislation was thrown back and tonight and this afternoon we hear these great protectors of liberty now saying that this Parliament is being destroyed. In the 12 months that we have been in Government this Parliament has met more often and honourable members have had more opportunities for grievance debates, general business debates and for adjournment debates. We have got through more Bills and we have sat longer hours, and all these protectors of liberty and democracy now say that we are doing the wrong thing by Australia and by this Parliament. This Government is a doing government. In the 12 months that we have been in Government we have started the whole of Australia thinking, including a lot of the people opposite who sat so silently while their Prime Ministers - they had plenty of them in the last four or five years - led them by the nose.
-Order! The time allowed for the debate has expired.
Question put -
That the motion (Mr Daly’s) be agreed to.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)
AYES: 66
NOES: 54
Majority 12
AYES
NOES
Declaration of Urgency
– I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills:
Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974 (No. 2)
Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974 (No. 2)
Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill 1974 (No. 2)
Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill 1974 (No. 2).
Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1974.
– Order! The question is that the Bills be considered urgent Bills.
Question put.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)
AYES: 66
NOES: 55
Majority . . . . 11
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Allotment of Time
– I move:
That the time allocated in connection with the Bills be as follows:
Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974-
Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974-
Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill 1974- <a) For the second reading, until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 6 March;
Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill 1974 -
Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1974-
Wednesday, 6 March; <b) for the Committee stage, until 10.00 p.m. on
Wednesday, 6 March;
Wednesday, 6 March
Did all honourable members hear that? Would they like me to repeat it? I would not want any of those honourable members who have shown so much interest to miss any of the lines I have read out.
The reason for this action is quite apparent. These Bills are of paramount importance. They must reach another place in time for discussion. Also with one exception, they are a repetition of legislation that was brought down in this Parliament about 3 months ago. The exception is the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill. I understand that it has fairly general support, although that is no guarantee that it will be passed by this House. Time has been allowed to permit discussion on the Bill which, as I have indicated, is said to receive general support from honourable members opposite. There should be adequate time to discuss it. One would have liked to extend the time for this debate to a week or more. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) said that there is only
H hours. I reckon that three-quarters of a minute should be enough for him.
Honourable members opposite complain about the time limit that has been imposed but today if they had not wasted about 90 minutes endeavouring to undermine the
Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) they would have had adequate, time. Today the Government put aside all other government business so that the House might have full time for discussion of these important constitutional changes. Yet the Opposition saw fit to make cheap political capital out of an issue and to propose the discussion of a matter of public importance which took up valuable time that could have been spent discussing the latest Bill we have introduced. Very little was gained by that discussion this morning because the Postmaster-General’s answer was one at which nobody could cavil. Therefore the time of the House was wasted when it might well have been taken up on these important issues that are before the Parliament.
I suggest to honourable members opposite on what is really the first day of the session that they should concentrate on issues that really matter if they want to have adequate discussion because time does not permit unlimited debate on everything, no matter how much we desire it. With others I regret that today 90 valuable minutes were wasted while honourable members opposite, particularly members of the Australian Country Party, sought to attack the Postmaster-General when they could well have been debating the great and vital issues incorporated in this legislation.
– As one who for a long time has advocated rational change in the Constitution, as one who attended and supported the concept of the Australian Constitutional Convention - the first* since Federation - I think that this exercise in futility by the Government needs to be put into perspective. It is an exercise which is inclined not towards constitutional change but towards denying the possibility of constitutional change. It is an exercise which is designed only to enhance the power of this Government, to entrench it in the electorate of Australia by manipulating the electoral laws through constitutional change rather than through a meaningful examination by the Commonwealth and the States of those areas of the Constitution which might well be adapted to meet the needs of 1974 more fittingly.
This motion not only covers the 4 Bills which have to some degree, albeit a limited degree, been debated in this chamber but also deplorably covers the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1974. Already, earlier this day, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), who is the only member of this House on the sub-committee of the Constitutional Convention examining this particular Bill, raised in this chamber the complexity involved in the original draft Bill. The draft Bill and the Bill submitted to this House are not identical. A letter has been written by the Minister for Public Works in New South Wales, as the chairman of that sub-committee, to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). Another letter has been written by the AttorneyGeneral of Victoria to the Prime Minister. Each suggests that certain clauses should be included in the Bill. Each suggests that the time is not appropriate for the submission to the people of this referendum - certainly not at the time of the impending Senate election. So that in regard to the fifth Bill which is dealt with by this motion, the Constitutional Alternation (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1974, we have a fairly solid body of opinion presented by the members of the Constitutional Convention at the executive level and at the sub-committee level suggesting that they do not agree with the actions of this Government. Yet not only are we to be denied an adequate opportunity of debating this measure but also we are told that the passage of the Bill is to be accelerated and something like 1 hour and 45 minutes will be allocated for the second reading debate in this chamber.
My complaint is not only in regard to that Bill but also with respect to each of the other Bills encompassed in this motion. Knowing the sitting hours of this chamber, resuming as we do at 2.30 tomorrow afternoon, it is likely that the first motion presented to this House will be almost immediately after the conclusion of question time and the formalities tomorrow afternoon. The first vote on the second reading of the first of these Bills will be put at 3.30 p.m. In other words, this chamber will be denied totally any adequate opportunity to consider the measures which are of such significance and which the Government wants to put to the people by way of referendum. It is no use the Prime Minister going along to a Constitutional Convention and saying there that the matter is predominantly one for the Federal Government to decide and to opt on the time when the matter is submitted to the people by way of referendum unless the Parliament is to be given some opportunity to discuss the measures.
The four measures that were guillotined through on an earlier occasion are to be guillotined through once again. The fifth measure which has not been before this chamber previously and from which there is already some dissent by the members of the sub-committee of the Convention and by the executive of the Convention is now to be rushed through this House without any adequate opportunity to consider it. The Opposition cannot accept that there is any need for the urgency motion, that there is any need for the very tight time constraints which the Government is placing on this Bill. The only reason for this procedure is that the Government is unable to control the affairs of the other chamber. The Government is unable to ensure that the processes of a democratically elected Upper House are allowed to take their proper course. So it tries - and this is the only way in which it can do it - to steamroll the measure through this House, thereby denying any effective democratic discussion on what are very fundamental constitutional issues to the Australian people. The Opposition completely opposes each one of the measures that are presented here and believes that by presenting them in this form the Government is setting up a very valid reason for the Australian people to reject each of these measures when they are put to them by way of referendum later on this year.
– Once again I rise to protest against the actions of the Government in regard to these Bills. It was said falsely in this House earlier tonight that we have had adequate debate on these Bills. That is not so. The consideration of each of these Bills at the Committee stage was guillotined so that they went through virtually without debate. The Hansard record of 14 November of last year shows that only a few minutes were allocated for consideration of the Bills in Committee. So the Bills have never been discussed in detail at all. They have never been considered in Committee as they should have been. These are some of the most important Bills that we could possibly have before us. They are Bills upon which the people have to vote. Because of this it is important that the details should be right, that the vote should be fair and that the people should know exactly what they are voting on, instead of being presented with the hotch potch that the Government is putting forward deliberately to cover up its real motives.
In every matter affecting the Senate the good faith of the Government is in question, because the platform of the Government is to abolish the Senate. Therefore everything the
Government does is part of that plan to abolish the Senate and is leading up to the abolition of the Senate. It is useless for the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to come in here and protest that all the Government is doing is trying to improve the Senate. The Prime Minister is dedicated to the destruction of the Senate and everything he says is said in bad faith and with a deliberate intention of deceiving the Australian people. It is an appalling thing that we have a Prime Minister whose word cannot be trusted.
Earlier this afternoon the Prime Minister came into the House and endeavoured to give us the impression - and as he was on the air he was endeavouring to give the country the impression - that this fifth Bill for the alteration of the Constitution that is in front of us had the unanimous support of the States. But he was not frank. He did not say anything about the reservations. We were left to hear this from the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) who revealed some of the truth. I say that a Prime Minister who comes in with a constitutional Bill and makes a second reading speech such as our Prime Minister made this afternoon is virtually lying to the House and to the country.
-Order! The honourable member has been here long enough to know that those remarks are unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw them.
– Well, I withdraw them, but I wish to say -
-Order! I asked the honourable member to withdraw them without qualification.
– I withdraw them. But I say that the suppression of truth amounts almost to a lie. That is a parliamentary phrase. The Prime Minister came into the House this afternoon and he suppressed the vital truth although he knew it perfectly well. He is not a man whose word can be trusted and because of that the motion now before us is doubly shameful. We are told, if we look at the proposal that is before us, that the Committee stages for all these Bills are not to be debated in this House. It is proposed that, for the Committee stage, 15 minutes will be allocated for the first of the Bills to alter the Constitution, 15 minutes for the second, 15 minutes for the third and 15 minutes for the fourth. Also it is proposed that 15 minutes shall be allocated for the Committee stage of the fifth Bill on which there (has been no debate in this House as yet. The Committee stages of these Bills are probably the most important stages of all because it is here that the details are discussed and here one can see whether the proposals that are to be made to the people are fair or not. It is here that we can see whether the clauses in the Bills square up with the title which will be put on the voting paper. One of the ways in which the Government proposes to deceive the electorate is to put on paper a title which is not really descriptive of what is in the Bill.
-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
– I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly). I believe that the motion deserves the support of the House. These Bills were discussed at length in the last session of Parliament. It is foolhardy for the Opposition to suggest that they were guillotined through and that there was. not adequate debate. There was adequate debate on them. If we look at the track record of the Opposition members today we find that they are not even an Opposition’s bootlace. The Opposition started off by wasting an hour on discussing whether or not the motion for the guillotine ought to be put. They wasted an hour which could have been spent in discussing the substance of the Bills. If we look at their dismal performance on the first day back we find that their great claim to fame today was to introduce a matter of public importance on postal charges. So Her Majesty’s Opposition in this Parliament is doing a very poor job this evening.
What the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) said a moment ago was a repetition word for word of what he said this afternoon for 15 minutes. If we have a look at his track record over the last 12 months we find that he occupied the time of this House for 14 hours last session. This is the man who cannot speak. He spoke 24 times in adjournment debates. He took 130 points of order. He was thrown out twice. He disputed the Chairman’s ruling on one occasion. Yet he has the temerity to say that he does not have an opportunity to speak. Only a few moments ago an honourable member on this side of the House said that it is a service to the Parliament and to the nation to gag him and to gag him on as many occasions as possible.
Members of the Opposition often say that this Government has taken liberties with the Standing Orders. The record of the last Parliament shows that 19 Bills were put through m 17 hours. That record has never been surpassed. In the lifetime of the 27th Parliament members of the present Opposition moved the gag 322 times. That record will never be excelled or surpassed. Tonight we are considering a motion by the Leader of the House to guillotine through the House tomorrow constitutional alteration Bills that have been outlined to the Parliament. Four of the Bills passed through this House last session with adequate debate and were debated adequately in the Senate. It ill behoves members of the Opposition to come in here and bring out crocodile tears and say that the Government is not giving them adequate time to consider these Bills. What they really want to do is to have a gripe. The Opposition cannot gripe on the substance of the Bills. There is no room for gripe there because those are Bills to put referendums before the people and to give the people a chance to decide on these issues. It is not a matter of party politics; it is a matter of giving the people a chance to decide. Rather than having a gripe on the substance of the Bills, the Opposition members gripe about the way the Leader of the House supposedly ruthlessly cuts their time out. If that is what members of the Opposition think is their role as an Opposition, they will be in Opposition for a long time. The House should dally no longer and should pass the motion moved by the Leader of the House for the guillotining of the Bills tomorrow.
– The Opposition protests at the guillotine motion which has been brought down in respect of these 5 Bills. The Bills propose amendments to the Constitution - the document which sets out the powers of this Parliament in relation to the people and to the States. There could hardly be anything more important-
-Order! The time allowed for the debate has expired.
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Daly’s) be agreed to.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)
AYES: 66
NOES: 54
Majority 12
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Minister’s bad faith. He is a legal man. Suppressio veri et suggestio falsi is the Prime Minister’s form.
page 75
American Assistance in Flood Situation Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed: That the House do now adjourn.
– Following question time this afternoon I investigated the matter raised by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party (Mr Sinclair) concerning what he described as an offer by the United States Government to provide helicopters and helicopter crews to help in flood relief work. The facts are these: On 31 January Mr Harrop, the American Charge d’Affaires, telephoned Mr Alan Renouf, Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs, and indicated to him that he thought that the United States could be prepared to send from Hawaii or the Philippines a number of Chinook helicopters to assist with flood relief in Queensland or New South Wales. Mr Harrop said it was probable that the United States would help us if there was a real need for the assistance. If this need could be demonstrated the United States itself would most probably ‘come to the party’ but it would do so only in this case. On 1 February the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet informed me of the indication of help from the United States. I was also informed that the Department of Defence advised that there was no real need for the assistance as Navy Wessex helicopters held in reserve had not yet been called upon for assistance. It was proposed to thank the United States Embassy for the offer and to say that the Royal Australian Air Force had been able to cope with all needs so far. This was done.
I understand that 3 days later the Acting Director of Civil Defence discussed future air transport requirements with the Director of the New South Wales State Emergency Services and the officer in charge of Queensland Police operations. Both indicated the future requirements that they saw and the Director of Joint Staff informed my Department that these likely commitments for fixed and rotary wing aircraft were well within Australian Services’ capacities in view of the fact that the Navy resources of both Wessex and Iroquois helicopters, although available, had not yet been deployed or required for flood relief tasks. The action of the United States Charge d’Affaires was most commendable but I am sure honourable members will agree that the indication of assistance should not have been taken up unless we were unable to cope with the situation from our own resources.
– 1 am indebted to the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) for having amplified an answer in which, on my recollection, he gave something of an opposite impression earlier today. It had been my understanding that an offer was made by the United States. I was not aware of the form of that offer and I am grateful that the Minister has tonight amplified it. As to the capacity of the Australian defence forces to meet the circumstances of providoring and supplying the flood needs in Queensland, the Minister and his officers are of course in a far better position than anyone else to make a judgment. It is regrettable that the run-down in our defence capacity that has been instigated as a result of the actions of this Minister for Defence has seriously impaired that capacity. It is unfortunately true that friends and allies such as the United States, no doubt being aware of the run-down in our defence capacity, felt that this may well be an area where additional help was required. I am indebted to the Minister for the information that he has provided and I am glad that he now realises that not only was an offer made by the United States but also serious consideration was given to it and that in the circumstances it was felt that the assistance was not necessary to be called on.
As to another part of my question earlier today, perhaps I should say that I did suggest in my question that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Barnard) and the Minister for
Northern Development (Dr Patterson) were in Mount Isa for only about 20 minutes. That was an understatement. I am told that, in fact, they were there for something over 1 hour and that during that period they met local officials at the airport and went to lunch at the Inland Motel, for which the local people picked up the tab. They then returned to the airport and departed for Mackay, the home town of the Minister for Northern Development. The total lapsed time was over an hour and during that time the Mystere VIP aircraft was refuelled. Indeed, that same day the Mount Isa police inspector, Inspector Chippendall had issued a plea for people in the Mount Isa district to do all they could to conserve fuel supplies. The plea was reported in the ‘Courier Mail’, published on page one in the same story reporting Mr Barnard’s visit. Inspector Chippendall said that the fuel supply problem of Mount Isa was causing concern. The position of course was that at that stage adequate fuel supplies were available at Townsville which was in no way affected by the stringencies of supply that affected Mount Isa, and part of the other reason for my question was to highlight the fact that, albeit the Minister for Defence visited Mount Isa for which no doubt the people of Mount Isa were grateful - I do know something of the consequences of his visit - it was unfortunate that he found it necessary to refuel his aircraft during his visit there instead of refuelling it at Townsville. I understand that Townsville would have been within the range of the aircraft as it returned to Mackay from Mount Isa.
Dr PATTERSON (Dawson- Minister for Northern Development and Minister for
Northern Territory) (10.48) - Mr Speaker, I shall like to clarify just one point. If the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair) knew anything about that trip he would know that the aircraft refuelled at Townsville. It went then to Normanton and Karumba in the Gulf area. It then went to Mount Isa where it had no alternative but to refuel. So, let us not say that the aircraft could have gone back to Townsville if it had to go to Mt Isa. The Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) was invited to go to Mt Isa to solve some very important pressing problems, which he did. I mentioned this afternoon that, as a result of that visit, Gunpowder obtained fuel it urgently needed. The people of Mt Isa also received urgently needed food from the Hercules aircraft from Richmond. Mt Isa also received an unqualified undertaking by the Minister for Defence that the Royal Australian Air Force and the defence forces would continue to help the people of Mt Isa. Mt Isa also obtained an undertaking from the Minister for Defence that Air Force Iroquois helicopters would be made available in the region of the Gulf of Carpentaria. If the Deputy Leader of the Country Party goes ahead in this vein all I can say is that he will be ridiculed by the people of Mt Isa.
- Mr Speaker-
Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:
That the question be now put.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned at 10.49 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 March 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19740305_REPS_28_HoR88/>.