House of Representatives
28 October 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2503

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

Cadet Corps

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 their great dismay at the decision of the Australian Government to abolish the Army Corps of Cadets from our Secondary Schools.

The enthusiastic acceptance by leading educators, those nearest to the secondary educational scene (our Headmasters) the approval and encouragement of thinking and caring parents and the dedicated support of those teachers involved (the Officers of Cadets) bear certain witness to the reliability of this activity as a character builder for our youth.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

Why, after a century of proven usefulness, would you destroy so well established an institution for good in our community?

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bonnett, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Hodges, Mr Killen and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

Cadet Corps

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undernamed persons (electors of New South Wales) respectfully showeth:

Their disapproval of the Australian Government’s decision to disband the Australian Cadet Corps.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Corps be retained. It performs an important function in the training of the youth of today for the future good management of Australia in the following fields of endeavour-

  1. to develop a responsibility, a regard for and tolerance to the wishes and desires of others.

    1. to develop leadership qualities.
    2. to think for themselves.
    3. to assist materially, physically and spiritually those less fortunate than themselves. by Mr Whan.

Petition received.

Fraser Island

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That whereas the natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as pan of the

World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations.

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gorton, Mr Cross, Mr Morris, Mr O’Keef e and Mr Thorburn.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Further shrink the flow of funds available for finance for private enterprise in Australia.
  2. Will eventually lead to nationalisation of much of private enterprise in Australia.
  3. Cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Connolly.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Provide no better plan for the establishment of a National Disaster Fund than that provided by the Insurance Industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  2. By the “National Interests” provisions of the Bill provide the opportunity for any government to introduce national schemes which should properly be the subject of separate legislation.
  3. Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.
  4. Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Macphee.

Petition received.

Home Ownership

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 implementation of the Report on Housing by the Priorities Review Staff will not ensure that the Australian community can secure living accommodation of its own choosing appropriate to its needs: that many of the proposals positively discriminate against home ownership: that the proposals if implemented would not encourage thrift and initiative but would further advance the philosophy of dependence upon the Government for basic services: that the proposals are concerned with redistribution of income than providing accommodation for the Australian community.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to take no further measures which will make home ownership unattractive to those who have a home and unachievable for those who have not.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petitions received. by Mr Hodges and Mr McLeay. Petitions received.

School Cadet Movement

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly petition Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, that they do take such steps as necessary to:

Continue the school cadet movement and to actively promote same

Which we do humbly petition this Honourable Parliament to make sure.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Beazley. Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the decisions of the Australian Government,-

  1. To depart from its 1972 election promise that basic pensions would be related to average weekly earnings and never be allowed to fall below 25 per cent thereof, and
  2. b ) To increase postage costs and the costs of installation and annual rental of telephones, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

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

  1. That pensions be related to average earnings as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1972 Policy Speech, and
  2. That no charge be made for installation or rental on the telephones of those pensioners entitled to a P.M.S. card.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received. by Mr Riordan Petition received.

Income Tax

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:

  1. It has been suggested recently that the regular wrangling between the Australian Government and the various State Governments would be greatly reduced if the State Governments were given access to part of the Australian Government’s income tax powers. It has been claimed that the States would no longer be forced to approach the Australian Government ‘cap in hand’. Your petitioners, however, believe that any proposals to hand over income tax powers to State Governments in Australia would not eliminate disagreement over financial matters between the Australian Government and the State Governments, but would just move the focus of disagreement from general revenue grants to the income tax system.
  2. Your petitioners believe that the potential area for dispute under a personal income tax system partially under the control of the Australian Government and partially under the control of the State Governments is quite wide. Examples of probable areas of dispute include:

    1. Indexation of income tax would reduce the rate of growth of income tax, which would be resisted by the States.
    2. Similar problems could arise from changes in the shape of the income tax rate scale, or the imposition of separate levies for one reason or another (health levies, Woodhouse Proposals, etc.).
    3. Since almost any proposals to change the income tax system might be seen as a potential threat to their revenue by the States, resistance to income tax reforms (e.g. introduction of a guaranteed minimum income scheme) could be strengthened.
    4. Since it is likely that the various State Governments would want to make a series of alterations to the tax system over time, it is likely that there would be a drift towards greater complexity- this would probably be opposed by the Australian Government, leading to disputes between the Australian Government and the States.
  3. Your petitioners believe that in addition to failing to bring about any improvement in Australian GovernmentState Government financial relations, a transfer of any personal income tax powers to State Governments would have various disadvantages, including the introduction of a more complicated after-tax wage structure in Australia, the development of numerous marginal income tax scales throughout Australia, further difficulties in the system of industrial relations, and new problems for the Australian Government in the management of the economy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received. by Mr Berinson Petition received.

Income Tax

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 if existing income tax laws were amended so that the State Governments had the power to vary the total amount of personal income tax there would be various undesirable consequences, including

it would become difficult to ever introduce a successful program of personal tax indexation since a commitment by the Australian Government to tax indexation would mean little if various State Governments themselves had the ability to increase income tax rates;

it would open the way for State Governments to steadily increase income taxes and would therefore tend to increase the proportion of overall taxation in Australia raised through income taxes: since Australia is already heavily dependent on personal income taxes for revenue by international standards, any further move to increase dependency on personal income taxes should be examined carefully;

it would mean that the Australian Government would lose the complete control that it has at present over the pattern of marginal income tax rates: this would further complicate the already difficult task faced by the Australian Government of formulating a wages and industrial relations policy which will meet with wide community acceptance;

it would complicate the overall task of economic management for the Australian Government if State Governments had the discretion to move income taxes in an opposite direction to that judged desirable on economic grounds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Berinson.

Petition received.

Taxation

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 if a system of personal income tax was introduced allowing State Governments the powers to vary personal income tax rates, this would tend to lead to State Governments raising personal income taxes rather than lowering them;

That since the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are Territories, and not States, laws allowing State Governments to vary personal income taxes would not apply in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory.

That this would lead to Australian citizens living in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory paying lower levels of personal income tax than would be paid by Australian citizens living in any of the six States;

That this would also lead to Members of the House of Representatives and Senators paying lower levels of personal income tax than would be paid by Australian citizens living in any of the six States since Members of the House of Representatives and Senators pay personal income taxes as though they were living in the Australian Capital Territory.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the present system of personal income taxation which ensures geographical uniformity of treatment of citizens throughout Australia will be retained.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Berinson.

Petition received.

Income Tax

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 if existing income tax laws were amended so as to provide local government with a fixed share of personal income tax, there would be certain undesirable consequences. For example:

  1. there is a danger that the inflexibility in such a system would lead to a reduced share of funds for local governments in time;
  2. b ) the proportion of income tax collections which would be provided to local governments would be likely to be small;
  3. the need for a more complicated bureaucratic structure than exists at present to administer the allocation of funds: it is suggested that six additional grants commissions would be established, which would inevitably lead to an expansion of the bureaucratic staff involved and increased difficulty for local government councils in keeping in touch with bureaucratic requirements;
  4. the amount of funds available to local governments would fluctuate in an arbitrary manner when the Australian Government altered income tax schedules for reasons of overall economic management: local governments could easily find that available funds dropped when the need for funds rose, and further, local governments would have no notice of these arbitrary changes of total income tax funds available.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that proposals to provide local government councils with a fixed share of total personal income tax will not be introduced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Berinson.

Petition received.

Taxation

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 existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would favour the larger states of New South Wales and Victoria over the smaller States of Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania;

That in Canada, where the various Provinces have the power to levy income tax, differences between the Provinces in income tax rates are substantial and tend to favour the larger, wealthier Provinces;

That it is undesirable that a new taxation system should be introduced in Australia which would widen rather than lessen the differences in standards of living between the various States;

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the present system of personal taxation which ensures geographical uniformity of treatment of citizens throughout Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the present system of personal taxation which ensures geographical uniformity of treatment of citizens throughout Australia be continued and any proposal to reintroduce double taxation be rejected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Berinson.

Petition received.

Specific Purpose Payments

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:

  1. There have been criticisms recently of the rate at which Specific Purpose Payments to the State Governments have been increasing. It now appears that there are proposals to cut back the rate of growth of Specific Purpose Payments.
  2. Your Petitioners believe that the importance of Specific Purpose Payments to the States as a proportion of total funds available to State Governments has been exaggerated. In 1975/76 more than half (53 per cent) of the funds available to the States from Australian Government payments and Loan Council programs will remain untied for use by the States as they see fit. Further, the Australian Government’s Specific Purpose assistance in 1974/75 was estimated to have amounted to only about 29 per cent of the total funds available to the States (making allowance for funds available from the States’ own revenue sources). This seems scarcely the “dominating” influence that some critics of Special Purpose Payments have referred to.
  3. It is true that Specific Purpose Payments have been growing recently at a faster rate than general revenue funds. This is because of the Australian Government’s policy of overcoming 23 years of neglect in specific areas. Specific Purpose Grants have grown for such purposes as the sewerage program, area improvement programs, loan councils, growth centres, transport, education and health. If the rate of growth of Specific Purpose Payments is cut back the rate of expansion of these programs will have to be curtailed. Agreements reached with the States after protracted negotiations would have to be redrawn. Existing legislation covering the programs would have to be amended.
  4. It is true that in 1975/76 Specific Purpose Payments to the States are expected to grow at a faster rate (35 per cent) than increases in General Purpose Grants (27 per cent). However, in interpreting these figures allowance should be made for the impact on Specific Purpose Payments as a result of the introduction of Medibank. In 1975/76, payment to the States for the running costs of public hospitals under Medibank are estimated at $700m. This will have the effect of providing very substantial, and continuing, relief to the States’ Budgets which, in fact, is equivalent to providing additional General Purpose assistance to the States for use as they see fit.
  5. It is proposed that some funds presently provided under Specific Purpose assistance could be transferred to the General Purpose assistance item. There are, however, immense practical problems of transferring funds from such programs as education to General Revenue assistance. Your Petitioners believe that State Governments will not welcome the uncertainty that this vague approach would lead to.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that proposals to cut back the rate of growth of Specific Purpose Payments will not be introduced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Berinson.

Petition received.

Income Tax

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 persons believe that:

The $300 limit on income tax deductibility in respect of a personal residential land and water rates is unrealistic and is a discriminatory income tax penalty.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Connolly.

Petition received.

South Vietnam

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the operations of the Australian Armed Forces in South Vietnam occasioned great suffering and destruction of the human and physical environments of that country, and the death of many individual Vietnamese.

Further, that by their support for military and political intervention by the United States of America in the internal affairs of Vietnam, previous Australian Governments compounded this suffering and destruction far beyond the actual field of operations by the Australian Armed Forces.

Therefore, for reasons of history and morality, Australia has a special and particular responsibility to contribute substantially to the rehabilitation of the population of South Vietnam, to the restoration of their natural environment and to the reconstruction of their economy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will:

Propose and support the commitment of financial and material resources by the Australian Government to a rehabilitation and reconstruction programme in South Vietnam at least comparable in value to the resources expended by previous Australian Governments on military intervention in that country.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Fry.

Petition received.

Foreign Military Bases in Australia

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth that, by maintaining foreign military bases on her soil, Australia:

Becomes a party to the treacherous arms race and the perilous strategy of nuclear deterrence;

Creates further obstacles to disarmament and arms control;

Contradicts her stated support for the establishment of a zone of peace and neutrality in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia;

Frustrates the possibility of open government;

Undermines her own independence as a member of the international community;

Increases the likelihood of conflict in the region and the threat of nuclear devastation.

Your petitioners most humbly pray therefore that the Australian Government will take immediate steps to ensure the permanent removal of all foreign military’ bases from Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Dr Jenkins.

Petition received.

Income Tax

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 existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one Slate in any year would:

  1. Be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. Find that real aftertax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and
  3. Require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not reintroduced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Morris.

Petition received.

Australian Labor Party

To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That certain members of your House have signed a pledge as a condition of their endorsement by the Labor Party at the Election at which they were elected to your House.
  2. That this pledge may constrain them to vote in this House in a way which could be at variance with the national interest.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your House will express the opinion that, if in such case the national interest is in conflict with the pledge, members of your House will consider that the national interest takes precedence.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Wentworth.

Petition received.

page 2507

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2507

QUESTION

BUDGET BRIEFING

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer: At what time on Budget day did he or a Treasury official give a briefing to the Labor Party President, Chairman of Bourke’s Melbourne Pty Ltd store and ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd director, Mr Hawke?

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– A briefing was given to the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions as such on the afternoon of Budget day between about 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. by an officer of my personal staff who had been involved in the preparation of the Budget Speech and documents and had been a member of the working party which had worked up and presented the details of the new personal tax scheme. The reason for this briefing I feel would be obvious. I find it perfectly justifiable and in similar circumstances I would do it again. This Budget was presented in the most critical economic circumstances that this country has faced since the great depression of the 1930s. A key area of concern was the need to achieve wage restraint, to achieve moderation, in the industrial front.

One thing that concerned me greatly in the preparation of the Budget before its presentation was that because we had to resort to a number of measures involving indirect tax charges which could easily be interpreted as an anti-worker or as an anti-wage earner impost, and as we introduced in that Budget the most radical reform of personal taxation for 50 years in itself, on the surface, perhaps seeming to be a complex exercise I believed it absolutely essential that the spokesman on behalf of the trade unions who that night, after the Budget was delivered, would be asked to comment on its nature should be fully informed, that he should not have an inadequate appreciation of the strategy of the Budget and its contents. There was a real risk otherwise that the moderation which we were striving to achieve would not be obtained and that inadequate information could encourage further resistance from the trade union movement and more wage pressure.

The facts are that the President of the ACTU did in fact fully appreciate after that detailed personal briefing the implications of the Budget and its strategy and was able to articulate a very persuasive case in support of it as the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition well know. The result was that much more support has been forthcoming from the trade union and professional association movements in Australia. There is clear evidence that there is moderation on the wage front and that there is generally restraint in the industrial area.

This approach could not have been adopted if it were not for the fact that Mr Hawke is a member of the Reserve Bank Board and has proved beyond any doubt his confidentiality, his integrity and his reliability when invested with matters of the greatest public importance. He is in the same boat as, perhaps, Sir William Gunn, a prominent member of the National Country Party who also serves on the Reserve Bank Board. Like all members of the Reserve Bank Board Mr Hawke too has certain business interests but he has never abused the trust which has been invested in him as a member of the Reserve Bank Board. There is absolutely no evidence that he has abused the trust which was invested in him on that day. He was asked to commit himself to the strictest conditions of secrecy so that the briefing could proceed. He accepted that.

Mr Hawke is not the only person who receives advance information of the contents of the Budget. The Leader of the Opposition received 2 copies of Budget documents from me at least an hour before the Budget was presented. I did not seek from the Leader of the Opposition any undertaking of secrecy. I assumed that it was implicit. I did not seek it as I did seek it from Mr Hawke. All State Premiers receive information about aspects of the Budget some several hours before the Budget is delivered.

Mr Lynch:

– At one o ‘clock?

Mr HAYDEN:

-At about three or four o’clock in the afternoon, yes. The fact is that the exercise did prove successful. I believe that it was justified in the critical economic circumstances that the country found itself in at that time and still finds itself in. There is more co-operation from the trade union movement because of the informed way in which Mr Hawke was able to articulate the ingredients of the Budget and the strategy into which it fitted; accordingly we were able to gain more support. I recommend the measure where it is possible to do so, where it is established beyond any doubt on past record in public office, where matters of great public importance are invested in a person, that that action can be justified - (Honourable members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that those honourable members who wish to carry on conversations do so outside.

page 2508

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES: LONDON MARKET

Mr LYNCH:

– Is the Treasurer aware that it is possible to deal in Australian securities on the London market whether that market is open or not, and that anyone with prior knowledge of the Australian Budget, particularly information which is relayed as early in the afternoon of the day of the Budget presentation as that to which the honourable gentleman has just referred, can stand to gain a considerable sum?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– I suggest that the same could apply to State Premiers and the same could apply to the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at the record of Mr Hawke on the Reserve Bank Board. Mr Hawke was appointed to the Board on 28 August 1973. Since that time the following major decisions were canvassed at the Board, mostly before recommendations reached the Government: On 9 September 1973 the revaluation of the Australian dollar by 5 per cent; on 14 September 1973 an increase in trading bank interest rates was announced; on 25 October 1973 the variable deposit rate was increased from 25 per cent to 33-1/3 per cent; on 24 June 1974 the variable deposit rate was lowered from 33-1/3 per cent to 25 per cent; on 8 July 1974 trading bank interest rates were increased; on 7 August 1974 the variable deposit rate was lowered to 5 per cent; and on 25 September 1 974 the Australian dollar was devalued by 12 per cent and tied to a basket of currencies instead of to the United States dollar. I presume that Mr Hawke would be well aware of the composition of the basket of currencies. There has been a number of alterations to the statutory reserve deposit ratio in that period.

Mr Hawke would have been privy to most, if not all, of these matters in the course of discussions at Reserve Bank Board meetings. He has proved, like Sir William Gunn of the Country Party, that political affiliations do not necessarily mean that a man lacks honour and integrity in public office and that matters of great public importance deposited with such men do not retain their confidentiality. If any honourable member wishes to assert otherwise I challenge him to produce the evidence. In the case of Mr Hawke, I challenge any such honourable member to produce the evidence outside the House.

page 2508

QUESTION

MR L. C. GRUZMAN

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the AttorneyGeneral seen a statement by Mr L. C. Gruzman, Q.C., attacking the Australian Government? As the first law officer of Australia can the AttorneyGeneral inform the House whether there is any substance whatever in Mr Gruzman’s claims that the Australian Government is acting contrary to the law in refusing to accept the Senate Opposition’s blackmail? Is Mr Gruzman a recognised authority on the Australian Constitution or is he a distinguished criminal lawyer? Is he the lawyer who defended Alexander Barton and his son against the charge of defrauding Australian shareholders of crook companies that Mr Barton formed to the tune of $22m? Is he the Queen’s Counsel who flew to Paraguay to give Mr Barton advice on how to avoid extradition to Australia?

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have ruled in the past that questions containing the name of individuals should be placed on the Notice Paper or are out of order. The Prime Minister has followed that ruling. I submit to you that the same should apply to that question or alternatively it should be framed in a different form.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have ruled in the past and will continue to rule that questions which contain the name of a person who is referred to in a manner which can be detrimental to that person are out of order. That is in accordance with the Standing Orders. I do not think that that was the case in this question. I therefore would have to allow the question. The mentioning of names does not rule a question out of order; what does is the making of imputations against a person whose name is mentioned.

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · ALP

-A number of matters were dealt with in the honourable gentleman’s question. Mr Gruzman is well known to those of us who have practised at the New South Wales Bar. He is principally known as a controversial lawyer in the criminal field. The honourable gentleman refers in his question to certain work that Mr Gruzman may have done for the Bartons. I understand that is correct. He has acted as a legal adviser to the Bartons for some time. I also understand that he acts in a similar capacity for the New South Wales Branch of the Liberal Party. The exact nature of Mr Gruzman’s relationship with the Barton empire was one of the matters investigated by the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission. Until the findings of the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission are made available for public scrutiny, Mr Gruzman’s involvement will remain unknown and will remain a mystery.

The best answer that I think can be given to the honourable gentleman’s question about the capacity of Mr Gruzman to express the opinion that he expressed on the constitutional crisis was delivered in the Australian newspaper by Professor Blackshield who gave that answer in a very learned article published in the Australian newspaper this morning, I think, and who on Sunday gave a talk in the capacity of Guest of Honour for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That talk was broadcast some time later on Sunday evening. It may have been heard by many honourable members. Certainly in the newspaper article, Professor Blackshield poured scorn on the opinions expressed by Mr Gruzman. Professor Blackshield went on to offer the opinion that a Senate refusing Supply or threatening to refuse Supply in these circumstances would be acting unconstitutionally.

It is of interest that in the last few days we have seen other correspondence on the same subject from eminent Australian jurists, eminent Australian academics and eminent Australian constitutional lawyers. The most recent contribution to the subject was that from Sir Richard Eggleston, one of the most respected and learned lawyers on the subject in Australia. He is a prominent expresident of the Trade Practices Tribunal, a member of the Industrial Court and a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. He is a gentleman who in the past was often talked about as having the capacity to go on to the High Court of Australia. He expressed the opinion- and it would have been seen by many honourable members- that, no matter what words one uses, to refuse Supply in the Senate would be illegal as section 53 of the Constitution does not give that power. That seems to have been the opinion expressed by Sir Richard Eggleston in a letter written to the Melbourne Age in the last two or three days. It is a view I have heard expressed by many other eminent jurists and judges.

I will go beyond that and say this: If one looks at the writings on the subject by eminent and respectable jurists and respectable lawyers and academics, there is almost near unanimity that for the Senate to oppose Supply in these circumstances is if not illegal certainly unconstitutional. I use that word in its wide but proper sense.

page 2509

QUESTION

BUDGET BRIEFING

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Did the Prime Minister recently emphasise that he demanded the highest standards from his Ministers? Does the Prime Minister regard prior release of Budget details consistent with those standards?

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, I do, and so did my predecessors. It was a common courtesy for my predecessors, and it is a courtesy which I have preserved, to allow persons such as Premiers who are directly concerned in their public duties with the Federal Budget and who are likely to be asked for comment upon it after its delivery to have a copy of the -

Mr McMahon:

– That is untrue.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman will remain silent.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The right honourable gentleman might have been deficient in the courtesies in this matter.

Mr McMahon:

– I was.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I did not believe that I had initiated the practice. It was a practice which, my memory is, I was told that the right honourable member who interjects had followed, and I followed it also.

Mr McMahon:

– You were misinformed.

Mr WHITLAM In that case I initiated it or I resumed it after his interruption. The fact is that Premiers, whatever their political party, have always been given a copy of the Budget some 4 hours before it is delivered and my Department, on my instructions, makes arrangements with the departments of all the Premiers as to the place and the time at which the Federal Budget Papers can be delivered to the Premiers. Whatever other differences there may be between the various Premiers and myself, I have never known a Premier to abuse this confidence.

Of course they could profit from the knowledge in the 4 hours advance that they have of it. I do not believe they have profited from it. I do not believe they would try to profit from it. I have no reason to believe that my confidence or the confidence of my predecessors, bar of course the right honourable member for Lowe, has been abused. For years Mr Hawke has regularly participated in television programs on the Budget on Budget night and he takes part in these discussions with journalists who have studied copies of the Budget in advance. Quite obviously it is better for him to be equally well briefed and he has been, and quite properly.

page 2510

QUESTION

MR KHEMLANI

Mr THORBURN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Administrative Services. Is it a fact that a Commonwealth car was made available yesterday by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to a certain person who entered Australia without a visa? If so, will the Minister make available to the House all information on this matter?

Mr DALY:
Minister for Administrative Services · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am in a position to give the honourable member a full and complete answer to that question. I understand that yesterday afternoon a Commonwealth ministerial car was booked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to meet Ansett flight 36 1, 2. 10 p.m. from Sydney, and that of course commenced a drama in Canberra yesterday that has rarely been equalled. The car was to meet a person named Mr Khemlani. I understand that the gentleman approached the Commonwealth car dressed in a safari suit and wearing dark glasses. He was met by bearded investigators who hustled him into the VIP room while the Commonwealth car backed into the normally restricted luggage area and his 8 bulging briefcases were loaded into it.

Mr Khemlani was then pushed into the Commonwealth car along with 2 sinister bearded staff members and taken on a high speed car chase through the back streets of Fyshwick reaching speeds of 100 kilometres per hour, turning down side streets and doing sudden U turns before coming to a sudden stop at his destination- a $23 a night room at the Hotel Wellington. Mr Khemlani, still using the car, and the men then disappeared into room 49- the room adjoining the motel shoe-shine box. Lemonade, potato chips and 2 Sydney afternoon papers were pushed through the breakfast hatch. He stayed locked in his room while the staff members stayed huddled in a corner sifting through his 8 suitcases of documents. Later in the afternoon Mr Khemlani was taken on another high speed car chase. This time, as a taxi pulled up at the front of the motel, Mr Khemlani disappeared out the back door and sped off in a late model gold Torana with the manager of the Wellington Hotel at the wheel. That is service. It raced through the peak hour traffic, went one and a half times round State Circle, and reached speeds of up to 120 km along Commonwealth Avenue before swinging around and returning to the hotel. Then Mr Khemlani disappeared.

An hour later his brief cases were lugged into a lift at the $33 a night Lakeside Hotel where Mr Khemlani usually stays. But he was not booked in there last night. Last night Mr Khemlani was locked up with 2 Opposition front benchers, Mr Bob Ellicott and Mr John Howard, going through suitcases full of documents. As if he were not in enough trouble without being locked up with them! I come back again to the Commonwealth car. Poor Mr Khemlani: He had come all the way from Singapore, at his own cost and without a visa, to clear his name and he had all that excess baggage with him. What must he think of Australia- his life was endangered by high speed car chases in Commonwealth cars; his bags were searched by bearded investigators, and as far as we know they were not false beards; he was booked into a $23 a night room next to a shoe shine box yet his bags were booked into a $33 a night international hotel; he was locked up all afternoon with bearded men and then all night with 2 members of the Opposition -

Mr Whitlam:

– And fed with peanuts.

Mr DALY:

– And then fed with peanuts. He must also be wondering why the Opposition would pay out all that money for his bags but was too lousy to pay for a taxi fare for him to go from the airport to the hotel. That brings me back to the original point about the misuse of a Commonwealth car.

page 2511

QUESTION

BUDGET DETAILS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Does the Treasurer recall saying on 22 October that only 3 people- the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and himself- were aware of the $2 a barrel levy on oil? Does he also recall saying that other revenue measures were totally secure and only the 3 Ministers concerned knew of them? Why did he mislead the House?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-As I heard and interpreted the question from the honourable member based on an allegation that there had been a Budget leak in late July about the crude oil levy I accordingly responded. The fact is that on the day of the Budget many people would have known before the Budget was announced, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

page 2511

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN RAISINGS

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The Prime Minister will remember certain Government loan raising efforts seeking to keep as many as possible of Australia’s resources under Australian ownership. Can he add any further information to that which he gave last week concerning contact between his staff and an intermediary in these loan affairs?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I believe I said last week to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that for some weeks and months past there had been more contacts between him and Mr Khemlani than between my colleagues and Mr Khemlani. My colleague the Minister for Administrative Services has borne that out. It was remarkable that last Tuesday the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me, in what I thought was a pejorative sense, whether I could assure this House that no member of my personal staff was in contact with an intermediary concerning the Government’s loan raising attempts. He asked:

Is the honourable gentleman satisfied that his personal staff were unaware of any continuing negotiations or communications either directly or indirectly with the Government ‘s original intermediary?

It is remarkable that in the intervening days the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was able to establish through his staff such links at home and abroad with Mr Khemlani that his personal staff and his official car were able to attend and accommodate Mr Khemlani throughout this period. I noticed that Mr Khemlani told the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he would appreciate his good offices in having him called before the Senate to tell all and table all. The last time that Mr Khemlani was here Senator Withers, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, said that he would accommodate Mr Khemlani ‘s wishes. I am looking forward to see the Opposition’s reaction to Mr Khemlani ‘s repeated willingness to appear before the Senate, particularly as he is accommodated in Canberra and guarded by Opposition officials in Canberra, presumably right up to the present moment.

The Government does not believe it is appropriate to call citizens before the Bar of the House in these circumstances. But when the Opposition moved in this sense earlier we did not oppose the motion. So what is holding the Opposition back? When the Senate sits today, if any motion is moved to invite Mr Khemlani before the Bar of the Senate it will not be opposed by the Government. Any procedural measures required to facilitate his appearance, to effectuate his wishes, will not be opposed by the Government.

This seems a very valuable opportunity for the Opposition to obtain the contents of the 8 suitcases which the honourable and learned member for Wentworth and the honourable member for Bennelong were poring overnight. I notice that the honourable and learned member for Wentworth is not in the chamber this morning. He is presumably still poring over the documents. These documents do not have to be stolen. They do not have to be received, as the Leader of the Opposition previously received a document. They do not have to be bought as some of the newspapers bought them. They are available here in Canberra. They are in the hands of staff members of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. They are being pored over by the gentleman I see now described as the shadow Attorney-General- it used to be as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs- and he is not in the chamber.

So they are all available in Canberra. They are being perused at this moment presumably by one learned member of the Opposition. They have been perused by an instructing solicitor of his who is also a member of the chamber. They have been safeguarded by the staff and transported in the vehicle of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. So now is a great opportunity for Mr Khemlani, with the maximum publicity, to get the satisfaction of informing the Australian public of all the transactions and all the documents to which he has been privy. What is holding the Opposition up?

page 2512

QUESTION

THE HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR LALOR

Mr LYNCH:

– I ask the Prime Minister the following question: Will he repeat the charge he made in a recent television program that his former deputy, the honourable member for Lalor, was guilty of dishonesty and disloyalty? I ask the honourable gentleman to state to this House in what way the honourable gentleman referred to was dishonest and disloyal.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am not going to play the honourable gentleman’s game of selecting various passages from a television program. The Leader of the Opposition might fall in with this game. I appear on a television program -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Smile.

Mr WHITLAM:

-No, I do not have to be paid to smile. The honourable gentleman can pass his own mother in the street without smiling, so I am told. The honourable gentleman’s advertising agency has been paid $50,000 by the Liberal Party to teach him how to smile. I appeared on a television program last week and various, excerpts of it were played back to the Leader of the Opposition and to my colleague, the honourable member for Lalor. The full text is available, but of course it has not been played on subsequent occasions either to the honourable gentleman or to the public. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants the full text, of course he can get it. But I am not going to play his game of selective reporting and presentation.

page 2512

QUESTION

GIFTS FOR LAUNCHING SHIPS

Mr MULDER:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Upon the launching of a new ship it is customary for the person launching the ship to receive a gift to mark the occasion. Has he or have any of his predecessors so far as the Minister is aware, received gifts of this nature? If so, will he confer with his colleague the Attorney-General to see whether any breach of the Secret Commissions Act has taken place?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-In recent weeks there has been a lot of innuendoes of dishonesty and malpractice on the part of various Ministers, who, it has been alleged, have done all sorts of things, but up to this point no member of the Opposition has been prepared to spell out in detail just what has taken place. As the Prime Minister said here a short time ago in reply to a question about Mr Khemlani, it has all been innuendo. The honourable member has asked me about the procedure concerning ladies launching ships and what sort of gift they receive. I have been associated with ship building as a worker in the industry, as the shadow Minister for Transport and as the Minister for about 30 years. My understanding is that the usual practice has been to invite the launching lady to accept a gift of about $300.

Mr Hayden:

-A gift to the value of $300.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-A gift to the value of about $300. Sometimes it might be $200 or $400. I understand that when the honourable member for New England was the Minister for Shipping and Transport his wife launched the Australian Endeavour in Germany and she received a diamond and sapphire necklace valued at $10,000. In Sweden at the launching of the Allunga- these were both Australian National Line ships- she received a diamond bracelet valued at $6,000. The position is that when a Minister’s wife is launching a ship, he and his wife are always consulted about the extent of the gift and they are asked to suggest the sort of gift they would like. My wife has been asked to launch a number of ships and in fact she is launching one next Saturday week. They are always asked and they are always told the approximate value of the gift. I think that the average value has been about $300. The acceptance of 2 nice old handouts worth about $10,000 and $6,000 is a bit like the honourable member’s attitude to the misuse of Avis cars, which cost the Australian taxpayer about $1,500 and which even to this point, although the Minister for Administrative Services -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will not pursue that line. It is not within his responsibility.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Mr Speaker, I was just drawing attention to the fact that the honourable member has not yet paid that account.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

page 2513

QUESTION

BUDGET BRIEFING

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question which is addressed to the Prime Minister concerns the tradition of Labor governments on Budget leaks. Is the Prime Minister aware that a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Dr Dalton, was required to resign for a much less serious gaffe than that which occurred this year and that was an offhand remark? Does he realise that that action has been defended by every subsequent British Labour Prime Minister? I ask the Prime Minister: As a latter day supporter of the position of the House of Commons in financial matters, will he confer with the present British Prime Minister to see what the Westminster tradition requires and what it dictates in such circumstances?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Of course I know the practice in Britain and I would follow it wherever the occasion arose in Australia. Chancellor Hugh Dalton gave information to a newspaper reporter and the information was on the streets while he was delivering his Budget Speech. This is a completely different situation from where information is given to Premiers and to a member of the Reserve Bank Board.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– A commercial director.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Some of the Premiers have commercial interests too, including interests in oil. But I am not going to say that they have profited from the information that was given to them 4 hours before the Budget Speech was commenced. There is obviously a difference. I would have thought, however obtuse the honourable member may be, that he would have seen the difference between giving information to a newspaper reporter and giving information to a Premier and Treasurer of a State or a member of a Reserve Bank.

page 2513

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN RAISINGS

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister in his role as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Was the Australian Ambassador to Switzerland present at a meeting held in that country on or about 1 8 April last at which arrangements for a very large loan to the Australian Government were discussed? What Minister or Ministers arranged for the Australian Ambassador to be present at that meeting and to which Minister or Ministers did he make his report?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-Mr Speaker, I do not know.

page 2513

QUESTION

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware of any information to suggest that the recently announced consumer price index increase figures are in any way incorrect?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-No. I would have thought that anybody who could read would be able to analyse the figures and I have not seen anybody who has doubted their accuracy. I was, however, like all honourable members, appalled to read an attack by the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday on the integrity of the Australian Statistician. He described the consumer price index issued by the Statistician on Thursday morning, and to which I referred at 1 1 o’clock on Thursday morning, as fraudulent. The honourable gentleman knows very well that the index is prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Government has nothing to do with the way the index is compiled or calculated. It is prepared by responsible and loyal officers who have taken an oath to discharge their duties with complete integrity. It is monstrous to suggest that a statutory office holder would resort to fraudulent methods or falsify his publications. To my knowledge no such charge has ever been made before against a senior public servant or statutory official.

Honourable members will know that my Government passed legislation to establish the former Bureau of Census and Statistics as an independent statutory body. Our reason for this change was to place beyond doubt the independent status of the Statistician and his staff There has never been the slightest suggestion that the Statistician has departed from the unimpeachable standards expected of him. I deplore this attack by the Leader of the Opposition. The accusation of fraud against the Australian Statistician is typical of recent outbursts by the Leader of the Opposition against senior public officials. It is typical of his careless regard for the truth and the proprieties. It is typical of the way in which he has debauched the language of political discourse with wild and utterly unfounded charges.

In Melbourne last Sunday week, for instance, at a public rally he repeated an accusation that the Government had destroyed documents on loan raising activities. The Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that files and documents are not kept by Ministers but remain in the custody of departments. Any destruction of official documents would require a conspiracy between Ministers and senior public servants. If the Leader of the Opposition believes that senior public servants have conspired in this fashion, let him say so openly. Let him lay charges. It is open to any person to lay charges against public servants who may be guilty of any offence. Let the

Leader of the Opposition lay charges against any officer who has destroyed documents. Let him lay charges, if he wishes, against the Statistician for any fraudulent report. If he has no evidence for these outrageous and damaging accusations, let him keep silent or apologise to the men and women whose integrity he has impugned.

page 2514

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Will the Prime Minister assure the House that all documents concerning loan raising in the files of the former Treasurer and the former Minister for Minerals and Energy are now in his possession or under his control in the hands of departments?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– All documents of this character are in the custody of departments and have been for some months past. I do not believe that I have any documents whatever in my personal office on these matters. If, as the honourable gentleman has been saying from public platforms over the last week, I have destroyed documents, then he is accusing the people who have the custody of those documents. I notice that he said that I had not answered a question on this matter. What I did say to him was to put it on notice, and he did not put it on notice.

Mr Anthony:

– What good is that?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have been asked scores of questions on these matters, and every question on notice has been answered.

Mr Anthony:

– Yes, but dishonestly.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the Leader of the National Country Party. He continually interjects. He seems to feel that question time is his own private prerogative. I warn him.

Mr WHITLAM:

-The right honourable gentleman knows quite well that one of his friends, one of the people who wanted his job, one of the people who sought his Party’s selection for Maranoa, is one of the persons concerned in these documents. I do not have any of them, but my Department has them all. I take the opportunity, since the right honourable gentleman has reminded me, of stating that the only person who has spoken to me with any proposition that Australia might borrow from his principals has been the member of the Reserve Bank Board who is known to the right honourable gentleman. I have said this before: If the right honourable gentleman has any aspersions to cast on his colleague, his would-be rival, then he has had 2 opportunities to do so, and he has not done so on those 2 previous occasions. I gather he is not doing so on this occasion. If any honourable gentlemen wish to ask questions on this matter, they can put them on notice. Every question that has been put on notice to me on this matter, and there have been scores of them in each House, has been answered.

page 2514

QUESTION

HEALTH: BUDGET FUNDS

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Health. What effect will the action of the Senate in blocking the Budget have on Australian Government health services?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The details of the implications of blocking the Appropriation Bills have not been worked out for the Department of Health, and I doubt whether they have been worked out for any other department. They would be far-reaching and devastating.

Mr Lynch:

– What is the badge the Minister is wearing?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– Would you like it? It seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would like a copy of the badge I am wearing. I will see that he gets one.

Mr Hayden:

– What does it say?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– It says: ‘Shame Fraser Shame’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members will remain silent. The Minister will answer the question and nothing else.

Mr Lynch:

– I bet he wears it on his pyjamas too.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remain silent, and the Minister will answer the question.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I am glad to see that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is capable of reading the badge from where he sits. I hope that many other honourable members are able to do so. The effect of the blockage of money to the Department of Health will be that people delivering health services cannot be paid as from approximately the end of November. This will affect all kinds of services within the federal Territories. It will affect community health services, which depend on 90 per cent funding from the Australian Government and which have had a substantial impact on the standard of health care and the involvement of communities in health care, and it will affect the integration of health care on a regional basis throughout Australia, particularly in the areas of greatest need.

It will place in jeopardy all the quarantine services of this nation which include human, animal and plant quarantine. To give one example about which the members of the National Country Party particularly have been sensitive, it will prevent the surveillance of the most strict quarantine service in the world with regard to the illegal import of foodstuffs which could bring foot and mouth disease to this country and could set back our grazing industries to the extent of $ 1,000m to $2,000m. There are untold hazards in the stoppage of the supply of money to pay for Federal Government services in the Department of Health, as in all other departments.

page 2515

MR KHEMLANI

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party.

Mr Whitlam:

– I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have called the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Does the Prime Minister recall saying in this Parliament on 9 July last that proper checks were made of the bona fides of the gentleman involved? Does he still have that opinion of the man referred to in the question which was responded to by his colleague the Minister for Administrative Services a while ago?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

- Mr Speaker, I presume that the honourable gentleman is referring to Mr Khemlani. The honourable gentleman and his associates have had many contacts with increasing frequency with Mr Khemlani over the last few months, weeks, days and night. I never have. I would ask the honourable gentleman to place this question on notice and I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

page 2515

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC AUTHORITY

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– Pursuant to section 32 of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1949-1975 I present the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority for the year ended 30 June 1975, together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements.

page 2515

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · Oxley · ALP

-Pursuant to section 22 of the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act 1954-1972 I present a statement concerning the operation of the Act and the payment of subsidy during the subsidy year ended 30 June 1975.

page 2515

AUSTRALIAN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960-1973 I present the annual report of the Australian Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 2515

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT ACT

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 5 of the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974 1 present amending agreements between the Australian Government and the governments of Victoria and Queensland relating to sub-section 5 (2) of that Act.

page 2515

STATES GRANTS (SCIENCE LABORATORIES) ACT

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– Pursuant to section 5 of the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1971 I present a statement of payments authorised under section 3 of the Act during 1 973-74.

page 2515

NITROGENOUS FERTILISERS SUBSIDY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on nitrogenous fertilisers subsidy.

page 2515

NATIONAL REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION SCHEME

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · Lang · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present reports of working parties on the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme.

page 2515

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and I seek to make a personal explanation as a result. The Minister for Transport has made several accusations about gifts made to my wife as a result of the launching of 2 ships. The accusations were as accurate as was his statement that both ships were of the Australian National Line. One ship, the Melbourne Express, he may be interested to know, is not run, owned and operated by or for the Australian National Line. As Minister for Transport it might be an idea for him to check on that fact first. Secondly, as far as gifts are concerned, every lady who is invited to launch a ship is customarily given a presentation. A number of wives of members of this chamber have been presented with such gifts and these would include the wife of the Minister for Transport, the wife of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), the wife of the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) and the wives of many other members in this chamber. It is also customary for a gift to be presented back to the ship. That gift is normally of a significant value. In my instance those gifts have been made to both ships.

Mr Hayden:

– At whose expense?

Mr SINCLAIR:

-At my expense. The Minister has alleged that there was some prior consultation on the fact that a particular type of gift was required and on the value of those gifts. If such consultation took place it did not take place with me. It might have taken place with a member of my staff, a member who is now, incidentally, on the staff of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt). I am interested that the Minister should have the figures to which he has referred concerning the value of the gifts. Inquiries were made as to the value of the gifts for insurance purposes and they were significantly less than he has quoted; in fact they were less than $1,000. The value of gifts that I made to each ship was significantly greater than that assessed valuation. Any declaration made for customs purposes, if such was made, would have been made in accordance with the valuation given by the donor. I know nothing of this and can quote only the local valuation.

The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) has also made some allegations which were backed up this morning by the Minister for Transport regarding an Avis Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd car bill. Mr Speaker, all Avis cars used by me were used on orders made by the government department responsible for members’ vehicles. All accounts for Avis cars used in my name and ordered by me have been paid. Orders by the government department are those of the Government and for the Government. I would expect, if there are any outstanding debts, that the Government would meet its responsibilities.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Administrative Services · Grayndler · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr DALY:

– Yes. The honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has stated that there are accounts outstanding through my Department for him which are the Government’s responsibility. I point out to the honourable member that after ceasing to be a Minister he ordered cars without authority for his own use and his wife’s use in his electorate ostensibly representing the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony). Approximately $1,500 is outstanding. The sum is his personal obligation and will not be met by the Government. As such he is convicted of misusing Avis cars to the extent of $ 1 ,500. 1 am prepared to table the papers.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr SINCLAIR (New England)-! wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Yes. For a period of about 8 or 9 months at least as Deputy Leader of the National Country Party vehicles were ordered by me in the same way as vehicles are ordered by every other member of this House. They were ordered through the relevant department. The orders were then translated and vehicles were available on request. All accounts that have been lodged with respect to any vehicles ordered in that way were for vehicles ordered by and through the Government department. They were not ordered by me personally. The accounts for any vehicles that have been ordered by me personally have been met. There are accounts payable with respect to vehicles ordered by the Government. I know nothing of them; they are not my responsibility. They remain the responsibility of the Government which is responsible for members’ transport. I have not ordered vehicles outside the entitlements as I believe them to be.

Mr Charles Jones:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. This is becoming a debate and I am not going to allow it to continue. I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-The Prime Minister -

Mr Daly:

– I tell you what, I will table the papers and put the honourable member right in the cart.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-At question time the Prime Minister stated that questions which he had asked to put on notice had all been answered. Now, sir -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not making a personal explanation.

His name was not mentioned at any stage at question time.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-With all respect, sir, I refer to -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

- Sir, with respect -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. He is seeking to make a personal explanation on a general matter. I call the Minister for Transport.

Mr Wentworth:

– No, sir, this is a personal matter. I refer to questions -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

– I refer to questions put on notice -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Transport.

Mr Cope:

– Charlie, can I ride your Manly ferry?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sydney will remain silent.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. I also claim that the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has misled the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister may answer on the first matter. With regard to the second matter -

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I will -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman wants to make charges of that nature he will do so by substantive motion. He may answer only on those matters where he has been personally misrepresented.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Mr Speaker, I -

Mr Chipp:

– Filthy mob.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Hotham withdraw that remark.

Mr Chipp:

- Mr Speaker, I withdraw the remark with great reluctance.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for Transport.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I did not hear what the honourable member for Hotham said. Does the honourable member for New England, who is interjecting, claim that the honourable member for Hotham -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation I suggest that he get on with it before he gets sat down too.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for New England. I quote from a newspaper article in the Albury Border Morning Mail of Tuesday, 8 June 1971. The article is headed: ‘They said “thank you” with $16,000 in gems’ and reads:

Mrs Rosemary Sinclair, wife of the former Minister for Transport and Shipping, said in Albury yesterday she had received gifts of jewellery totalling -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is introducing completely new matter. I do not think it constitutes a personal explanation. I suggest that if the Minister wishes to raise the matter there are forms of the House by which he can do so. I do not think that his remarks really constitute a personal explanation.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Mr Speaker, the honourable member for New England was suggesting that I had misled the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Minister resume his seat.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Mr Speaker, with the concurrence of honourable members I shall table the document. I shall incorporate it in Hansard if honourable members opposite want me to do so.

Mr Nixon:

– Typical dirty trick, Charlie.

Mr Hayden:

– The honourable member is one of the plotters.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) might remain silent too.

page 2517

THE PARLIAMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the honourable member for New England– (Honourable members interjecting)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am on my feet and the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) will remain silent. The honourable member for Gippsland does not seem to have much courtesy for this House either. I have received a letter from the honourable member for New England proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to treat the Parliament with proper respect, in not allowing Members proper opportunity for debate.

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)

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 53

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2518

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76 AND APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1975-76

Senate Resolution

Consideration of Senate’s Message No. 279.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP
  1. That the House of Representatives, having considered Message No. 279 of the Senate-

    1. again asserts that the action of the Senate in delaying the passage of the two Appropriation Bills is contrary to established constitutional convention;
    2. denounces the blatant attempt by the Senate to violate section 28 of the Constitution for political purposes by itself endeavouring to force an early election for the House of Representatives;
    3. resolves that it will uphold the established right of the Government with a majority in the House of Representatives to be the Government of the nation; and
    4. again calls on the Senate to re-consider and pass the Bills without further delay in order to avoid the possibility of widespread distress occurring within the Australian community.
  2. That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this Resolution.

The action of the Opposition in the Senate in persisting to block the annual Appropriation Bills for the services of Government presents a challenge not only to my Government but also to this House that must be resisted; and continue to resist it, I shall. Mr Speaker, I hope that this resolution will make the Senate stand up and declare its position in relation to Appropriation Bills (No. 1) 1975-76 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76. The Opposition in the Senate has failed to pass these Bills, notwithstanding that the nation is now entering the third week of grave constitutional crisis. Moreover, it has done so by a procedure of delay and prevarication that finds no warrant in the terms of the Constitution.

The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) observed in the debate in this House on 21 October last:

In the other place the Budget has been in substance rejected.

I have studied the Senate’s motion referred to in the message now before this House. I find no reference to the words ‘reject’ or ‘rejection’. Indeed, a very anxious attempt has been madeand it was a successful one to avoid the use of any such term. Let the Opposition in the Senate say, if that is what it means, that it rejects the Budget. Let it do so on the floor of that chamber. Of course, Opposition members in the Senate are refraining from such action and the consequences which would flow not only because they know in their hearts that rejection would be a travesty of our Constitution but because, as we now comprehend, they do not have the numbers in the Senate to take this extreme step. I quote from the transcript of Four Corners of last Saturday night and Sunday midday. Senator Bessell, a Liberal from Tasmania, was asked:

And if it came to a vote of pure rejection of Supply you wouldn’t vote?

Senator Bessell answered:

I would not vote for a rejection.

He was again asked:

Well, in point of fact, you could be a very important senator if it came to that crunch situation?

Senator Bessell replied:

I would think that there would be a good many others who would feel the same as I do on that particular item, on that particular matter, on the question of rejection.

It is quite plain therefore from television, as recently as last weekend, that the Liberal senators would not all vote for rejection.

I recall that on 6 occasions now the Senate has passed an amendment to defer the debate on the Appropriation Bills and the Loan Bill, but not to reject them, and the Senate has carried this amendment because Senator Milliner died. If Senator Milliner was alive and voting, there would have been as many senators voting against the amendment to defer as voting for it. In the constitutional term, the amendment would then have passed in the negative. If there was a vote against the Appropriation Bills, the Bills would be passed.

Opposition senators, with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) aiding and abetting, are stalling, are prevaricating. They are not facing up to the procedures of the Senate or of the Constitution. The Opposition is not without honourable men in the Senate; but the hypocrisy of the Opposition ‘s grab for power is exposed for all to see. It seeks to extort an election by blocking a Budget that it will not reject. I say again: Let the Senate say, if that is what it means, that it rejects the Budget. Or let it take the proper course that has always been adopted in the past of passing the Appropriation Bills for the services of the Government. I pointed out last week that on 139 occasions Appropriation and Supply Bills had been passed by the Senate, although the Government of the day did not have a majority in the Senate. I tabled the list. I think it would be instructive to have that list incorporated in Hansard, and I ask that I have leave to do that.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

APPROPRIATION AND SUPPLY BILLS

1913-

Appropriation 1913-14

Appropriation ( Works and Buildings ) 1 9 1 3- 1 4

Supplementary Appropriation 1911-12

Supplementary Appropriation (Works and Buildings)

1911- 12

Supplementary Appropriation 1912-13

Supplementary Appropriation (Works and Buildings)

1912- 13

Supply(No. 1)1913-14

Supply (No. 2) 1913-14

Supply (No. 3) 1913-14

Supply(No. 4)1913-14

Supply (No. 5) 1913-14

1930-

Appropriation 1930-31

Appropriation (Works and Buildings) 1930-3 1

Supply (No. 1) 1930-31

1931-

Appropriation 1931-32

Appropriation (Unemployment Relief Works)

Appropriation (Works and Buildings) 193 1-32

Supplementary Appropriation 1927-30

Supplementary Appropriation (Works and Buildings)

1927-30

Supply (No. 1)1931-32

1956-

Appropriation(No.2) 1955-56

Appropriation 1956-57

Appropriation (Works and Services) (No. 2) 1955-56

Appropriation (Works and Services) 1956-57

Supplementary Appropriation 1954-55

Supplementary Appropriation 1955-56

Supplementary Appropriation (Works and Services)

1954- 55

Supplementary Appropriation (Works and Services)

1955- 56

Supply (No. 1) 1956-57

Supply (Works and Services) (No. 1) 1956-57

1957-

Appropriation (No. 2) 1956-57

Appropriation 1957-58

Appropriation (Works and Services) (No. 2) 1 956-57

Appropriation (Works and Services) 1957-58

Supply 1957-58

Supply (No. 2) 1957-58

Supply (Works and Services) 1957-58

Supply (Works and Services) (No. 2) 1957-58

1958-

Appropriation (No. 2) 1957-58

Appropriation 1958-59

Appropriation (Works and Services) (No. 2) 1957-58

Appropriation ( Works and Services) 1958-59

Supply 1958-59

Supply ( Works and Services) 1 958-59

1962-

Appropriation(No.2) 1961-62

Appropriation 1962-63

Appropriation ( Works and Services) ( No. 2 ) 1 96 1 -62

Appropriation (Works and Services) 1962-63

Supply 1962-63

Supply (Works and Services) 1962-63

1963-

Appropriation(No.2) 1962-63

Appropriation 1963-64

Appropriation (Works and Services) (No. 2) 1962-63

Appropriation (Works and Services) 1963-64

Supply 1963-64

Supply (Works and Services) 1 963-64

1964-

Appropriation(No.2) 1963-64

Appropriation 1 964-65

Appropriation (No. 2) 1964-65

Appropriation (Special Expenditure) 1964-65

Appropriation (Works and Services) (No. 2) 1963-64

Supply 1964-65

Supply (Special Expenditure) 1964-65

1965-

Appropriation(No.3) 1964-6S

Appropriation (No. 1 ) 1965-66

Appropriation (No. 2) 1965-66

Appropriation (Special Expenditure) (No. 2) 1964-65

Supply (No. 1) 1965-66

Supply (No. 2) 1965-66

1966-

Appropriation (No. 3) 1965-66

Appropriation ( No. 4) 1965-66

Appropriation (No. 1) 1966-67

Appropriation (No. 2) 1966-67

Supply (No. 1) 1966-67

Supply(No.2) 1966-67

1967-

Appropriation (No. 3) 1966-67

Appropriation ( No. 4) 1966-67

Appropriation (No. 1) 1967-68

Appropriation (No. 2) 1967-68

Supply (No. 1) 1967-68

Supply (No. 2) 1967-68

1968-

Appropriation (No. 3) 1967-68

Appropriation (No. 4) 1967-68

Appropriation (No. 1) 1968-69

Appropriation ( No. 2) 1968-69

Supply (No. 1) 1968-69

Supply(No. 2) 1968-69

1969-

Appropriation (No. 3) 1 968-69

Appropriation (No. 4) 1968-69

Appropriation (No. 1) 1969-70

Appropriation (No. 2) 1969-70

Supply (No. 1) 1969-70

Supply (No. 2) 1969-70

1970-

Appropriation (No. 3) 1969-70

Appropriation (No. 4) 1969-70

Appropriation (No. 1) 1970-71

Appropriation (No. 2 ) 1 970-7 1

Supply (No. 1) 1970-71

Supply(No.2) 1970-71

1971-

Appropriation(No.3) 1970-71

Appropriation (No. 4) 1970-71

Appropriation (No. 1) 1971-72

Appropriation (No. 2) 1971-72

Appropriation (No. 3) 1971-72

Supply (No. 1) 1971-72

Supply(No.2) 1971-72

Supply (No. 3) 1971-72

1972-

Appropriation (No. 4) 1971-72

Appropriation (No. 5) 1971-72

Appropriation (No. 1) 1972-73

Appropriation (No. 2) 1972-73

Supply (No. 1) 1972-73

Supply (No. 2) 1972-72

1973-

Appropriation(No.3) 1972-73

Appropriation (No. 4) 1972-73

Appropriation (No. 5) 1972-73

Appropriation (No. 6) 1972-73

Appropriation (No. 1) 1973-74

Appropriation (No. 2) 1973-74

Supply (No. 1)1973-74

Supply (No. 2) 1973-74

Supply (No. 3) 1973-74

1974-

Appropriation(No.3) 1973-74

Appropriation (No. 4) 1973-74

Appropriation (No. 5) 1973-74

Appropriation ( No. 1) 1974-75

Appropriation (No. 2) 1974-75

Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) 1 974

Supply (No. 1) 1974-75

Supply (No. 2) 1974-75

1975-

Appropriation (No. 3) 1974-75

Appropriation ( No. 4) 1 974-75

Appropriation (No. 5) 1974-75

Appropriation (No. 6) 1974-75

Appropriation (No. 1) 1975-76

Appropriation ( No. 2) 1975-76

Appropriation (Development Bank) 1975

Supply (No. 1) 1975-76

Supply (No. 2) 1975-76

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I thank the House. To carry a Bill or a motion in the Senate, there has to be a majority in favour. If a Government does not have a majority, if a Government has only half the senators, it cannot be sure of any of its legislation being passed, even Appropriation and Supply Bills. But on every occasion before April of last year, the Appropriation and Supply Bills have been passed even if the Government did not have a majority in the Senate.

Let us look at the Senate’s message. The Senate first asserts that its message is a lawful and proper exercise within the terms of the Constitution of the powers of the Senate. This is not correct. Under the Constitution, the Senate has neither the power to initiate nor to amend the Appropriation Bills for the annual services of the Government. It may only request by message the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. The House of Representatives may- I emphasise ‘may’- if it thinks fit make any such omissions or amendments with or without modification. All this is spelt out in section 53 of the Constitution. The message that we are now considering neither proposes an omission of an item or items nor an amendment or amendments to any item or items. The message therefore is not contemplated within the terms of the Constitution. Moreover, it violates an established constitutional convention.

At question time today, reference was made to the letter that Sir Richard Eggleston of the Australian Industrial Court, a distinguished constitutional lawyer, expressed on this matter. It is claimed that section 53 lays down certain procedures which the Senate can adopt in respect of Appropriation Bills, Supply Bills, money Bills. The Senate has not observed those procedures. It has not complied with section 53 of the Constitution. While the Australian Constitution is a written constitution it has to be read and applied in the light of the conventions of the Constitution. It has always been understood that this would be so. Thus Lord Haldane speaking in 1900 as a member of the House of Commons on the Bill for the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act said:

The mere framework which the Bill proposes to set up will be filled in, as here, with traditions and doctrines which we have inherited, with tendencies which are not expressed and with bonds which though invisible to the legal eye are yet binding and give the people security.

The High Court of Australia has itself observed in the Engineers Case and in other cases that one of the most important of the conventions- the principle of responsible government- is interwoven in the texture of the Australian Constitution. Responsible government is not spelt out specifically, explicitly in the Constitution, but everybody acknowledges that in Australia responsible government is the law of the land. The Government is responsible to the House of Representatives, not to the Senate. The Senate and the House of Representatives can have majorities which are of different political parties. The Government has a majority in the House of Representatives. It was given a majority in the House of Representatives in 1972 and again in 1974. It has a comfortable majority. It never loses a division in the House of Representatives.

In 1974 at the election for the Senate the Government candidates received more votesabout 165 000- than the candidates of all other parties in the Senate. The Government obtained 29 out of the 60 Senate positions. The Opposition obtained 29 out of the 60 Senate positions.

Another senator who was elected as an Independent has joined the Liberal Party, but the Liberal and Country Parties do not have a majority in the Senate. Even if, according to the Ellicott doctrine, the Governor-General could appoint a government from the Senate and it was a government composed of the Liberal and Country Parties it would not have a majority in the Senate. It could not be certain of getting its legislation through the Senate. Of course it could not get its legislation through the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives would declare no confidence in that government straight away. So responsible government must be in the hands of the House of Representatives. The Senate is very often likely to be evenly divided. In those circumstances there cannot be a government responsible to the Senate; but if there is a majority of different parties in the 2 Houses which House is to prevail? It must be the House of Representatives. It has always been thus and at every election the contending parties assert that proposition.

Sir Owen Dixon, a distinguished Chief Justice of the High Court, observed to similar effect, as I have quoted Lord Haldane and the Engineers Case, when commenting at Harvard in 1955 on the Australian Constitution. He described the principle of responsible government in these terms: ‘The principle which prevails in the United Kingdom . . . requiring that the Ministry should be formed of members of the legislature and should be removable by the Crown if the Ministry loses the confidence of that House of the legislature that controls finance.’

It is specified in our Constitution; it is explicit in our Constitution that the House of Representatives initiates money Bills. The House of Representatives alone can amend money Bills. The Senate can neither initiate nor amend money Bills. It can make requests which the House of Representatives may or may not heed. Money is the sinews of government. The taxpayers’ control over their money through their elected representatives in the people’s House is the foundation of parliamentary democracy. Under our Westminster system this control is firmly lodged in this House. Governments are made and unmade in the House of Representativesin the people’s House. The Senate cannot, does not and must never determine who the Government shall be. The House of Representatives is not only the national chamber; it is also the democratic chamber; it is the grand depository and embodiment of the liberal principles of government which pervade the entire constitutional fabric. It is the chamber in which the progressive instincts and popular aspirations of the people will be most likely to make themselves first felt. By the Constitution it is expressly intended to be such a House and by its organisation and functions it is best fitted to be the area in which national progress will find room for development. As I have said before, Quick and Garran so described this House.

It is because this Government has attempted to make this Parliament the instrument for reform, for long overdue change, for progress, for the redistribution of wealth, for the uplifting of the underprivileged, for the reduction of the privileges of great wealth and deeply entrenched vested interests, an instrument towards equality of opportunity for all Australians, that our opponents and those vested interests have from the very beginning, as Senator Withers revealed in April last year, embarked on a course to destroy this Government at the earliest opportunity. But what the Opposition is really seeking to do is destroy the financial paramountcy of this House and in so doing the very basis of parliamentary democracy- responsible government- in our country.

The Opposition in the Senate asserts that there has never been a convention that the Senate, the Upper House, should not reject the Bills for the annual services of government. This is an assertion without foundation. In the 75 years of our Federal history no opposition has ever withheld passage of these Bills, despite the fact that on some 20 occasions the government of the day did not itself have a majority in that other place. A convention has been established that the Senate, which cannot originate or amend Bills for the ordinary annual services of the government does not block them either. This is but yet another abrogation of a well established convention. It is part of a deliberate pattern on the part of the Opposition of challenging the role of conventions in the operation of our Constitution in its lust for power. What next can be expected of the Opposition? Will it next week seek to challenge convention in relation to the rotation of senators or the issue of writs for the holding of Senate elections. Will it challenge the fundamental convention that the Government must have the support of a majority of the members of this House?

The Senate message asserts too that because of its decision to block Supply I should now seek a double dissolution of the Parliament under Section 57 of the Constitution. I repeat that the grounds for a double dissolution on this issue do not exist. They could not exist for another 3 months- until after the Senate had twice rejected the Appropriation Bills with an interval of 3 months between the rejection by the Senate and the introduction of the Bills into this House. The fact that there are other grounds extant for a double dissolution does not solve the problem. It only aggravates it. On top of the 3 months clear between the first debate in the 2 Houses and the second debate in the 2 Houses there would have to be an election campaign. Last time there was an election on a double dissolution Australia was without a Parliament for 3 months. Both Houses were dissolved on 10 April last year. Despite every effort to have an early election and a prompt count we were unable to assemble the new Parliament until 9 July.

It is quite clear that if the Senate is to reject the Budget and wants to have a double dissolution on that it would be impossible to have a double dissolution on the Budget for nearly 7 months. To seek a double dissolution now on other grounds however sound in themselves would simply concede the right of the Senate to send the House of Representatives to an election any time the Senate chose. It would concede the very principle at stake. It would be to reward the violation of the respective constitutional roles of the 2 Houses. It would be to surrender to the unconstitutional pretensions of the Senate to make or break governments formed in the House of Representatives. To concede that right now, to surrender that principle now, would be to establish a spurious right, a non-existent power to the Senate for all time. We will not sell out the constitutional rights of this House. We will not barter away the future of the House of Representatives.

It is true that the Senate is incorrigibly obstructive. The Senate in the 3 years that we have had the national government has rejected more Bills than the Senate had rejected in the previous 72 years of its existence. There have been more Bills rejected or unacceptably amended, quite apart from Bills deferred, in the twenty-ninth Parliament than in the 50 years prior to December 1972. There have been more Bills rejected or unacceptably amended- that is apart from Bills deferred- in the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth Parliaments together than in the total prior history of the Senate. The first to the twenty-seventh Parliaments never saw a Senate reject so many Bills as the Senate has rejected in the twentyeighth Parliament and so far in the twenty-ninth Parliament.

The Leader of the Opposition is leading the breach of all conventions: the filling of casual vacancies for the Senate; the deferment and, if he dares to attempt it, the rejection of money Bills by the Senate; the rebuff by State governments to the Governor-General when he makes the request for the issue of Senate writs for their States. Like Canute the Leader of the Opposition will lose. He will lose because my Government will stand resolute in its determination that the Budget already twice approved by this House shall pass. The Government will not stand idly by while the Leader of the Opposition seeks to destroy the conventions of the Constitution. He will lose because the people’s House is where governments are made and unmade and in this House my Government stands strong and secure. This Government is not only justified in maintaining its position; it would be failing its duty if it did not do so. The Government, any elected government, having and maintaining a majority in the people’s House, the House of Representatives, must be able to govern. This principle is of fundamental importance for all future governments and prime ministers and for all Australians, present and future.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-This motion does not relate to a struggle between the House of Representatives and the other chamber. This motion, and the resolution to which it relates, demonstrate completely that this is a matter of principle between the people of Australia and a government which no longer is in a position to claim that it has a mandate. This question of principle, of constitutional propriety, is not a matter between the House of Representatives and the Senate; it is a matter between the rights of the electors of Australia and a government which demonstrably has failed to fill the trust placed upon it.

The circumstances involve the resignations of 2 former senior ministers, each of whom has acted in the Prime Minister’s stead and each of whom has been dismissed ignominiously from his post. The circumstances have led the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and he who was his former deputy to allege, each of the other, that he has lied. These are the circumstances which have motivated the Opposition in the other place to defer the Budget Bills. The question of principle is whether the electorate of Australia is to be given an opportunity to decide whether this Government should continue in office, not whether the House of Representatives or the Senate has a particular power. The question is fundamentally one for the people of Australia to decide.

On each occasion that the Prime Minister makes the assertion that the Senate lacks the power to defer a money Bill he demonstrates completely his failure to understand the rights and privileges of people in a democratic society. The Prime Minister has said, as he has repeated in this House today in other words: ‘I will smash Senate power’. I quote from the Sydney Daily Telegraph, one of many newspapers that reported the whole of the circumstances of the Prime Minister’s comments at rallies that he has staged around the country. The Constitution can survive only while the people of Australia remain the ultimate jury in this democratic society of ours. The Prime Minister, in refusing to go to the people, is denying the survival of the Constitution.

It is important that every Australian recognises that we are not asserting the right of the Senate against the House of Representatives. We are asserting the right of the people of Australia against a government which has demonstrated deliberate dishonesty; a government which has demonstrated through its Prime Minister a different standard for himself from that which he expects of his ministers; a government which has demonstrated gross illegality in overseas loan raisings and total impropriety in the premature release of Budget papers to persons who are not elected representatives of the people and who are not subjected to the normal constraints applied to elected representatives of the people, be they State Premiers or Opposition representatives. Those 2 circumstances alone are sufficient justification for the Government to assert that there is a necessity for it once again to go to the people. Instead of the Government’s being prepared to do that it is leaving it for the Opposition to do so in its stead.

But there is a third cause- the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd oil negotiations. The circumstances of those negotiations must cause apprehension that the man now revealed to have received information prior to the publication of the Budget, or those who were in other executive positions within that company, may well have had reason to believe that within the Budget there could have been very significant excise additions as a result of which the negotiations which they concluded were going to result in a windfall to ACTU-Solo. These circumstances and the 3 causes are totally damning in their indictment of the Government. It is those 3 causes which are the basis for our claiming that it is necessary for the Government to go to the people.

There is no need for me to go through the Constitutional argument. The message that came from the Senate does it adequately. But if there were need let me refer to 3 authorities. The first is no less than Sir Robert Menzies, a distinguished former Prime Minister, a distinguished constitutional lawyer and a man who, on occasions as

Prime Minister, saw fit to disagree with the powers that senates sought to impose on the elected government of the day. Sir Robert has no doubt about the propriety of this course of action. Sir Robert said: ‘It would be absurd to suppose that the draftsmen of the Constitution conferred these powers -

He was speaking of the power to reject money Bills. on the Senate with a mental reservation that they should never be exercised.’

It is important that we realise that Sir Robert is not the only constitutional lawyer to hold this point of view. I do not want to go through the whole of the legal argument but I think it is worth referring to the article written by Mr Lawrence C. Gruzman, Q.C. He said that Mr Whitlam is using spurious legal arguments.

Mr Whitlam himself, and surely he can be a little consistent, on 12 June 1970 following a statement made by his then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate endorsed a course of action which would have led to an identical situation to that which is occurring today, if the Labor Party had had the numbers. Senator Murphy said on 18 June 1970:

The Senate is entitled and expected to exercise resolutely but with discretion its power to refuse its concurrence to any financial measure, including a Tax Bill. There are no limitations on the Senate in the use of its constitutional powers, except the limitations imposed by discretion and reason.

Mr Whitlam, in the debate in the House of Representatives, said:

This Bill will be defeated in another place. The Government should then resign.

Why then is he refusing to go the people? Mr Whitlam had spoken in this vein and in support of the constitutional power of the Senate at other times and in other places. On 25 August 1970 he said:

Let us take this Budget and the Government, which produced it to the people themselves. The Parliament has already voted Supply to the end of November. By that time, there can be an election for both Houses. An election therefore would cause no disruption. The only thing that will cause disruption is the continuance of the Government.

That statement is so appropriate in view of the present scare tactics that this Government is using. Supply has been granted to the end of November. There is no reason for the Government not to take the action which is available to it through the 22 double dissolution Bills which the Government has at its disposal and for the Prime Minister to go to the Governor-General to seek the dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament so that Supply and the Budget can pass. If this were done there would be no reason for any reduction of the funds available to the people of

Australia. Mr Whitlam ‘s words on 25 August 1970 are quite appropriate to that circumstance. He said:

Let me make it clear at the outset that our opposition to this Budget is not a mere formality. We intend to press our opposition by all available means on all related measures in both Houses. If this motion is defeated, we will vote against the Bills here and in the Senate.

And so he did, and so too did his Labor colleagues in the Senate. He went on to say:

Our purpose is to destroy the Government which has sponsored it.

The Prime Minister cannot escape the consequence of his own words. We all know that the tradition in British parliaments is that if a money Bill is defeated the government goes to the people to seek their endorsement of its policies.

That is the background to this matter. It is important that the people of Australia recognise that it is absolutely vital that this matter should be considered in the context of the crisis of confidence which has emerged from the actions of the Government in respect of the dismissals of the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor); the refusal of the Government to answer questions in this House about the loan-raising activities; and the refusal of the Government to tell us the circumstances of the involvement of the Reserve Bank of Australia in these loan-raising negotiations. The Government has not told us just what were the negotiations in respect of the Bank of Paris. We do not know just what is the involvement of the Prime Minister. He, after all, is the only surviving Minister of the 4 Ministers who signed the infamous Executive Council minute back on 13 December last. It is important that we know the involvement of the Prime Minister who was culpable in the beginning of misleading the Governor-General by demonstrating, as it was alleged, that funds could be borrowed for a period of 20 years ostensibly for temporary purposes. The whole of the illegality of that Executive Council minute needs to be sheeted home to the man who has come into this House today and alleged that in some way the Opposition is breaching the Constitution. The Constitution of Australia can survive only while the people who live in this democracy are given an opportunity to vote on the government that they choose to rule them. Democracy can survive only if we have honest and upright government.

The Government demonstrably stands condemned on 3 grounds. Firstly, it stands condemned for its illegal involvement to conspire to defraud the States in refusing to disclose the whole of the overseas loan negotiations. The Government is guilty of avoiding Loan Council approval. We have also seen the duplicity of the Prime Minister in the subsequent action taken by him and his colleagues in the execution of their decision. Secondly, the Government is guilty in respect of premature disclosure of the contents of the Budget. The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) today and on television the other day acknowledged that premature release of the contents of the Budget was given to a man who is not an elected representative of the people, a man who is in a position, had he chosen, to take personal advantage of this information, and a man who is a director of 2 public companies to boot- the President of the Australian Labor Party. We were told by the Treasurer today that this man was given information between 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on the day of the presentation of the Budget. He was not given information in circumstances where it was necessary for him to keep that information confidential.

Mr Anthony:

– That shows gross impropriety.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– He was given information in such a way as to represent, as my right honourable colleague says, gross impropriety in disclosure of Budget details. The third charge in the indictment against the Government is the whole nasty mess of the ACTU-Solo affair. In my view there is still a great deal to emerge about the Government’s involvement in that transaction. One cannot but help suspect that it was in some way through the prior knowledge of the directors of ACTU-Solo that steps were taken which led to ACTU-Solo finally entering into those negotiations which have led to a windfall profit for them.

It is important that the people of Australia realise that they should be concerned about those 3 fundamental charges, the charges against this Government of illegality, dishonesty and impropriety. The charges are such that the Opposition has no alternative but to defer the legislation in the other House to ensure that the Government goes to the people in the manner that the Prime Minister at another time has said they should. It is important that in a democracy there is a way in which a dishonest government which is incompetent in its economic management can be taken to the people. A corrupt Government cannot be allowed to reign without reference to the people themselves. That is what this issue is about. It is not a matter of constitutional propriety, for constitutional propriety is the maintenance of the right to vote. The obligation now lies with the Prime Minister to dissolve both Houses of Parliament and to set a date for a Federal election. I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– The Senate has not accepted the Budget; it has not rejected the Budget; and it has not requested any amendment to the Budget. The Constitution gives the Senate those 3 options. It has exercised none of them. It has refused to consider the Budget except to say in its resolution that it will pass the Budget. Therefore it affirms that the Budget is worth passing. However, it attaches a condition to passing the Budget, namely that the House of Representatives should be dissolved at the behest of the Senate.

Let us look at the political operations that underlie this action. It is supposed, according to the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Sinclair), to have been taken after surveying the great issues on which he declares the Government guilty. Of course, any Opposition will declare the government guilty on any day of the week. On such a statement as that we could have an election every month. The Opposition has sounded a whole lot of things politically. For instance it is concerned with the results of the Gallup polls. If the state of the gallup polls is not favourable to the Opposition, of course, the Opposition in the Senate would not monkey with the Budget. The Opposition wants to know the answer to such questions as: ‘What will our supporters say if we reject Supply?’ So the Opposition takes another market survey designed to find out what its supporters would say if it were to reject Supply. The Opposition, having received what it considers to be favourable answers to all those questions, then discovers that it has principles, one of which is to command the House of Representatives to dissolve itself. But the House of Representatives will not dissolve itself.

Behind this action is a fear that there is to be a half Senate election. Honourable gentlemen opposite know that those people who have been stuffed into the Senate in lieu of deceased or resigned Labor senators will not hold their seats. They have a pretty shrewd suspicion that they might not do very well in the elections for senators from the Territories. Therefore, there is the possibility that they might lose control of the Senate and not be in a position to go on as they have been going on with a sustained campaign of obstruction to legislation of a kind that has never been seen before in Australia ‘s history.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This is the worst government we have ever had.

Mr BEAZLEY:

-Do not talk about the worst government. The honourable member is one of the people who rejected the provision of $700m for Australian schools. Do not give us any stuff about thinking that it has to be bad legislation that the Senate is rejecting. It is not bad legislation which the Senate is rejecting. The Senate has declared that it will pass this Budget if the House of Representatives obliges by dissolving itself. The House of Representatives will not be dissolved. The Senate can, if it likes, obstruct all the Supply of the country, but the House of Representatives will not be dissolved. If the Opposition is so convinced that it has public opinion on its side, why are the Liberal and Country Party Premiers falling over themselves to say that if the constitutional half Senate election is held a bit early- it is quite a constitutional time to do so- they will not issue the writs? The reason is that honourable members opposite are dead scared that if the Senate goes to the people on the issue of rejecting Supply their control of the Senate will be prejudiced. They do not believe that the people will uphold the right of the Senate to reject Supply. If there is to be any public determination of issues that is the one that should be determined.

I stress that the Senate has carried out none of the constitutional functions which are legitimately reposed in it by the Constitution. It is not putting an amendment into the Budget; it is expressing an opinion about the Government. It is a straight assertion that the Government in the House of Representatives is to be dependent upon confidence in the Senate. Honourable members opposite do not say: ‘We think your Budget is indefensible and we will not pass it.’ On the contrary, they say: ‘We will pass the Budget. We think, purely tactically in terms of the election, that the noble Senate will pass the Budget so that we do not have the odium of obstructing the country while deciding when we think there should be an election.’ Honourable members opposite ought to beware of tampering with these procedures in this way. There have been occasions in the past on which lower

Houses have refused to be dissolved by kings or by upper Houses- and this one will not be dissolved.

Honourable members opposite normally speak about the Senate as being democratically elected. So it is. In 2 half terms the Senate is democratically elected. Therefore it is not strictly analogous with some of the State upper Houses. It is of course not at all analogous with the House of Lords which once claimed to reject a Budget. However, the Senate is not what it ought to be. On the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Senate is not what it ought to be. It has within it members who should not be there. They are there because of a violation of a constitutional convention which began when proportional representation was introduced to the Senate. We have seen these techniques before. This is the first time that the Leader of the Opposition has had to operate in one of his major activities with a split among the newspaper proprietors. When he set out to destroy and defame Gorton he had nearly every newspaper proprietor in the country supporting him. When he set out to replace Snedden it was carefully orchestrated -

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the second occasion on which the Minister has referred to honourable members of this chamber by name. It is a rule of the Parliament that he should refer to them by the names of their electoral division.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:

-I uphold the point of order. The Minister will take note.

Mr BEAZLEY:

-When the Leader of the Opposition set out to destroy a former Prime Minister he had the co-ordinated support of newspaper proprietors. When he set out to destroy a former leader of the Liberal Party he had the co-ordinated support of the proprietors of newspapers. I remember once in a previous debate saying to him that he could take a small issue, weave it and weave it and make it seem great. That is his technique in debate. However, he can only make it seem great in the country if he has the support of a co-ordinated cacophony from newspaper proprietors. At this moment when he is gravely affecting business some of them think that he is going too far. Even on the Liberal Party side there are some who are beginning to come to the conclusion that they have put another flat tyre on their front wheel. Honourable gentlemen opposite have told us all about our leader. Our leader has sat here while the Liberal Parity has had 5 leaders, while it has tried to find somebody with political nous to lead it. The Leader of the Opposition, who has co-ordinated this campaign with the Senate, knows very well that the Senate is not exercising its functions; it is on strike. It refuses to consider the Budget. There is no such provision in the Constitution. Nobody wrote a provision into the Constitution to say that the Senate may accept the Budget, reject the Budget, request amendments to the Budget or refuse even to look at the Budget. What it is doing at the moment is refusing to look at a Budget which it says it will pass, thereby admitting that it is a good Budget.

Let us look at the effect of the Senate’s tactics on education. In the Appropriation Bills $48m has been allocated for schools in the Australian Capital Territory and more than $36m for schools in the Northern Territory. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has had a great deal to say about facing the people. I would like to see him go up to Darwin and make speeches at the present time about the tactic of obstructing the Budget. I think he will be much more discreet than that. An amount of $5 8m has been appropriated for the Australian National University. Altogether $342m has been allocated for educational services. Obviously the Senate does not object to these things. It does not object to any of the provisions of the Budget or any of the appropriations. It has merely come to the conclusion that it has good timing for an election.

There is another political point behind all this, and that is the National Country Party’s instinct for survival. One thing is perfectly clear: Like the Democratic Labor Party, the Country Party is on the way out. It is very definitely on the way out in upper Houses. In my own State there is one thing on which I agree with the Liberal Party. I agree with its actions, co-ordinated as they happen to be by accident with the Australian Labor Party, of totally elminating the Western Australian Country Party from this Parliament. In Queensland the Country Party has tried to amalgamate with the DLP in its struggle for survival. It is very much afraid that if the majority is lost in the Senate- the majority would be lost in a half Senate election- there will be passed through this Parliament a redistribution Bill conforming to the principles of redistribution contained in the legislation which the High Court has recently upheld as valid- that is, that there may be a variation of 10 per cent above and below the quota. From the Country Party’s point of view, this is quite disastrous. The Country Party has Western Australia arranged as a Parliament ought to be arranged. When the Leader of the National

Country Party (Mr Anthony) talks about facing the people he believes in facing the people with the other side batting on a wicket that has been chopped up with pickaxes and his side batting on one that has been flattened by steamrollers. Let us look at the position in Western Australia. In the upper House there are electorates varying from 86 000 electors on the roll- guess whose- to 6000 on the roll- guess whose? Of course, the electorates with 86 000 on the roll are Labor and those with 6000 on the roll are Country Party, and it is right that a Country Party vote should be 14 times as valuable as a Labor vote!

Mr Sullivan:

– Hear, hear!

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I am glad to have the Country Party’s endorsement. For the lower House there are electorates with 28 000 people on the roll- guess whose- down to 2000- guess whose? Again there is a ratio of 14 to 1. In Western Australia the changes of government are caused by mineral discoveries. A sweet little Country Party pocket borough is arranged with under 2000 electors, someone discovers nickel at Kambalda, workers come into it and the electorate rolls over until the next distribution at which they can push Kambalda into the electorate of Kalgoorlie. That is their idea of an upper House.

Sitting suspended from I to 2 p.m.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

– There is a deliberate reason why the Senate is choosing to defer, as opposed to reject, the Appropriation Bills. If the measures were rejected, with the irrational nature of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), the Prime Minister and this Government would leave those measures rejected until after an election with consequent harm to many thousands of people. While the measures are deferred it is within our power to resurrect those measures once it is known there is to be a House of Representatives election. That is the reason for deferral. It is the reason we stay with deferral.

There are 2 charges against this Government. There are some who believe that the charge of massive and gross incompetence, sacking of Minister after Minister for incompetenceincluding the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean) who is sitting at the table, who has been resurrected and is coming back to haunt the Prime Minister- would have been reason enough for the Senate’s action. But dishonesty on top of that incompetence is ample reason. There has been incompetence in the economy, hurting the retired who will never be able to rebuild their lives. The Government’s actions have meant that young people cannot buy homes, businesses have gone bankrupt, school leavers will wander around in a long hot summer without jobs and the longest prolonged inflation in Australia’s history. The Prime Minister interpreted figures before the Australian people in a way which was entirely false. Industrial unrest, interest rates and unemployment are all at record levels. The Government admits that the Budget will cause 400 000 to be unemployed. What pride can Government supporters have in that for their supporters, the people of their electorates? The Budget deficit has already been estimated to be out to $3.5 billion to $4 billion and the Senate is asked to vote on a fraudulent document.

But these things, the incompetence of the Government, even if they are put aside, we should look at the dishonesty of this Government. It starts in public knowledge on 13 December last when it was stated that the Government intended to borrow $4,000m for temporary purposes- a loan period of 20 years for temporary purposes. What nonsense is this? What dishonesty is this? The document to which the Prime Minister has put his signature indicates his personal and deep involvement in this matter right from the very start. On 20 May the Prime Minister said that the loan, once consummated, would go to the Loan Council. That is in direct defiance of the Executive Council minute of 13 December. Both statements cannot be true, are not true.

The Prime Minister has gone around this country time and again saying that no allegations have been made against him or his Government. What about the allegations of the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) a day or two ago? Then the Prime Minister said no allegations had been made against him until last week. The allegations about evasion of the Constitution, evasion of the Loan Council and of massive illegality were made in precise and detailed form on 9 July. A higher rate of interest on the loan was proposed to avoid the Parliament having to approve the commission and to bypass Parliament. Allegation after allegation has been unanswered, evaded, continually avoided by this Prime Minister whose only refuge is in his own private cave.

The Prime Minister said that all relevant documents have been tabled, but more documents emerge- one leading to the sacking of a Deputy Prime Minister and another to the sacking of somebody who acted as Prime Minister. The Prime Minister draws a semantic difference between communications of substance and negotiations. Who in this House except this Prime

Minister could define the difference between communications of substance and negotiations to try to suggest that what he had said on an earlier occasion was in fact true. The Prime Minister has been involved in a massive cover-up from the start to finish.

He was not going to let anyone know what happened on 13 December. It was forced out by the persistent questioning of the shadow Treasurer, by the persistent questioning of the Opposition. We know quite well that the Prime Minister had a letter that led to the sacking of the previous Deputy Prime Minister in his possession for some weeks before he used it. He was prepared to condone the action. He was prepared to support it. He was prepared to participate in the lie unless it came to public notice; and it did come to the public notice. Then, like Pontius Pilate, he seeks to wash his hands clean by saying, ‘Oh, how terrible, the Minister has misled the Parliament and he must go’, leaving himself pure.

But he does it again with the former Minister for Minerals and Energy. He said that matters had been discussed with him as appropriate. In May we know- it is on record- that the Prime Minister indicated that all documents, telexes and messages must go over his own desk. Are we to assume that the Prime Minister did not read those messages when already the greatest scandal had burst forth? Is this the one set of papers on his desk that he ignored? They should have been the first papers he went to day after day. When we had that 20 May revocation of the Executive Council minute, what did the Prime Minister say to the Minister for Minerals and Energy? Did he say: ‘Now, no more of this, Rex’? Did he say: ‘Forget all these loans; say goodbye to Mr Khemlani’? Mr Khemlani is a man whose bona fides the Prime Minister himself has vouched for. I suggest that he said something like this: ‘Look, we have only revoked this particular minute because you know we want the $100m loan from the United States. We cannot get that loan under the SEC rules of the United States unless we give them full details of our negotiations with Mr Khemlani or unless we revoke the authority. We obviously cannot give them full details. That would be terrible to have the United States know how we are behaving, so we will revoke it. But go on, Rex. As soon as you get the money, we will have another Executive Council minute.’ That is what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister has covered up. He is involved, and we know what happened to a President in another country who sought to blame aide after aide to prove his own innocence. In the end all he did was prove his own guilt more deeply than ever before.

We have a situation in which the Prime Minister is irrational in his behaviour. He goes around and he denies facts on public record and expects people to believe him. It is so astounding that it does not often get reported. He denies that allegations have been made against him and his Government. He has done it time and time again. Those allegations have been there for months. He said on 10 June that the Connor authority from the Executive Council minute was just an authority to look around. In fact it was the most specific and far-reaching authority ever given to any Minister to negotiate, to consummate, to fix the details of the loan without reference to anyone else- to the Treasurer, the Prime Minister or anyone else in the Government. We know what the Minister for Overseas Trade, who is sitting at the table, thinks of that. He did not approve of it. The present Treasurer (Mr Hayden) did not approve.

Then we had another set of circumstances where the Prime Minister denied facts on public record. He did it today at question time. Let us read the record. He accused people of doctoring the documents, doctoring the tapes, to put him in a bad light. Whenever anything goes against this Prime Minister he makes utterly unjust accusations against his colleagues and against the media. Let us see what he said. He was asked:

Do you think that it is partially your fault that you did not know?

Mr Whitlam said:

No, I don ‘t. Everybody was misled.

He continued:

Well, nobody knew, nobody knew that Dr Cairns and Mr Connor weren’t telling the truth.

Later on he said:

No, no. They concealed it from me, as from the Parliament.

He was asked:

Why should your Ministers be disloyal to you?

He said:

It’s not just disloyal to me; they’re disloyal: They’ve let the Government down.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is a poor argument.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Whitlam goes on a little later:

Well, they weren’t. There is no excuse for telling other than the truth, and the whole truth to Parliament.

This Government says it is a poor argument. This Government therefore admits that the truth in this Parliament means nothing. That is the result, that is the conclusion that must come, and for a supporter of the Government to say that is again to be disloyal to the Prime Minister, who at least pretends to tell the truth. The member who has interjected does not even recognise that it is necessary at all. But see what the former Deputy Prime Minister, the person who acted as Prime Minister, has said about these matters.

Opposition members- Which one?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Dr Cairns. He said:

If anyone says I have been dishonest, I want them to say it in public, and prove it because I have not been.

Later he said in answer to a question put to him:

Well, I was not even aware of that. I will have to look into it.

If he - meaning the Prime Minister- said that he himself is distorting the situation and telling a lie about it. The Prime Minister is.

So Dr Cairns says that this Prime Minister is telling a lie. The full unedited tape was replayed last night, and the Prime Minister denies publicly known facts in an effort to keep his own hands clean. It is not possible; he cannot continue in this way.

We have another situation. It was announced today that a director of 2 commercial companies was told what was in the Budget at 1 o’clock on the day of the Budget. That is the greatest scandal in the history of this Parliament. We are told that it was necessary to get the support of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Government does not have any confidence that he will support the Budget unless he gets prior knowledge of it. Why did he need prior knowledge of it to give it support? That is a question which will remain obviously unanswered but it is one to which we have a right to an answer.

Let us look at the precedent which this Prime Minister thinks he has set and which this great white hope of a Treasurer thinks he has set. When we are in Government will we be entitled to inform the President of the Associated Chambers of Manufacturers of what is in the Budget at 1 o’clock on the day of the Budget? The answer is unequivocally no. The circumstances would be the same because we could rely on the precedent that the director of 2 commercial companies had been informed for straight political advantage because the Government did not have sufficient confidence in the support of the President of the ACTU. It ought also to be noted that there is a possibility of exchanges operating between Australia and London for hours before that happens, so the possibility of gain cannot be ruled out.

This action has been supported by the Prime Minister. It does not concern just the Treasurer. There is a difference here because for the first time the Prime Minister has supported one of his Ministers who has got into trouble. It may be that he thinks, Connor, Cairns and Cameron having been sacked, that if Hayden was also sacked that would be one too many. So he has to come in behind this atrocious precedent which has been set. But he supported him by telling a much greater untruth than the Treasurer and said that the Premiers knew of the Budget before the Budget was introduced. That is completely and absolutely untrue. The Premiers gain knowledge of States grants legislation, as it affects themmoney for schools and money for roads in letters that go from the Prime Minister to the Premiers. But they do not get information of the revenue proposals, the excise proposals and the tax proposals, or the proposals that could result in gain or loss if there is prior knowledge. The Prime Minister has misled this Parliament time and time again. If it were true that the Premiers had been told I would still suggest that the Premiers stand in a different position from that of a director of commercial companies. But it is not true.

It opens again the prospect of the information which was given to ACTU-Solo. The Treasurer gave certain dates but he did not say what happened in discussions in May or on other occasions about that $2 a barrel levy. The immorality running through this Government and the ACTU-Solo deal has meant that one honest man, I believe, has been hanged by others who are not so honest. The loans affair, Mr Connor, Dr. Cairns, the 13 December minute and the Budget leak have a common thread of immorality, deceit and deception which should drive this Government and the Labor Party from the face of Australia and would do so if only this Government had the courage to face the people, to face its masters.

The Government does not mind what means justify its ends. It is frightened of its masters. It is frightened of facing the people of Australia. There is only one threat to democracy when a government is frightened to face the vote of the people. The present Treasurer was hailed as a great white hope. It was said that after Cairns, after Crean, after Connor he would save the Labor Party. We find now that he has sunk to depths as reprehensible and as disreputable as any to which they sank. The great white hope is in the mire. This Government is in the mire. This Government ought to resign.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports Minister for Overseas Trade · ALP

– One thing to the credit of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is that he sticks to his story no matter how threadbare it is. What this House is asserting -

Mr Lusher:

– Bending the law.

Mr CREAN:

– I will tell the honourable member about bending the law in a moment. This House is asserting the historical and sensible rights of this House as far as money Bills are concerned. The Senate has referred back to this House a Bill which it cannot originate and cannot amend. It asserts I intend to argue this in some detail in a moment that it can reject such a Bill. It has not rejected the Bill, but what it has the impertinence to say is that this House, the House of Representatives, should be dissolved. The House of Representatives can be dissolved only if the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) asks for its dissolution. A dissolution should occur only if the Prime Minister so decides or if the Government is defeated on the floor of the House. This has not happened and will not happen. This House should ponder the seriousness of the situation. I am getting tired of hearing the words ‘dishonoured’, ‘dishonest’ and ‘reprehensible’ when there is no proof of dishonesty except about the sorts of things that of course are political small change.

Mr Sullivan:

– Leaking the Budget.

Mr CREAN:

– There was no leak from the Budget.

Mr Hodges:

– Did you instruct Hawke.

Mr CREAN:

– The honourable member is another of the loud mouths who has a lot to learn yet. The honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) talked about bending the Constitution. I would like the honourable member to answer or to ponder this sort of question: What has to bend when a person properly employed cannot be paid? What has to bend when no progress payments can be made on a contract honourably and properly entered into? What happens when we can pay a pension legally but do not have the mechanism to do so? Honourable members opposite ought to consider the consequences when they contemplate this sort of action. It is the consequences that are important and it is the consequences of this action, if persisted in, that can be disastrous to the economy of this country.

Mr Ruddock:

– What are you going to do about it?

Mr CREAN:

– I happen to have the administration of the Department of Overseas Trade and overseas trade is highly significant for this Government and particularly for those clackers who sit opposite and call themselves country people and who say they represent the people of the country. At the moment they are grossly misrepresenting the people they claim to be helping. This country has about $17 billion worth of international trade. (Quorum formed) I was trying to point out the consequences of this action. I think that sometimes the highest to which some people will ever rise is the ability to call a quorum when a Government supporter is speaking. I suggest that that is about the level of the approach of honourable members opposite to these serious problems.

Mr Corbett:

– It is no compliment to you when your own members will not listen.

Mr CREAN:

– It is no compliment to this House when one side is prepared to be silent when its rights are being invaded. I submit that this is what the question is. If a Senate now can do what honourable members opposite are trying to make a Senate do, any other Senate will get away with it forever after. But no Senate will ever dare do this again if the present Senate’s attitude fails- and it should fail. There is only one way in which this constitutional problem can be resolved, and that is by the Senate being sensible. I submit that in the light of what governments have to do in 1 975, in the light of any commonsense, and in the light of any convention, when it is said that a Bill may not originate and that it may not be amended, in the Senate, it can mean only that the Bill cannot be rejected by the Senate.

Despite what honourable members opposite think, we are not talking about the whole of the Budget in regard to appropriation. The Budget appropriates approximately $22 billion, only $9 billion of which is incorporated in these 2 appropriation measures. The other $13 billion can be appropriated. The taxation that is required to pay for the services of the Government can still be collected. But what honourable members opposite are doing in their crass stupidity is not allowing the things that are legally possible to be done. Of the $9 billion approximately $2 billion is to pay the wages of the public servants of this country- people who cannot be dismissed, people who have permanency of employment. Who are to carry out the processes of government? As an example, what will happen to trade commissioners stranded in 47 countries around the world? They are legally employed but cannot be paid because of this stupid action. These are the consequences that ought to be looked at.

Honourable members opposite can argue themselves black in the face forever, with one side asserting that because the Constitution does not say ‘reject’, therefore it can reject and another side saying that common sense can mean only that the Bills cannot be rejected. What I am trying to get honourable members opposite to think through is the consequences of the action that they are contemplating. They cannot get away from the consequences of action. The consequences of that action are that people who cannot be sacked cannot be paid. Contracts that have been entered into cannot be fulfilled. If honourable members opposite look sensibly at Budget documents they will find that probably 90 per cent of what is contained in a Budget is not for new initiatives, but for the carrying on of old initiatives.

If honourable members had any sense they would have rejected the Budget before. It is stupid to reject the Budget now and to believe that that will not have consequences disastrous to things that have already been approved. The amount of new initiatives in a Budget is small. This again is the reason why things should be thought through logically. I know that some people are not too capable of logical thinking. But at least, unpleasant and difficult as it may be, Opposition members are here to do that occasionally.

I suggest that this is the question that has not been asked: What happens when we have a wages bill for $2 billion which the Opposition will not let be paid? What is the effect on social service payments, the legislation in respect of which the Opposition let through the House one night last week so that its actions would not be reprehensible in the eyes of pensioners? How are those pensioners to be paid? How will the computers continue to operate? How will the stamps that the letters require and the other necessary aspects to enable those pensioners to be paid be dealt with? Will the Red Cross distribute the pensions in the same way as the Meals on Wheels service is provided? These pension payments in one form or another go to approximately 2 million people. Opposition members do not know because they have not thought this matter through.

I turn to another aspect. Why does somebody on the other side of the House not get up and assert what the fundamental rights of this House are? Governments are made and unmade only in this House of the Parliament. We could have as few as 10 members in the Senate and have 75 members in this House and we would still be the Government. The Government is made and unmade here. The Prime Minister is the leader of the Party that gets the most seats in the election for the House of Representatives. Are honourable members opposite prepared to throw that principle overboard on the vote of one in the Senate? It is not even an honest vote. I called it a ‘bodgie’ vote here the other night. If the constitutional travesty had not been perpetrated in Queensland by appointing to a Labor seat a nonLabor man, the Opposition could not have done what it is doing now. The Opposition would have had to face up to rejection of the Budget or not. It is not courageous enough to do it. It is trying to drag this matter on and on. The longer it goes the more dire the consequences are likely to be.

Why do members of the Opposition not acknowledge that they have been wrong, change their attitude, and let there be a free vote in the other place? Let there be an assertion that the drawing up of the Budget and the passing of the Budget ought to be the right of only this House. As I said here the other day, what we ought to have in Australia in 1975 is what was written into the British system in 191 1- that is, that an Upper House can only sniff at a money Bill and if it did not pass that Bill it would not matter. But when it is not passed, is deferred or rejected, all that that achieves is to cause confusion and disarray and to bring into contempt the type of system which honourable members opposite assert that they support.

One of my first experiences in Parliament was in the State Parliament of Victoria where the best Government that that State had had for years was forced out by a character, Sir Frank Clark, the Chairman of the National Bank. We called him ‘Sir Bank Clark’. He used the Victorian Parliament for a test on the bank nationalisation legislation which was before this House. What sort of travesty can be perpetrated if one has the numbers? In the name of political expediency, Opposition members are prepared to subvert the very constitutional framework that they claim to be seeking to preserve. I suggest that that is what the motion before the House today is all about. The motion seeks the assertion of the rights of this House. It is the determination as to who should govern Australia. It is the Government which has the numbers in this House. It is shameful that not one honourable member on the opposite side is prepared to vote with those on this side in that assertion.

Mr Killen:

- Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 56

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Sinclair’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 57

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the motion (Mr Whitlam’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 57

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2534

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Inter-State Commission Bill 1975.

Social Services Bill (No. 3) 1975.

Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1 975.

page 2534

TRAVEL AGENTS BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 October on motion by Mr Stewart:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LAMB:
La Trobe

-A succession of travel agency failures over the last few years has prompted the travel industry to turn to the Australian Government to regulate the industry so that those bona fide and trustworthy agents are protected from the odium of the sharks and the fly-by-night operators. At the same time there have been demands from the public at large for travellers to be protected and shielded from committing large outlays towards holidays and tours that either never materialise or evaporate half-way in some inaccessible foreign country. Over the past 5 years at least 20 agencies have crashed or quietly closed their doors. Some of the worst are memorable. Travel House of Australia, the country’s biggest travel agency with 31 offices in all States, collapsed in July 1972 leaving at least 400 tourists stranded in London and Singapore, and the company was $700,000 in debt. In August 1972 John Forsyth Pty Ltd closed its 3 Sydney offices. It was more than $100,000 in debt and left 180 Australian travellers stranded in Malta.

The Travel Agents Bill has been developed primarily to protect the travelling public and to minimise pecuniary loss and inconvenience as a result of the failure of a travel agency. The main ways by which protection will be achieved are through the registration of travel agents and the licensing of travel agencies, through special accounting arrangements and through a fidelity fund which will be used to compensate travellers who incur a financial loss caused by a travel agent. As the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) said in his second reading speech, the main constraints on travel agents at the moment are associated with the accreditation requirements of the major air and sea carriers and travel industry associations. Conservative estimates put the number of businesses operating ostensibly as travel agencies throughout the country at 1 500 and of these less than 50 per cent would have any recognised accreditation. Yet it is estimated that 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the $400mworth of air tickets that is written and sold each year is written by travel agents.

Defaults by agents show that accreditation has provided insufficient protection to the traveller. All the efforts of the travel industry organisations to enforce their code of ethics have so far proved ineffective in preventing agency failures. Travel agencies have mushroomed in recent years with the upsurge in travel by Australians. Although the bulk of the industry is reputable and highly skilled its image has been tarnished by the activities of a handful of unethical operators. Even the watchdog of the industry, the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, which has about 560 members of whom 230 are in New South Wales alone, has been unable to police the industry mainly because there is no compulsion for anyone calling himself a travel agent to belong to the AFTA. The AFTA has tried to lay ground rules for anyone setting up as a travel agent, such as having a minimum capital of not less than $20,000, and by warning that it may be from three to five years before a new agency can become profitable.

Travel agents make their profits from carrying companies and hotels, not from clients. Commissions vary. Five per cent is paid by domestic airlines, 7 per cent by overseas airlines and shipping companies, 10 per cent by group and package tour operators and 7 to 10 per cent by cruise operators. But before an agent can get commissionthat is backdated commission from an international airline he has to get accreditation from the International Air Transport Association or IATA. To get commission from a shipping company he needs accreditation from the Australian Passenger Agency Committee, or APAC. To get these accreditations he must build up certain volumes of business which may take 18 months to 3 years. Meanwhile the travel agent has to rely for a living on commissions paid by domestic airlines, hotels, coach operators and car rental firms. IATA and APAC examine the credentials of agents before accrediting them and hold bonds which can be as high as $100,000 against the agent’s ‘shooting through’.

The basic and major reform in the Bill is the registration of travel agents. This in turn rests on a suitable definition of ‘travel agent’. Obviously the Government does not wish to turn the industry upside down and to impose new definitions. It has worked closely with the industry and the Bill has been drawn up only after lengthy and detailed discussions with the industry and the States as well. The industry is completely satisfied with Part I, which defines the business of a travel agent. Rather than repeat the contents of the Bill, it might be better if I outlined the reasons why we need travel agents. This understanding explains why a travel agent should be defined, licensed and registered.

A travel agent, if reputable and skilled, can save a traveller considerable sums of money by economically booking a journey and accommodation to suit the traveller’s pocket. If the traveller deals direct with an airline or shipping company, he is likely to be pressured into travelling expensively, and he does not get the personalised service a travel agent can offer. An agent can also look after passports, health certificates, travellers’ cheques and an array of other minor problems. In his traditional role, which was little more than that of a booking clerk, the travel agent is becoming redundant. What he must have now are the skill and zeal of a promoter or an entrepreneur. He has to be an expert at putting together a complete package of travel, selling it vigorously and then making sure he provides an after-sales service such as sorting out the tangles a traveller can become snared in while he is actually travelling. This close association with the customer demands that the public can trust wholeheartedly their agent.

The Bill envisages that most of those who are operating as travel agents will qualify for registration and continue in the industry. But the future of the quality of the industry will depend upon the goodwill of those who co-ordinate and represent the industry as much as it will upon the effects of this Bill. It is comforting therefore to note that AFTA has taken the bit between the teeth and seeks to upgrade the quality of agents. Despite its limited funds, AFTA is trying to inject the travel agency business with a little more expertise. Through an associate body called the Institute of Travel, it has arranged courses at Sydney Technical College and the William Angliss Food School in Melbourne for would-be travel agents, covering subjects like law and the traveller, health, geography and accounting. It is also strengthening its ties with its international parent, the Universal Federation of Travel Agents Association, for several hundred young people already in the Australian travel industry to take a 3-months correspondence course covering the whole complex structure of international travel. This education program will assist the agent in fulfilling his duty required under Part VI of the Bill, which mainly is to ‘exercise due care, skill or diligence in acting for a client’. Failure to do so could lead to the Board cancelling his licence.

The States have ignored or refused to take up their responsibility in the travel field until recently. Under pressure the States have stirred a little, although they wished to see the Australian Government provide legislation. New South Wales introduced legislation to control travel agents as an interim measure until the Bill before the House becomes law. The travel agents themselves have pressed for State legislation too as an interim measure, but the desire of all State Ministers for Tourism and the tourist industry is for national legislation operating at national level. The Australian Federation of Travel Agents favours a Federal government system of licensing travel agents, because its officials fear that anomalies in legislation by the separate States could create loopholes enabling unethical agents to continue to operate. The industry is unhappy with the legislation as set up by New South Wales to license travel agents and to control the travel industry. New South Wales has done this by controlling the right of individuals and, through licensing, the right of companies to call themselves travel agents. Although the Act has some good points such as the issuing of licences and the maintenance of an official register under a 3-man board, there is little financial redress to the aggrieved traveller.

The greatest flaw in New South Wales policies is the lack of provision for payments from a proposed fidelity fund until a conviction is secured against a defaulting or defrauding travel agent. Most travel agents deny responsibility for the tours they organise, even where a traveller is stranded overseas or accommodation is not up to the standard promised in writing. We might ask: ‘Why should they?’ They do not have the financial resources to withstand a claim for compensation. There is currently no provision for holding deposits in trust accounts, for fidelity funds or forms of inspection of accounting for them. Even with such provisions, no one would receive any compensation until a conviction had been secured. Even so, successful prosecution and recompense would not compensate the traveller for disruptions to his holiday arrangements and opportunities forgone as a result.

It would seem that the misrepresentation would not be easy to prove. In dismissing a damages action brought against an agent by an Australian last year an English High Court judge said that only a child or an unsophisticated person took travel brochures literally. He said:

It is very rare that the sea and sky are as blue as they are made out to be, that the flowers are so brilliant or the women are so beautiful.

The principle of caveat emptor is forced on the buyer by such disclaimers as that contained in Cook’s South Pacific tour brochures, which state that as agent the company shall not be liable for any injury, damage, loss, accident, delay, or irregularity which may be occasioned either by reason of any defect in any vehicle or through the acts or defaults of any company or person engaged in conveying the passenger or in carrying out any of the arrangements of the tour. With that sort of blanket indemnity against themselves one can imagine that disappointed travellers and passengers have very little recourse to compensation. Their image of travel agents has been badly damaged by a series of incidents for which many disclaim any responsibility.

No travel agent could be expected to claim responsibility for principal carriers who suddenly terminate sea cruises because of the lack of bunkering oil, for the collapse of a coach tour operator such as Centralia or for any cut price operator who goes broke or scales down his promised service. In the mind of the public, once again why should they? Do they not have a direct conflict of interest? While claiming to be satisfying the traveller they often hold formal agreements to act on behalf of certain shipping and airline companies and charter and package tour operators. Is it any wonder that disappointed or critical travellers see travel agents as holiday brokers who represent travel companies and are interested only in their commission?

Those comments lead me to remark on Part XI of this Bill, which is another important area and relates solely to the establishment and maintenance of the travel agents fidelity fund. The purpose of the fund is to compensate travellers for financial losses suffered because of the activities of travel agents. The fund, which will be administered by the Board, is seen as the ultimate protection that can be afforded the interests of agents’ clients. The resources of the fund will initially be raised by using deposits contributed by licensed travel agents. It is important to draw a line between where the carrier is responsible for default and where the agent is responsible for the default. This has been recognised and only certain types of financial losses will be eligible for compensation from the fidelity fund. The various categories are covered in clause 91. For each category the loss sustained must be related to failure on the part of an agent properly to discharge his obligations to a client. Compensation will not be payable unless it can be shown that a travel agent actually failed in his obligations under the proposed Act and that the licence of a travel agent was subsequently suspended, revoked, cancelled or expired and not reviewed.

Protection for the traveller is quite detailed in this Bill. But travel agents are entitled to ask what this Bill will do for them. Certainly their rights to operate are protected in that in Part IX they are allowed the right of appeal to a tribunal should their application to the registrar be not approved, but what redress do they have against travel operators who are not agents? Certainly genuine and fair travel agents will benefit due to the increased business that will come their way with the falling out of the shady operator. The effectiveness of the screening out of the sideline operator can be seen when it is realised that under the New South Wales legislation, which requires registration, many people who were formerly travel agents as a sideline to their regular businesses have decided not to seek licences because of the strict requirements under the State Act.

However, despite these great advantages travel agents still complain that they must be accredited by the main air, sea and road carriers. This means the lodging of substantial deposits and the achieving of minimum turnover targets which cannot be reached except by longstanding or large travel agent businesses. They claim that this Bill, by demanding scrutiny leading to registration and licensing, should be sufficient for them to act on behalf of the carriers. I agree with this and I am sure that the Minister does also, but this Bill does not provide for that situation. It is imperative therefore that the Trade Practices Act actively copes with the situation and that all agents are free to act as agents on behalf of the carriers without backing arrangements. I ask the Minister to discuss this matter with the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) and to advise the travel industry accordingly so that each travel agent and the industry collectively knows just where they stand and that any restrictions within the industry are essentially demonstrated to be in the public interest.

It should be realised that the travel agent is the meat in the sandwich. He serves 2 masters- the carrier from whom he is rewarded by a commission and the customer to whom he provides service and from whom he obtains the business. Bonding essentially protects the interest of carriers and not travellers. This Bill is designed to protect the traveller. However it should be recognised that this Bill does indirectly protect the carrier by only registering acceptable travel agents and bonding should therefore become unnecessary. The question of fixed price arrangements remains. Mr Russell of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents in a letter in the Australian Financial Review on 25 February this year said:

The prices that principals (in this case the airlines) choose to agree upon or decide upon for their products to be sold through travel agencies was completely beyond the control of their membership.

The AFTA is concerned that the advertising of discounted fares by travel agents was a breach of Australian law. This warning was issued by the Department of Civil Aviation. This is difficult to rationalise in view of the IATA interpretation.

Since that date the quandary in which the travel industry finds itself has increased following the ruling by the Trade Practices Commission that it was anti-competitive for the industry body, that is AFTA, to impose a code of ethics and to recommend charges relating to deposits on tours, bookings and other administrative work. On the other hand the Department of Transport argues that regulations are required for the public benefit to control air fares and that the advertising of discounts on air fares is against the spirit of fare regulation. The Trade Practices Act applies to private regulatory groups but not to government controlled restrictions imposed in the public interest and the Travel Agents Bill could well resolve the confusion when the Board imposes its regulations.

I have no comments on the Travel Agents (Deposits and Levies) Bill other than to say that the Bill is necessary to ensure the validity of the deposits and levies provisions of the Travel Agents Bill with regard to the fidelity fund, otherwise any contribution sought from licensed travel agents could be regarded as a tax within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution. Tourism is being expanded under this Government. Two measures, for example, taken towards the end of last year indicate how this is being done. The first was the expansion of the Australian Tourist Commission to promote and encourage travel within Australia as well as visits by overseas people. Secondly the Commonwealth Development Bank may now lend to promote tourism. Australians are turning to cheaper overseas holidays. Short holidays overseas increased in 1973 by 23 per cent and foreigners visiting us increased by 10 per cent. This will mean a greater emphasis on the travel agent. The Committee for Economic Development of Australia in its report released on 30 December 1974 said that there have been unethical operators in the industry whose practices have been aided by naive customers.

This Bill, to regulate the operations of travel agents, could not come earlier. Successive Federal Ministers for Tourism- going back to Senator Reg Wright in March of 197 1 -have claimed they were planning, studying, drafting or on the verge of implementing legislation to control the travel industry. And yet here we are 4te years later with the legislation just before us. It is no wonder that AFTA’s Vice President, Mr Case Muskens, severely criticised the delays and said:

There must be a registration and bonding scheme and the sooner the better.

I believe this legislation will result in greater protection for the travel customer and a higher degree of professionalism in the travel industry. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– 1 have much pleasure in supporting the Travel Agents Bill and the Travel Agents (Deposits and Levies) Bill which will do a good service and which, to my mind, are overdue. Travel is big business and there have been notable abuses in the travel agency business. I refer- and the Government would know this very well- to the string of Morosi companies which took deposits from customers and in some cases failed to settle up with the hotels where they had obligations to honour the travel vouchers. This is something which the Government knows very well and which its experience with the Morosi companies may well have put into its mind. I shall not go into the details of this matter; I think it is water under the bridge. If the Government wishes me to do so I shall be happy to table the papers. But at this present moment I shall just make the statement in regard to them.

One thing which is not realised is that corruption in this business is not related simply to the fraudulent taking of deposits. One of the main corruptions in this business has been the improper use of International Air Transport Association concessions for travel. This is something which should be corrected by these Bills. I shall be hoping to move, in the course of the Committee stage, an amendment to clause 38. 1 shall be hoping to add to clause 38 of the Travel Agents Bill this sub-clause:

A licensed travel agent shall keep a register showing details of all concessional or free fares granted to his employees or their dependants on his application or in consequence of employment by him, and such register shall be open to inspection by persons authorised by the Board.

I think this is necessary in order to close off an avenue of corruption which has been endemic in the travel agency business. What has been happening is that people have been fraudulently putting forward the names of people as their employees. They find somebody in a position of influence and they put that man or his wife forward as a phoney employee of the company. They might be getting only a couple of dollars a year, but the next thing that happens is that because that person then becomes an employee, free and concessional rates for travel overseas can be claimed for him. These free and concessional rates are sometimes worth tens of thousands of dollars.

There is one case in this respect which I shall now bring to the attention of this Parliament. It affects a former member of this Parliament. It is a case for which I shall give details and which honourable members should keep in mind. There was a member of the present Government, who was then in Opposition, who was intimately connected with these semi-fraudulent Morosi companies. He was involved with a company known as Ethiopian Airlines with which Miss Morosi was connected. That member- he was not then a Minister; he was still in opposition; this occurred prior to 1972- arranged for his wife to be one of the phoney employees and as such she and her husband, who was a member of this Parliament, got concessions worth many thousands of dollars. Whether that was legal I do not know. Whether it was for or against the law I do not know. But in point of moral fact it was a fraud. This man’s wife put her husband- he being a member of this Parliament- forward as her dependent and got concessions for travel abroad. I have some details of that here. I think I might instance a case where on 23 March -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise to take a point of order. Does the honourable member continue to stand, or should he not resume his seat when a point of order is raised?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat. The honourable member for Burke will make his point of order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– My point of order is that the honourable member is coming very close to breaching the Standing Orders, if he has not done so already, by speaking about either present or former members of this Parliament and other people without proposing a substantive motion. The matter that is before the House at the moment is the Travel Agents Bill. I believe that what the honourable member is trying to raise is in contravention of the Standing Orders because the honourable member has not sought to move a substantive motion on the matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I take the view that up to now- and I have been watching this matter very closely- the remarks of the honourable member have been within the ambit of the second reading speech of the Minister. The honourable member is dealing with consumer interests, the set-up of companies and, although I hesitate to use his phrase, doubtful areas which can be involved within this industry. To this point the honourable member has not offended in relation to the point of order taken by the honourable member for Burke. I will watch his remarks carefully.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am looking particularly in the relevance of the amendment that I will move, in these terms:

A licensed travel agent shall keep a register showing details of all concessional or free fares granted to his employees or their dependents on his application or in consequence of employment by him; such register shall be open to inspection by persons authorised by the Board.

I wish to show that this amendment is necessary because of the corruption that has taken place in the past. Let me refer to a specific case. On 23 March 1972 the Pan American Airways organisation issued to this man’s wife, as a phoney employee, and to him as a dependant of his wife, 2 round tickets worth thousands of dollars for Sydney-Honolulu-Los Angeles-New YorkLondon/LondonNew York-Lagos-New York-Los Angeles/Los Angeles-Honolulu-Sydney. I am told, although I cannot prove it in this case, that Qantas issued other tickets on the same LATA consideration and that many free tickets were issued by Qantas, although I cannot give details of them.

Subsequently- and I am referring now to 1974, a later date- this man’s wife obtained Pan-Am tickets for Sydney-Honolulu-Los Angeles-London-New York/New York-Los Angeles-Sydney for herself as a phoney employee and for him as a dependant. This was, I think, outrageous because at that time the man concerned was a Minister of this Government and favours were done by him for that woman whom I mentioned earlier. He did these things, that I know of, for her. He arranged for her employment, when he became a Minister, at a very high salary in the Public Service in a place of great influence. He had been as a private member receiving these improper favours from her. He was still receiving them as a Minister. Incredible though it may be, he was still receiving them as a Minister. I have referred to the favours, first on 23 March 1972 and second on 7 March 1974. I have been quite specific as to dates and as to facts. As to the favours that he did for her, he appointed her a marriage celebrant. He appointed her husband, for some quite inexplicable reason, as a member of the Films Board of Review. He wrote a letter to, I think, the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) asking for special concessions for her in regard to a flat in Canberra. These are the matters that are on the record and can be proved. But there are numbers of things which are believed to be true and which should be investigated- which will be investigated when we become the government and get access to the files- and which should be proved. All sorts of funny business about immigration permits are said to be in the pipeline, but of course the Government has the files. We cannot prove these, but the things that I have mentioned can be proved.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! I think the honourable member would satisfy the Standing Orders better if he were to tie his argument more to the substance of the Bill instead of going too far into these matters.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will tie this exactly to the substance of the Bill. I am tying it to the amendment which I propose to move to clause 38. You will notice, Mr Deputy Speaker, the long title of the Bill includes the words ‘Relating to the Licensing of Travel Agents’. I am going to move an amendment to clause 38 which is specifically within the ambit of the long title and which refers particularly to the matter that I am now discussing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Might I suggest that you tie your argument to the long title and leave debate on the amendment until we reach the Committee stage.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– If you want that done, I will. I will not pursue the matter further if I can get an assurance from the Government that I will not be gagged in the Committee stage. Have I that assurance?

Mr Cope:

– How can we give you an assurance?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Mr Minister, have I that assurance?

Mr Stewart:

– No, I cannot give you that assurance.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– If I cannot get that assurance I will have to take it up at this point. I have in my hand a photostat of the actual tickets which were issued by Pan American World Airways Inc. in what was perhaps not a legally fraudulent but a morally fraudulent manner to this man’s wife and to him as a dependant of his wife. They are tickets verified by Ethiopian Airlines.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Whose name is on them?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-The names on them are Mrs Murphy and Senator Murphy.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Not the Justice?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am not speaking about anything that happened after he was appointed to the High Court because that would be improper. I talk of what was happening before he was appointed to the High Court- when he was a senator and a senior Minister in this Government. I will say that at that time he was taking improper financial favours from Miss Morosi and that is -

Mr Stewart:

– I raise a point of order. I think I have been more than reasonable in allowing this tirade to go on. If the matter which the honourable member is now talking about had any connection with this legislation I would not object, but he is using the legislation as a subterfuge in order to defame people outside the Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– If I may, I would just make a few remarks at this stage. The Chair is in a difficult position over this because there is not an attack, as I see it, on a sitting member. If anyone has any points of order they would seek to make I would like to listen to them, but in the meantime as long as the honourable member does make an attempt to tie his remarks to the regulatory side of this Bill it is very difficult to rule him out of order.

Mr Stewart:

– On the point of order, what you have said is the point that I take, that is, the honourable member should relate his remarks to the Bills. While he was talking about a list of discounts offered by travel agents then I believed this to be all right, but at the moment he is giving an example or a supposed example in which he is naming people. I doubt very much whether the documents he says he has are authentic.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think the Minister had better keep to one point of order at a time. If you let me judge this I will try to look after your interests.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Speaking partly to the point of order, I have the documents here. They are authentic and I am happy to table them. Would the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) like me to table them?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Stewart:

– There is no objection.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-They are tabled.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Incorporate them.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-They are difficult to incorporate in Hansard because they are photostats and it would be very difficult to incorporate all the details on them in Hansard. They are tabled and are authentic. Here they are. They bear out exactly what I said. Free tickets worth some thousands of dollars, many thousands of dollars, were issued to this man’s wife and to him as a dependant of his wife. It was a fraudulent employment. The tickets were first issued to him when he was a private member of the then Opposition and then when he was a senior Minister in this Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I want the honourable member to tie his remarks to the Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I tie them exactly to the Bill and I tie them in in this way. The debate on this Bill enables me to propose a certain amendment. The amendment relates, as I stated, to clause 38. If the Government had given me an assurance that I could speak to clause 381 would have been delighted to postpone my remarks but since the Government refuses to give me that assurance I have, perforce, to make my remarks here. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a practising member of this House will realise the position in which I am placed. If I had got the assurance of the Minister for Tourism and Recreation that I could speak to the clause I would have been happy to sit down. But since I have not got the Minister’s assurance I think the facts have to be brought out now because this Government is riddled with corruption from top to bottom and always has been and that is of the utmost relevance.

Motion ( by Mr Cope) put:

That the honourable member for Mackellar be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 55

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The House has just been treated to the sort of scatological contribution for which the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) is quite infamous. The honourable member’s favourite words are ‘corruption’, ‘fraud’, ‘dishonest’ and ‘lies’. He uses these words by way of sneer and innuendo. None of them is based on fact. The honourable member supplies no evidence or substance. He just stands up and makes bald statements. He seeks to denigrate people’s characters without any evidence at all. This is the sort of thing for which the honourable member has become infamous in this House. It seems that Opposition members support him because they voted in favour of his continuing with his diatribe. It is unfortunate that the level of debate in this House should have sunk to such a degree. Also it is unfortunate that the honourable member did not give us the benefit of his knowledge of the Travel Agents Bill instead of trying to take away the good character of some very honourable people in this country.

The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that travel agents are to a very large extent controlled. As I understand it, the ability to legislate for such control has always rested with the States. In most instances the States have neglected to do very much about it, and again it has been left to the Australian Labor Party Government to come to the rescue of this country. One must ask: Why is it necessary to register travel agents? Why is it necessary to set up a board to exercise some sort of control over these people? It is pretty obvious that the Bill is not aimed at removing dishonest travel agents. Of course, they will be taken care of by the provisions of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the very many honest and reputable travel agents in the community are supported by legislation in their endeavours and are protected from the fly-by-nights, the cutthroats and those who are liable to act in a dishonest way.

We have all heard the stories and we know that they are true. People who have been stranded in Australia have come to my office to tell me about it. Some were people who came from Britain. They had been encouraged to come here and had made their bookings through travel agents in that country. Their passages had been booked with rather dubious airlines and these people were stranded because the airlines that carried them here could not honour their obligations to take them home. I am not sure of the position in relation to the registering of travel agents in Britain. We have a responsibility to our citizens. More and more Australians are taking advantage of the extra leisure time available to them to travel overseas to broaden their knowledge, to experience conditions in other countries in order to come back better informed. In order to do so they need to use the services of travel agents. As I understand the statistics, most travellers are making their first voyage overseas. There are very few people in Australia who are able to make the necessary arrangements to travel overseas by air or by sea, to arrange accommodation and transport in those countries, and to do the myriad of things that we take for granted in our own nation because we are familiar with them- the myriad of things that must be done in order to move from one place to another. Therefore they rely on travel agents.

What is required to set oneself up as a travel agent? Only the ability to pay the rental for a shop, to have the front window of the shop painted out. To me and to the Government that seems to be a rather unsatisfactory way of going about it. The travel agent places himself in a position whereby people accept him at face value. A friend of mine was going to Malta not so very long ago. He booked his passage through a travel agency in Melbourne and the agency did not do the right thing by him. Fortunately my friend is a very resourceful person and he was able to resolve the situation. But if he had not been so resourceful he could well have forfeited the money he had paid to the travel agent to take him to Malta and bring him back again. The honourable member for Scullin, Dr Jenkins, told me at lunch time today about a travel agent in Australia- I have been told this by other people although I have not experienced it myself- making double bookings of accommodation and double bookings of transport. Australian citizens travelling abroad whose passage and accommodation have been booked by travel agents in Australia sometimes find themselves unable to get on the aircraft because the seats have been taken by somebody who made a prior booking. Some have been unable to sleep in hotel rooms because those rooms have been occupied by other people. They have been left in very dire and difficult circumstances in countries as far as 12 000 miles away. Quite often the travellers were left in a country where the language was not familiar to or spoken by the traveller, in a country where the habits and practices were unfamiliar to the traveller. So some very heart rending moments are caused to some people by travel agents not behaving in a responsible manner. I just want to make it clear time and time and over and over again- (Quorum formed). I am very pleased that the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) was so entranced by the pearls of wisdom dropping from my lips that he thought I should have an audience to hear me.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not say anything. I did not call for the quorum.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Burke gets on with his speech.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-If I am not interrupted, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall continue. The need for travel agents to be registered and for there to be a board to enforce that registration is obvious, I think, to all members of the House. Of course the reputable travel agents will not care; it is the disreputable agents who will worry. The reputable agents will expect to be made accountable for the giving of misinformation or any other malpractice that causes a traveller to suffer. As I understand the speech of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) on 16 October, apart from minor amendments that will be moved by the Government and some inconsequential amendments that will be moved by the Opposition, the Bill in fact has no opposition in this House. The Opposition is quite happy to allow this measure to go through in its amended form. The Opposition is aware of the proposed amendments. According to the honourable member for McPherson on 16 October, that is the case. Such being the case I think there is little need for me to pursue the matter any further or to convince the House of the wisdom of this measure. I think it is well known to it. In order to conserve time I leave the matter there and commend the measure to the House.

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar)-Mr Deputy Speaker, having been misrepresented I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes. The honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) who just sat down said that I had spoken by innuendo and without adequate proof. Nothing could be further from the truth. The actual tickets or photostat copies of them have been laid on the table of the House and they are there as absolute proof. The favours that were given, Sir, are matters of public record.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Griffith.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1 (Short title).

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Clause 1 states:

This Act may be cited as the Travel Agents Act 1 975.

I regret very much that the Government Whip saw fit to terminate the second reading debate by gagging the whole business. More than any other person in this Parliament, I am responsible through my early agitation, for a Bill such as this coming before the Parliament. It was at the beginning of 1972 that I brought to this chamber the very sad news that many Australians were suffering as a result of the activities of Travel House of Australia. The speeches I made in April and March of 1 972 are recorded in Hansard and recall those very tragic times when Australians were stranded both here and abroad because of the activities of a number of dubious people who were the directors of this company, Travel House of Australia.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The clause before the Committee, clause 1, states:

This Act may be cited as the Travel Agents Act 1 975.

I submit that the matter being put before the Committee by the honourable member for Griffith is not relevant to that clause, and I ask that you rule accordingly.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-I cannot uphold the point of order. The honourable member so far has related his activity to the title of the Bill, and provided he does not stray from that there is no substance to the point of order.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. You are becoming more highly regarded every day on both sides of the chamber for your fairness and wisdom. For the sake of the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) I am trying to put the case why the Act should be called the Travel Agents Act 1975. That is a most appropriate name. I recall that in 1972 the chairman of the travel company to which I have referred challenged me to make outside the House accusations I had made in the House. It was around that time that he was saying that he would give the public more details of his company’s activities if I would repeat the charges outside the House so that he could sue me and thus recoup the losses which he would incur as a result of making available to the public matters confidential to the company. Fortunately I was given the protection of this chamber and the Minister for Tourism at that time commenced the task of bringing to the Parliament a Bill now entitled the Travel Agents Bill.

I truly commend the present Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) for the way in which he has obviously sought out the views not only of the various State governments but also of the travel industry. It is remarkable that we have at least one Minister in the present Government who has had the foresight and the brains to seek out the views of others. The fact that we on the Opposition side are simply proposing amendments in the Committee stage indicates that, when Ministers of the government are prepared to seek co-operation and the views of others, they have a far greater chance of success than those who simply bulldoze their way along the path. I trust that the Minister will take into consideration the various amendments that the Opposition will move during the Committee stage. There are a number of weaknesses in the Bill that was presented and read for a first time in this Parliament on 6 March. I know that amendments are now proposed by both sides. We must have healthy discussion and, furthermore, after this legislation has been operative for some time the Parliament should be prepared to bring it back, to see where the weaknesses exist and amend it accordingly.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

– Although I have been prevented by the Government from speaking during the second reading debate on the Travel Agents Bill 1975, 1 wish to address some general remarks to Part 1. Firstly, I compliment the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) on the initiation of this legislation and in particular the manner in which he has gone out of his way to consider both -

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-Order! I remind the honourable member that we are dealing with clause 1 and not Part 1.

Mr CONNOLLY:

– Yes, clause 1 of Part 1. The Minister has gone out of his way to discuss with the industry and with members on both sides of this House the various aspects of this legislation with the object of getting the best possible legislation on the statute books. Nevertheless, in the course of the debate in the Committee stage I will be making various suggestions in relation to the tightening up of certain clauses of the Bill because we are dealing with an industry which can best be called a growth industry in every sense of the term. At least 1500 agencies are known to exist in Australia. As has been pointed out already so eloquently by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), the history of certain persons and companies which were in this industry have certainly not been to the overall benefit of their clients or to the Australian travel industry at large.

Australia has one of the highest rates of overseas travel per capita in the entire Western world. This is to be expected. Many young Australians regard it as part of their normal activity to travel overseas, particularly to Europe, to see from where their parents, their grandparents or their ancestors originally came. That tendency must be encouraged. Nevertheless it is also very important that young Australians in particular should be given every opportunity to see more of their own country. I am afraid that this is an area in which incentive is lacking at present because the costs of domestic travel are going so high that it is becoming more and more difficult for the average Australian on a decent average income to be able to take his family for a reasonable distance around Australia. This has resulted unfortunately in a tendency for so many of the Australian people to conclude that the nation begins in Adelaide and ends in Brisbane and that there is not very much on the other side.

We have a huge continent. If we are to break away from the syndrome of developing only in our major city areas and around the eastern coastal fringe it is essential that more Australians be given every opportunity to travel to the west in particular and to northern Australia, the Northern Territory and northern Queensland. At present the opportunities do not exist. Put in quite simple mathematical terms, it is cheaper now to take a family for a visit to Noumea than it is to go to northern Queensland. Whilst that type of situation is allowed to persist- I might add that it has been created by the incredible inflationary pressures which are being brought to bear upon this nation in the last few years as a result of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy- it will be very difficult indeed for any government to overcome this fundamental problem unless we can get this country’s economy once again on a reasonable level.

Another problem which we are facing in terms of international travel is that the International Air Transport Association regulations are being bent, to put it quite mildly, by many companies in a deliberate attempt to overcome international agreements and to grasp a larger section of the market. Unfortunately there are people in high places within Australia, as has been pointed out so aptly by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), who are also prepared to bend the regulations to achieve their own ends. This has resulted in many not needing to buy overseas travel tickets but being given tickets for services rendered.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I should like to speak briefly to this clause only because, by reason of the gagging of the debate, I did not get a chance to speak during the second reading debate. The tourist industry is vital to the Northern Territory and is especially so now since various actions of the Government have brought to their knees the 2 major industries in the Northern Territory, the mining industry and the pastoral industry. So, we are clinging to the tourist industry. Although the Bill is commendable in many ways it shows a great interest of the Government in taking control of the whole industry. We see in this Bill, as we have seen in so many Bills coming through this House since this Government has been in office, clauses stating that the Minister shall do this and the Minister shall do that, stating virtually that the Government is taking control. The Government took control of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to the detriment of the national park and wildlife sanctuaries and areas in the Northern Territory.

The same thing happened with the Bill concerning the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. The Government did virtually the same as it is intending to do with this Bill. As a result six or seven ministries were involved in the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, and it was a failure and a farce. The same thing happened in the Racial Discrimination Bill where the Minister and the Commissioner had overpowering and tremendous powers. In this Bill the Government is giving private enterprise little or no chance to develop with its knowledge and its ability in business in this area. Only last week the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill came into the House. Throughout that whole Bill there are references to the Minister.

Mr Cope:

– I take a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-Order! I was just about to comment to the honourable member for the Northern Territory that he had spent a great deal of time in his introductory remarks. I suggest that he apply himself to clause 1 of the Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I agree with what the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) have been saying about the necessity to foster travel within the confines of Australia itself. Travel, so far as Australia is concerned, should be a 2-way affair. Naturally we want visitors to come to Australia and naturally Australians want to go abroad, but the foundation of the travel industry should be in Australia. I suppose that, with the exception of the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), I would know the north of Australia better than any person in this House.

Mr Stewart:

– Can I give you a free ticket? You can go back there.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I understand the Minister ‘s motives. I feel, in all seriousness, that we should be paying more attention to the development of travel facilities in Australia. I am not saying for one moment that Australians should not go abroad, but what we should do is balance up our travel so that the amount spent by Australians overseas will be counterbalanced by the amount spent by people from overseas coming to Australia.

We have tremendous advantages here, advantages of space and distance. There are things in Australia which are very much worth seeing for the world traveller. I agree entirely with the point of view put forward by the honourable member for Bradfield and the honourable member for the Northern Territory. I listened with interest to what the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) was saying about the origins of this Bill. I know the tremendous interest which he personally has been showing in this area. It is true that in 1972 before the change of government he was active in promoting the idea which has been taken up belatedly by the Government in this Bill. I think credit should be given to him for that. But I do not believe that this idea would have been coming forward had it not been that the Government knew very well the kind of fraud and corruption that was instanced in the chain of Morosi companies and which this Bill seems designed to overcome. At least the Government has learnt from its intimate association with these matters what should be done. For that some thanks should be given to the Government and perhaps even to the Morosi companies. The bad example may at least have been sufficient to spur the Government on to do what the honourable member for Griffith suggested in 1972 and which comes to fruition now in 1975. In general, of course this Bill should be supported.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I should like to . speak briefly to clause 1 of the Travel Agents Bill 1975. 1 am very pleased indeed that this Bill has at last reached the debating stage. It has been on the program on many occasions, only to be deleted for what was apparently thought by the Government to be more important legislation. The travel agent industry in this country is a big industry with some 1500 travel agents. It is worth $400m to the nation, so it is very important. As a member representing in this Parliament a huge country electorate I know that there are many travel agents throughout the Paterson electorate who make a contribution to the industry. They are pleased that this Bill has been brought forward. They are pleased in the main with the clauses of the Bill. I hope that the Bill will pass through this House and become law because it will protect both the travel agents and the clients of the travel agents. As the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) said, we have had instances of clients going overseas and being stranded destitute there because of the failure, financially, of the travel firm back home. This Bill will take care of that matter and will be a protection for both the travel agents in this industry and those using the services of those agents.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I shall be very brief. There is only one aspect that I should like to stress in regard to the Travel Agents Bill, and that is my hope that it does not become so sophisticated and its requirements do not become so complicated as to make it very difficult for travel agents in the remote areas of the country to handle because they cannot employ large staffs and so on. I say this, keeping in mind that all surveys made overseas- I think that Qantas Airways Ltd and other such organisations could confirm this- have indicated that the major Australian attractions, particularly to visitors from the United States, are the Great Barrier Reef and all it has to offer and the Centre. When I say the Centre I do not mean precisely Alice Springs and that particular area, but the inland generally. I suggest that when this Bill is implemented there be close dialogue and discussion with people who are on the spot, who understand and know where there are centres of tremendous attraction that are different from anything else offering in any other part of the world. I say again that surveys which have been carried out to gauge the interest of people indicate in an overwhelming manner that people are interested in the Great Barrier Reef with all its unique features and in what is offering in the inland, which is obviously unique.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3.

  1. 1 ) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears- ‘Australia’ includes a prescribed external Territory; ‘bank’ means a bank as defined by section S of the Banking Act 1959-1974;
Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I move:

Omit the definition of ‘bank’, substitute the following definition: ‘ “bank” means-

a bank as defined by section 5 of the Banking Act 1959-1974; or

a bank established by a State Act; ‘.

Most of the amendments that I shall move on behalf of the Government seek to improve the Bill either as a result of representations made by the industry itself, by State governments, by State banks or by members of the Opposition. Most of the amendments are machinery measures. This amendment concerns State banks which were overlooked. The amendment proposes to allow travel agents to maintain statutory accounts with either a bank as defined by the Banking Act or with a State bank.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– Clause 3 of the Bill deals with definitions or interpretations. Very many names are listed. But I note that there is no definition of ‘the Minister’. This problem has arisen before in other Bills before the House. I cite the Darwin Reconstruction Commission Bill. Opposition members were very strong in their protestations that there should be a definition of ‘the Minister’ in that Bill. In its lack of wisdom, the Government overruled our protests. In the ensuing shambles six or seven Ministers all entered into the activities of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. I am only trying to help the Government by raising this matter now because no definition of ‘the Minister’ is given. Might I suggest that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart), who is at the table, has been very able and sympathetic with regard to tourism and ‘the Minister’ in this clause should be defined as ‘the Minister for Tourism and Recreation’.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I wish to raise one matter really by way of question. I do not have a view on it at the moment. I agree with the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) that the amendment he has moved to clause 3 is an improvement. I would certainly want to support it. I am wondering whether we should not perhaps even enlarge it a little and say: ‘a bank approved by the Minister’. After all, this is a Bill which relates to tourism not only in Australia but also outside Australia. I am not quite clear whether what is proposed would be good or bad. I am simply asking the Minister whether he might consider- I am not pressing it- adding a further subclause to be called (c) which will provide ‘a bank approved from time to time by the Minister’. I ask him in that respect: What would he like to do?

Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

I think honourable members will find that banks are defined in the Banking Act. Both the previous Government and this Government have restricted the use of the word bank’. Travel agents will be entitled to operate through all banks which are in operation in Australia at the moment. State banks were not covered in the Banking Act but, as a result of this amendment, they will now be covered in this legislation. All banks now operating in Australia will be so covered providing that their franchise allows them to carry this sort of business. They will be entitled to operate under this legislation if they so qualify. If any new banks are recognised in the future, I feel that they would be covered by the Banking Act.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Perhaps I have not explained my view to the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart). I was asking particularly about overseas banks which are operating in Australia, for example, the Comptoir National d’Escompte de Paris. Would that bank be included in this Bill? After all, we are dealing with tourists who are coming from overseas. We are trying to induce them to come to Australia. I do not have a fixed view about this. I am asking the Minister whether such overseas banks which have branches in Sydney or Melbourne, for example, would come under this definition and, if not, whether they should.

Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– Yes. If such banks are covered by the Banking Act and are allowed to participate in trading bank and savings bank activities they would be. If they were operating in Australia for other reasons, they would not be.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4.

  1. Where a person is not engaged, in the course of carrying on business, in any activity of a kind referred to in paragraph (1 ) (a) other than-

    1. arranging for the provision of, or providing, the carriage of persons in vehicles of which he is the owner; or
    2. arranging for the provision of, or providing, the carriage of persons as set out in paragraph (a) and, in addition, arranging for the provision of, or providing, in association with their being so carried, accommodation or meals, or accommodation and meals, either with or without any rights to travel services or any services included in a prescribed class of services, for persons who are being so carried, the person does not carry on business as a travel agent for the purposes of this Act.
  2. For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be the owner of a vehicle if he has contracted to purchase the vehicle or is hiring the vehicle under an agreement known as a hire purchase agreement, but shall be deemed not to be the owner of a vehicle hired by him that he is otherwise hiring or chartering from another person.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-Might I suggest that it would serve the convenience of the Committee if the 2 amendments circulated by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation to clause 4 numbers (2) and (3) on the circulated list were moved together. As there is no objection, I will permit that course to be followed.

Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– I move:

These amendments to clause (4) are intended to extend the application of the concept of ownership mentioned in subclause (2) (a) to the provisions of meals and accommodation as set out in subclause (2) (b). The amendments will restrict meals and accommodation referred to in clause 4 (2) (b) to meals and accommodation provided by the operator at premises he owns. This is to safeguard the operators who are only carriers and are not providing meals as well.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5.

  1. This Act extends to-

    1. a body corporate that is incorporated for a public purpose by an Act, by regulations made under an Act, by a law of a Territory or by a law of a State; and
    2. a company or other body that is incorporated under the law of a State or Territory and is a body corporate in which Australia or a State has a controlling interest, being a body corporate, company or other body that is carrying on business as a travel agent in connexion with the carriage of persons for reward on prescribed journeys.
The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Committee for the 2 Opposition amendments to be moved together.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

In sub-clause (4) (a), omit ‘, by a law of a Territory or by a law of a State’, substitute ‘or by a law of a Territory’.

In sub-clause (4) (b), omit ‘or a State’.

These amendments are designed to exclude the authorities of a State from the application of the Act. It seems to us that there is no need for this Act to include the question of the law of a State. So the 2 amendments are designed to omit the words ‘by a law of a State’ in sub-clause 4 (a) and the words ‘or a State’ in sub-clause 4 (b). I would like the Minister for Tourism and Recreation to explain to me, if he does not accept these amendments, why he sees the need for the words which we suggest should be omitted to stand part of the Bill.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I do not disagree. I think that State-owned, government-owned and operated tourist bureaus should be exempted. Action will be taken to exempt them under the regulations. Those not constituted under State Acts are probably outside the scope of the legislation in any case, but we will look at this when we are casting the regulations.

The CHAIRMAN:

-I take it the Minister is not accepting the amendments.

Mr STEWART:

– No.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6.

For the purposes of this Act, there shall be a Registrar of Travel Agents.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I move:

In Clause 6, add the following sub-clause: ‘(2) The Registrar shall be a person employed under, or whose services are made available in accordance with arrangements made under, the Public Service Act 1922-1975.’.

This is a machinery measure to clarify the terms of employment of the Registrar of Travel Agents to be employed under the Public Service Act.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Opposition accepts the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8.

  1. 1 ) The Board shall consist of 3 members, namely:

    1. a chairman;
    2. a deputy chairman; and
    3. 1 other member.
  2. A person shall not be appointed as the chairman unless he is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory and has been so enrolled for not less than 5 years.
  3. A person is not eligible to be appointed as the deputy chairman unless he is an officer of the Department of Tourism and Recreation.
  4. A person is not eligible to be appointed as the member referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) (c) unless he has knowledge of, and experience concerning, the business of travel agents”
  5. The chairman and the member referred to in paragraph (1) (c) shall each be appointed by the Minister and shall each, subject to this Part, hold office for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as the Minister specifies in his instrument of appointment, but are eligble for reappointment.
  6. A person who has attained the age of .65 years shall not be appointed or re-appointed as a member, and a person shall not be appointed or re-appointed as a member for a period that extends beyond the date on which he will attain the age of 65 years.
  7. The deputy chairman shall be appointed by the Minister and hold office during his pleasure.
Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following: ‘8. (1) The Board shall consist of 3 part-time members, namely:

  1. a chairman;
  2. a deputy chairman; and
  3. 1 other member. ‘(2) The chairman and the member referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) (c) shall each be appointed by the Minister. ‘(3) The Minister may appoint a person to be a deputy member of the Board, or persons, not exceeding 1 in number, to be deputy members of the Board, in relation to the member referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) (c). ‘(4) A person is not eligible to be appointed as the chairman unless he is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory and has been so enrolled for not less than 5 years. ‘(5) A person is not eligible to be appointed as the deputy chairman unless he is an officer of the Department of Tourism and Recreation. ‘(6) A person is not eligible to be appointed as the member referred to in paragraph ( 1) (c) or as a deputy member unless he has a knowledge of, and experience concerning, the business of travel agents. ‘(7) The chairman, the member referred to in paragraph (1) (c) and a deputy member each holds office, subject to this Part, for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as the Minister specifies in the instrument of his appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment. ‘(8) A person who has attained the age of 65 years shall not be appointed or re-appointed as a member or deputy member, and a person shall not be appointed or reappointed as a member or deputy member for a period that extends beyond the date on which he will attain the age of 65 years. ‘(9) The deputy chairman shall be appointed by the Minister and holds office during his pleasure. ‘.

This amendment provides for the appointment of up to 7 representatives of travel agents as deputy members of the Travel Agents Regulation Board. The practical effect of the amendment is to enable any one of the deputy members to attend a meeting of the Board when the principal member representing the travel agents is absent. Instead of people having to attend all the meetings of the Board, if the principal member is away he may nominate one of the 7 deputy members so that the Board can then hear the case whether it is being heard in Perth, Kalgoorlie, Brisbane or anywhere else.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This amendment no doubt effects an improvement to the original Bill which was presented to the Parliament last March, but I question the wisdom of having a 3-man Board with a chairman who has to be a legal practitioner of the High Court or another Federal court, supreme court, etc., a deputy chairman and just one other person. I do not believe that the travel industry will get sufficient representation on the Board that the Government proposes to set up under this legislation. I am not in a position to move any amendment to the suggestion made by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) but I would appreciate some explanation, firstly, for why the Board is to be such a small body, and, secondly, why the Government is insisting that the Chairman must be a legal practitioner of the High Court, etc. To my mind this will not be the type of job that necessarily requires a person to have a legal background. To my mind this area need not be so restrictive as the Minister suggests it should be in this Bill.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I support the remarks of my colleague the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) about the 3-man board. I wonder where free enterprise is to get in on this business. After all tourism to a large extent is a free enterprise business and it would be hoping to get financial support from the Government. We see by clause 8(5) that this legal identity referred to earlier, the chairman, and the board shall be appointed by the Minister. Further we find that the deputy chairman shall be appointed by the Minister. So three members out of three are to be appointed by the Minister. I think that this smacks of socialising the entire industry. What is more, this will not work. The organisation set up under the Bill relating to national parks and wildlife is falling apart in one of the main areas of Australia because of this very reason. The Government has too large a finger in that pie. There are to be 7 deputies- this is an improvement but not much- so that there can be one from each State as the Board moves around but who is to appoint them? Are these to be ministerial appointments also? I take it that they are. I warn the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) that although the intentions behind this Bill are good there is no earthly hope that it will work if all three Board members are to be appointed by the Minister.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

– I wish to add my voice to the very real complaint which has just been made by my friend the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and my colleague the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). In relation to clause 8 (4) the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) pointed out in one of his amendments that he proposed to have 7 deputy members. Unlike the rest of the text, however, he has not gone into detail to explain to the Committee precisely on what basis the 7 members are to be appointed. I would hope, and I know that the Australian Federation of Travel Agents would join me, since its members are, after all, the travel industry, that it would be in a position to have some say as to who are to represent it on the board.

I trunk it is also worth pointing out to the Committee that a board of a mere 3 people is most uncharacteristic of the size of the boards, commissions of inquiry, etc., which have been the hallmark of this present administration for some 3 years. Perhaps the Minister for Tourism and Recreation could advise us why he believes the industry which is extremely diverse and has something like 1500 registered agencies, should be in a position where it is unable to co-ordinate except through a miniscule organisation, a board of a mere 3 people. I also wish to point out, and I emphasise this, that Australia is a huge country and every State has its unique difficulties in most fields, and certainly tourism is one of them. I would have thought that if a board of this type were to be truly effective there would be considerable advantage to have on it a professional member of the industry representing each of the States. I agree with the Minister that if these people cannot attend, there is a case for deputy members to take their places. But I have considerable doubts as to whether or not a committee of three, all of whom as the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) has pointed out are to be elected by the Government, is in any sense fair to the industry itself. The Minister should not want to surround himself unduly with sycophants. Surely the Minister should have a cross-fertilisation of ideas from all sections of the industry. Consequently I seriously question for the benefit of the Minister whether such a small board, and on the basis which he proposes to appoint it, would be an adequate supervising body for the industry.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Before the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) rises to answer some points that have have been raised I would like to leave with him the thought that the travel industry is the most competitive industry in the world. A Bill has been introduced to shut out shysters but it should not have the effect of putting so many ties upon those honest people who are in the industry that their jobs become -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! We are dealing with clause 8.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Yes, I will come to that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The clause is concerned with the composition of the Board. The honourable member is rather straying away from this subject matter.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I can understand that you are finding my argument difficult to follow, but the point I am making is that the Board should be enlarged. A few short years ago the board of Qantas Airways Ltd was made up of Sir Roland Wilson, a retired banking official who was at that time, I think, the Chairman; Captain Ritchie- and I am not casting aspersions on these people- and a group of other people many of whom had public service type backgrounds. Many of these people were hopeless when it came to understanding the competitiveness of the airline industry. Qantas went backwards until such time as substantial changes were made to the board and the company reviewed its policies and introduced charter flights, package tours and so on. It was only then that the company turned the corner and came back up again.

The legislation proposes the appointment of members of the board, two of whom are to be people with legal backgrounds, although I confess that the amendment also proposes that they have some knowledge of the travel industry. The deputy chairman will also be appointed by the Minister. We will be lucky if any of the appointees has any working understanding of the travel business. If they do not understand the business they will be over-restrictive on the promotional activities of the travel agents throughout Australia. This was not my intention when I fought to have this legislation introduced back in 1972. My intention was simply to stop shysters. I warn the Minister that we could well be overdoing it in the amendment now before us.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Opposition supports the amendment although the concern expressed by the Opposition is real enough and the Minister well knows that this was one matter which the travel agents themselves were very concerned about. The Minister has spoken to them on a number of occasions about it, as have Senator Rae and myself. Sub-clause 8 (6) of the amendment states:

A person is not eligible to be appointed as the member referred to in paragraph (1) (c) or as a deputy member unless he has a knowledge of, and experience concerning, the business of travel agents.

To help the Committee would the Minister be prepared to indicate with regard to this subclause whether he will see that, firstly, the States are represented and, secondly, that the industry is widely represented?

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I had a really good look at this clause before I decided to amend it. I thought that we had covered most of the complaints that had been made to us in the amendments that I have moved. I now have some doubt that the legislation may be too restrictive. The reason the Board is to be a 3-member board is that only in the initial stages will it be sitting regularly. In the initial stages the members will be travelling to all States and perhaps to various parts of the States. Do we want 10 representatives running around for 15 months and then sitting there, not being used again?

It is proposed that the chairman will have a legal background because the Board is likely to be used afterwards for hearing appeals and so forth. The deputy chairman is proposed to be an officer of the Department of Tourism and Recreation because the general administration of the Board will be carried out by that Department. There is to be one other member. I take the point that has been made: I am prepared to trust myself to do the right thing. But would I be prepared to trust some other member- for instance, a member of the Opposition or an honourable member from the Government side? Perhaps something could be said there. I will make no promises. The matter will need to be looked at. The third member should specifically be, as the amendment suggests, a person with a knowledge of and experience concerning the business of travel agents. It is my intention to write to the Australian National Travel Association asking it to submit a couple of names from each State because I want to cut down on the amount of travel involved. If there were deputy members in each State, a replacement, who would be a representative of the travel industry, would be available if needed.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-I would like to comment on the remarks made by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr

Stewart). I can see a slight inconsistency in the proposal to have 3 members, one of whom will be a lawyer, another will be a member of the Public Service and the third is defined in a somewhat amorphous manner as being someone with experience of the industry. From what the Minister just said I cannot help but conclude that the only person who will be transferable will be the third person, because there is no provision for the term ‘deputy members’ to replace the chairman, a lawyer, or to the second person, who will be a public servant. If it applies to only one person I question seriously whether the exercise is worth while. I think it would be much better to have a broader based board with one representative from each State, on the board or any other wider formula. I do not believe that a board of 3 would work.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9.

  1. a member of the Board, other than the deputy chairman, shall be paid such allowances as prescribed.
  2. This section has effect to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974.
Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– I move:

Omit sub-clause (2), substitute the following sub-clauses: ( 1a) a deputy member of the Board shall be paid, in respect of his attendance at a meeting of the Board, such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but if no determination by that Tribunal is in operation, he shall be paid such remuneration as is prescribed.

a member (other than the deputy chairman) and a deputy member of the Board shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed.’.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clauses 1 1 to 15 by leave taken together.

Clause 1 1.

The Minister may remove a member other than the deputy chairman from office for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.

Clause 12. a member may resign his office by writing under his hand delivered to the Minister.

Clause 13.

  1. 1 ) If a member other than the deputy chairman-

    1. becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors or compounds with his creditors or makes an assignment of his remuneration for their benefit;
    2. is absent, except on leave granted by the Minister, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Board; or
    3. fails to comply with his obligations under sub-section (2), the Minister shall terminate the appointment of the member.
  2. a member who is directly or indirectly interested in-

    1. an application for registration under Pan IV;
    2. any matter concerning a registered travel agent manager;
    3. a licence granted or proposed to be granted under Part IV, otherwise than as a member of, and in common with the other members of, an incorporated company which consists of not less than 25 persons and of which he is not a director, shall, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Board.
  3. a disclosure under sub-section (2) shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board, and the member-

    1. shall not take part after the disclosure in any deliberation or decision of the Board in relation to the application, licence or matter; and
    2. shall be disregarded for the purposes of constituting a quorum of the Board for any such deliberation or decision.

Clause 15 (Meetings).

Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– I move:

  1. In clause 11, omit ‘a member other than the deputy chairman’, substitute ‘a member (other than the deputy chairman) or a deputy member of the Board ‘.
  2. In clause 12, after’member’ insert ‘, or a deputy member of the Board,’.
  3. In clause 13, sub-clause (2), omit ‘not less’, substitute more’.

In clause 13, after sub-clause (2) insert the following subclauses: (2a) If a deputy member of the Board-

  1. becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors or compounds with his creditors or makes an assignment of his remuneration for their benefit; or
  2. fails to comply with his obligations under sub-section (2b), the Minister shall terminate the appointment of the deputy member. (2b) a deputy member of the Board who is present at a meeting of the Board at which there is under consideration by the Board-
  3. an application for registration under Part IV;
  4. any matter concerning a registered travel agent manager; or
  5. a licence granted or proposed to be granted under Part IV, being an application, matter or licence in which he is directly or indirectly interested, otherwise than as a member of, and in common with the other members of, an incorporated company that consists of more than 25 persons and of which he is not a director, shall, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest to the Board.’.

In clause 13, sub-clause (3), omit ‘a disclosure under subsection (2 ) shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board, and the member’, substitute ‘a disclosure under sub-section (2) or (2b) shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board and the member or deputy member of the Board ‘.

In clause15, after sub-clause (8) add the following subclauses: (9)Where-

  1. the member referred to in paragraph 8(l)(c) has notified the chairman or the deputy chairman that he expects to be unable to attend a meeting of the Board; or
  2. the office of the member so referred to is vacant on a day on which a meeting of the Board is held, the chairman or deputy chairman who was so notified or convened the meeting, as the case may be, shall, unless it is impracticable to do so, cause a deputy member of the Board to be notified of the date, time and place fixed for holding the meeting and to be invited to attend the meeting.

    1. 10) A deputy member of the Board who has been invited to do so under sub-section (9) may attend a meeting of the Board at which the member referred to in paragraph 8 (1) (c) is absent or that is held during a vacancy in the office of that member, and, if he does so, he has all the powers of that member at the meeting and shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be that member. ‘.
Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Clause 1 1 as it now stands concerns me greatly in that it states:

The Minister may remove a member other than the deputy chairman from office for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.

The point that causes me concern is the inclusion of the word ‘misbehaviour’. If a Minister is given that power to remove somebody for misbehaviour it becomes a case of what he regards as misbehaviour. There is absolutely no appeal for that person. If there were a Minister who never touched liquor, for instance, who observed a member of the Board drinking alcohol he might say: ‘That man is misbehaving. Therefore, out the door he goes’. I am not suggesting that the present Minister is likely to exercise that right. I ask the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) and the shadow Minister at the table, the honourable member for McPherson, Mr Eric Robinson, to take on board the suggestion that we move for the deletion of ‘misbehaviour’ or alternatively define it far better than at present because that is a very dangerous word to put in an Act and could lead to almost anything.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-I also have some confusions regarding clause 1 1 (2). I take it that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation would confirm that the reason he has formulated clause 11 in this way is that if the Deputy Chairman is to be a public servant under the Public Service Act the Minister has no power of dismissal. But presumably if the Deputy Chairman did conduct himself in a manner not befitting his position or because of some physical or mental incapacity, he could be removed by the Secretary of the Department.

Mr Stewart:

– I refer the honourable member to clause 8 (7).

Mr CONNOLLY:

-I thank the Minister. I also refer to the earlier point made by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) that there does not appear to be any basis for appeal under clause 13. Perhaps the Minister could explain that. I am particularly concerned about clause 13(2) which appears to be somewhat inconsistent with what was earlier said in relation to clause 8. If the third member of this Board is to be someone who is experienced in the travel agency business there is surely every reason to presume that unless he is a retired person, which he cannot be because if he is over 65 years of age he cannot serve, the only people who will be properly qualified to serve on this Board would be practising travel agents. But according to subclause (2) such people are definitely removed from their capacity to sit on this Board. Perhaps the Minister could elucidate that point to the Committee.

Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– The word ‘misbehaviour’ is generally the wording used in other Acts. It is a normal standard provision. Clause 13 ( 1 ) (b) deals with a member of the Board being absent on 3 consecutive meetings except on leave granted by the Minister. That is a provision in other Acts. For instance, if one of the members of the Reserve Bank Board is to be absent from one meeting the Minister has to give him permission to be absent from that meeting. If someone from this Board is absent from 3 meetings without leave granted by the Minister it is an indication that he is not serving the Board or representing the industry. So I feel that that provision is not unwarranted at all. I believe that it is found in other Acts.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-The Minister still has not commented on sub-clause (2) of clause 13, which is in its own way even more important than the other 2 sub-clauses in that it is basically inconsistent with the provisions of clause 8.

Mr STEWART:
Lang Minister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– If the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) reads on he will see that sub-clause (2) states: otherwise than as a member of, and in common with the other members of, an incorporated company which consists of not less than 25 persons and of which he is not a director, shall, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Board.

This again is a general provision that before a member of the Board can participate in discussions he has to disclose his interests. A new appointee to the Reserve Bank Board, before taking up his appointment, wanted that exact position clarified.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 19 by leave taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 20.

  1. Sub-sections ( 1 ) and (2) do not apply in relation to the business of a travel agent carried on, with the approval of the Board, at premises otherwise than under the immediate control of a registered travel agent manager.
Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– I move:

Omit sub-clause (3), substitute the following sub-clause:

) Sub-section ( 1 ) and (2) do not apply in relation to the business of a travel agent carried on at premises otherwise than under the immediate control of a registered travel agent manager-

if the business is so carried on with the approval of the Board; or

if the business is so carried on in prescribed circumstances and the prescribed conditions (if any) applicable in respect of those circumstances are complied with.’

The purpose of this amendment is to enable regulations to be made to cover special circumstances under which a licensed travel agency may be conducted other than under the immediate control of a registered travel agent manager, for example, during short absences of that registered travel agent manager.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 2 1 to 24 by leave taken together.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I ask the Minister a question in relation to clause 2 1 , which states:

A natural person who has attained the age of 2 1 years may make application to the Board as prescribed for registration as a travel agent manager.

Has any thought been given to reducing that age to 1 8 years?

Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– Thought was given to reducing the age. The Bill provides that before a person may become a travel agent manager he must have had 12 months experience in the business. These days most young people do not leave school until they are 1 7 or 1 8 years of age. They need 12 months experience in the business before they can apply for registration as a travel agent manager, and it was felt that the extra couple of years was necessary to give them the necessary experience. They will be handling other persons’ funds and trust accounts. I have to be careful that I do not discourage our young people between 18 and 21 years of age, but it was thought that for the sake of safety the age should be 21 years.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25.

  1. ) An application under sub-section ( 1 )-

    1. shall state the name under which the applicant proposes to carry on business as a travel agent;
    2. shall specify-
    1. if the applicant proposes to carry on business as a travel agent at 2 or more premises the address of the principal premises, and of the branch or each of the branches, at which the applicant proposes so to carry on business as a travel agent; or
    2. in any other case the address of the premises at which the applicant proposes to carry on business as a travel agent;
  2. An application under this section by a partnership shall specify the name of the partner who is to be the holder of the licence on behalf of the partnership.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

-Is it appropriate that the 2 circulated Opposition amendments be considered together? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

In sub-clause (2), after paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph: (ba) shall set out, or be accompanied by a document setting out, particulars of the premises or of each of the premises, as the case may be, at which the applicant proposes to carry on business as a travel agent, being particulars furnished with a view to satisfying the Board that the premises, or each of the premises, are suitable premises in which to carry on the business of a travel agent;’

After sub-clause (4) add the following sub-clause:

An applicant for the grant of a licence or licences shall, at least 7 days before furnishing his application to the Registrar in accordance with this section, cause a notice of his intention to make the application containing the prescribed particulars of the application to be published in a newspaper or in newspapers, as prescribed. ‘.

The clause sets out the requirements when people are making applications for a licence. It is the view of a number of people in the industry and of the Opposition that the Government ought to consider setting out in some manner the particulars of the premises or of each of the premises, as the case may be, at which the applicant proposes to carry on business as a travel agent, being particulars furnished with a view to satisfying the Board that the premises, or each of the premises, are suitable premises in which to carry on the business of a travel agent. I would like the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) to respond as to whether he would see a requirement for this sort of approach in the Bill.

The second amendment requires that an applicant for the grant of a licence or licences shall, at least 7 days before furnishing his application to the registrar in accordance with this section, cause a notice of his intention to make an application containing the prescribed particulars of application to be published in a newspaper or in newspapers as prescribed. We feel that these would both be desirable amendments which would ensure greater standards in the Bill as regards the requirements to obtain a licence as a travel agent. I would like the Minister for Tourism and Recreation and the Government to give consideration to their inclusion.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– With regard to subclause (2), the standards for licensed premises have been put to us by the industry. The national body for the industry, the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, specifies the standard of premises which it requires before a travel agent is allowed to join the Federation. We hope that when this legislation comes into operation people will be starting out in business on their own. If they are to be successful travel agents perhaps they will be very quick to join AFTA. We feel that there is no need for government to enter this preserve and to say: ‘You shall have premises of such and such a size or of such and such a standard’. We still want the travel industry to operate with a measure of freedom. We do not want to tie it right down. If prospective travel agents are to be registered by government and to be approved by their federation, 2 bodies will be looking at them to see whether they are the right type of person. I believe it can be taken for granted that once they have faced 2 scrutinies they will make certain that their premises are up to standard because from the date of operation of this measure they will be liable to pay compensation if they are not efficient operators; and efficient operators would normally have reasonable premises.

With regard to the second proposed amendment, it has been the experience of government for a long time that public notices are rarely read. I think this could be demonstrated if I were to duct a quiz here- I do not want hands up- by asking how long it is since any of us have read a public notice. We again want to cut out the expenditure and the troubles which applicants for a licence might have to face.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-I have a small question seeking elucidation. For perfectly natural reasons the Minister for Tourism and

Recreation (Mr Stewart) has had considerable discussions with the Australian Federation of Travel Agents. Can the Minister explain to us whether travel agents who are not members of AFTA are to be required to abide by AFTA conditions in relation to accommodation and so forth?

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I would not expect them to be so required, but to become registered travel agents or travel agency managers they will need to be a particular type of person. I feel that we can run the risk for a little time to see whether those people who become registered travel agents have premises of a desired standard or whether it will be necessary to amend the Act. I think we will find that most people who get a travel agent’s registration will automatically join the Australian Federation of Travel Agents.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26.

  1. 1 ) Subject to this section, where application is made to the Board under section 25, the Board shall grant the application if the applicant satisfies the Board that the financial resources of the applicant are sufficient to enable the applicant to carry on business as a travel agent efficiently at the premises specified in the application in accordance with paragraph 25 (2) (b) and also satisfies the Board-

    1. if the applicant is a natural person- that the applicant is a person of business integrity;
    2. if the applicant is a company-
    1. that each director of the company is a person of business integrity;
    2. that the company has, apart from this Act, the legal capacity to carry on business as a travel agent; and
    3. that the company is entitled to carry on business in the State or Territory, or in each State or Territory, in which it proposes to carry on business as a travel agent; or

    4. if the applicant is a partnership-
    1. in respect of each member of the partnership (if any) who is a natural person- that he is a person of business integrity; and
    2. in respect of each member of the partnership (if any) that is a company-that the requirements of paragraph (b) are fulfilled in respect of the company.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

This amendment follows from the previous amendment. The same argument as was used previously would apply here.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 27 and 28- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 29.

  1. Sub-section 25 (5) applies in relation to the signature of an application under this section in like manner as it applies in relation to the signature of an application under section 25.
Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I move:

Omit sub-clause (3).

Sub-clause 29 (3) is redundant since sub-clause 25 (5) referred to no longer applies. Sub-clause 25 (5) was redrafted as sub-clause 24 (2). This is only a machinery measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 33- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 34.

  1. 1 ) The Registrar may, within 14 days after an application is furnished to him, object to the granting of the application on any ground on which the Board is entitled to refuse to grant the application.
Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause ( 1 ) omit ‘ 1 4 ‘, insert ‘28’.

This amendment allows the Registrar more time in which he may lodge an objection to the application made to the Board.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-I have some concern about clause 34 and in particular about the fact that there is no provision for the purchasing public to be in any sense involved in putting before the Board evidence as to whether a person or organisation is suitable to be permitted to establish an agency. Perhaps the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) has given some thought to this but I think he should consider the Trade Practices Act. There is an interesting comparison here. A provision of the Trade Practices Act could well be utilised in this piece of legislation. For example in parts of the Trade Practices Act there are certain omissions. For example in clause 34 of this Bill objections may be lodged by the Registrar against the granting of an application by the Board as outlined in clause 33. However, the Bill does not allow other persons or organisations to object to the establishment of an agency. On the other hand the Trade Practices Act makes provision for the submission from applicants and from other persons other than the applicant to be considered by the Trade Practices Commission when deciding whether or not to issue an authorisation. This is relevant to section 90 of the Trade Practices Act. Perhaps the Minister could consider that. I think it is not unfair for an industry such as the travel agents industry which is totally dependent on the market place to be in a position where the market place is able to make a judgment of the industry’s efficiency and capacity.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I will have this reviewed, but the answer I would give at the moment is that sub-clause 123 (a) already provides for the making of regulations in this respect for public notification. The sub-clause reads: making provision with respect to the advertising of applications for licences and .applications for registration as travel agent managers;

If that does not quite cover the objection of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) I will have the matter looked at but at the moment I would not accept his argument.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 35 and 36- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 36a.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

After clause 36 insert the following new clause in Fart IV: ‘36a. ( 1) An applicant, within the meaning of Division 2 of this Part, may, in such manner and within such time as are prescribed, appeal to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory from a decision of the Board to refuse to grant an application made by him under that Division. ‘(2) The Registrar shall be respondent in the appeal. ‘(3) The Supreme Court of each State is invested with federal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Court of each Territory, to hear and determine appeals under this section. ‘(4) Where an applicant appeals to a Supreme Court under this section, the Court shall hear and determine the appeal and may make such order as it thinks appropriate by reason of its decision, including an order directing the Board to grant the application. ‘(5) Where a Supreme Court makes an order directing the Board to grant an application, the Board shall give effect to the direction.’.

The Opposition is concerned about the matter of appeals. Clause 36 limits the right of an appeal. Our amendment gives the Supreme Court of a State or Territory the right to hear an appeal and makes the Registrar the respondent. If the Supreme Court makes an order the Board would have to give effect to that direction. The question of how far one goes on appeals is a difficult one.

We believe that the Bill, in its present form, falls short of the requirement of fairness in this area. I should like the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) to respond as to whether he can accept the amendment or whether he at least accepts that there ought to be some administrative body set up to hear appeals so that we can have a greater degree of objectivity and fairness concerning them.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I take up the point made by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson), but my advice is that the Board’s discretionary powers are difficult to translate into judicial criteria. The Board’s actions are subject to review by the tribunal established in accordance with regulations to be made under Part IX. If my information is correct, perhaps the appeal is not necessary but I shall have the matter looked at. I will not accept the amendment at the moment.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clause 38.

  1. 1 ) A licensed travel agent shall-

    1. keep such accounting records as correctly record and explain the transactions and financial position of the agent with respect to the business of the agent as a travel agent;
    2. so keep accounting records as to show particulars of all moneys received and all payments made by the agent from day to day in the course of carrying on that business;
    3. so keep accounting records as to enable profit and loss accounts and balance-sheets referred to in section 43 to be prepared; and
    4. so keep accounting records as to enable those accounts and balance-sheets to be conveniently and properly audited in accordance with this Act.
Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move:

I have moved this amendment because there is quite considerable corruption going on in the granting of free and concessional fares. No doubt that has resulted in the maintenance of high fares, and the public has had to pay for it. The matter is rather more important than that, because that corruption has at times extended into this Parliament. It has affected members of the present Government including a former Minister. I have tabled specific evidence which supports what I am saying. I have tabled copies of tickets issued by Pan American World Airways showing that a former senator received these concessions as a dependant of his wife who was getting what I can only describe as phoney employment when he was a private member of the Opposition. He also received these improper concessions when he was a Minister- the Attorney-General in point of fact- in this present Government. This is corruption going right to the top. That Minister gave to Miss Morosi, who was the vehicle for these concessions, considerable favours. For example, he gave employment to her; for no earthly reason he appointed her husband as a member of the Films Board of Review; he appointed her as a marriage celebrant; and he wrote a letter to the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) asking for favours for her in regard to a flat.

I believe that in both respects we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. I am reliably informed that the tickets copies of which I have laid on the table of the House are only a small fraction of the tickets that were improperly issued to this private senator, to this Minister. If the full records, particularly the records from Qantas Airways Ltd, were to become available, very many more thousands of dollars worth of these improper favours would have been shown to be given -

Motion ( by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 61

NOES: 53

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 39.

Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– I move:

Add at the end of sub-clause (2) the following paragraph:

to a bank that is the holder of a licence. ‘.

This amendment provides for a bank which is a licensed travel agent to be exempted from the obligation imposed by clause 39 ( 1) to open and maintain a statutory account. The exemption is necessary because the complex nature of the accounting systems used by banks would make it difficult for them to comply with the provisions of clause 39. I might add that the Australian Bankers Association made representations on this matter and we agreed to its suggestions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40.

  1. 1 ) Subject to sub-section (3), a licensed travel agent shall cause to be paid into an account maintained at a bank in pursuance of sub-section 39(1) moneys received by the agent-

    1. a ) for or on account of-
    1. rights of carriage;
    2. rights of carriage and rights to travel services; or
    3. any service included in a class of services prescribed for the purposes of sub-section 4(1), to be provided for another person in accordance with arrangements made or to be made by the agent; or

    4. by way of a refund received by an agent in respect of a payment made out of such an account, on the day on which the moneys are received by the agent or on the next following day on which that bank is open for business.
Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause ( 1 ) after ‘agent’ insert ‘to whom section 39 applies’.

This amendment is consequential on the previous statement to clause 39.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 41 and 42 by leave taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 43.

  1. Where a licensed travel agent is carrying on business otherwise than as a travel agent under this Act in addition to carrying on business as such a travel agent, the agent shall, if so required by the Board by notice in writing served on the agent, lodge with the Registrar, as required by the notice, for consideration by the Board a profit and loss account and balance-sheet in respect of that other business for the financial year of the agent specified in the notice.
  2. A licensed travel agent shall not be taken to have complied with a notice given to the agent under sub-section (5) unless the profit and loss account and balance-sheet lodged by the agent with the Registrar have been audited by the auditor of the agent and the agent has also lodged with the Registrar a certificate, or copy of a certificate, by the auditor stating whether the auditor is satisfied that the profit and loss account and balance-sheet agree with the financial records of the agent and appear to him truly to represent the transactions and financial position of the agent in respect of the financial year and the businesses to which they relate and, if any of them appear to him to fail so to represent the transactions and financial position, also stating particulars of the failure.
Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– If it suits the convenience of the Committee I propose to move circulated amendments No. 18 and No. 19 together. I move:

Omit sub-clause (5), substitute the following sub-clause:

Where a licensed travel agent is carrying on business otherwise than as a travel agent under this Act in addition to carrying on business as such a travel agent-

it is sufficient compliance with sub-section ( 1 ) in relation to a financial year if, subject to sub-section (8), the agent lodges with the Registrar within a period of 4 months after the end of that financial year, for consideration by the Board-

a profit and loss account and a balance-sheet in respect of the business of the agent as a travel agent under this Act and the other business of the agent; and

a financial statement, in accordance with a form approved by the Board, in respect of the business of the agent as a travel agent under this Act; and

if the agent has not lodged a profit and loss account and balance-sheet referred to in paragraph (a) with the Registrar in respect of a financial year the Board may, by notice in writing served on the agent, require the agent to lodge with the Registrar, within a reasonable period specified in the notice, a profit and loss account and balance-sheet in respect of that other business carried on by the travel agent in that financial year.’.

Omit sub-clause ( 8 ), substitute the following sub-clause:

A licensed travel agent-

shall not be taken to have lodged a profit and loss account and balance-sheet with the Registrar for the purposes of paragraph (5) (a) or for the purpose of complying with a notice given to the agent under paragraph (5) (b) unless the profit and loss account and balance-sheet have been audited by the auditor of the agent and the agent has also lodged with the Registrar a certificate, or copy of a certificate, by the auditor stating whether the auditor is satisfied that the profit and loss account and balance-sheet agree with the financial records of the agent and appear to the auditor truly to represent the financial position and transactions of the agent in respect of the financial year and businesses to which they relate and, if any of them appear to fail so to represent the transactions and financial position, also stating particulars of the failure; and

shall not be taken to have lodged a financial statement for the purpose of sub-paragraph (5) (a) (ii) unless the statement has been audited by the auditor of the agent and the agent has also lodged with the Registrar a certificate by the auditor in relation to that financial statement of such a kind as would comply with sub-section 46 (3) if-

references in that sub-section to a profit and loss account and balance-sheet were references to that financial statement;

references in that sub-section to the accounting records of the agent were references to the accounting records of the agent that relate to the business of a travel agent carried on by the agent under this Act; and

references in that sub-section to the transactions and financial position of the agent were references to the transactions and financial position of the agent in relation to the business of a travel agent carried on by the agent under this Act.’.

The purpose of the amendments is to facilitate compliance with sub-clause (1) of clause 43 by licensed travel agents whose travel agency business is conducted, for example, as a department within a corporation.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 (Appointment of Auditor).

Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– I move:

After sub-clause (5) add the following sub-clause:

Where the accounts and records of financial transactions of a licensed travel agent are audited by the Auditor General of Australia or of a State, this section does not apply to or in relation to that travel agent’.

This amendment provides for recognition of the Australian AuditorGeneral and also recognition of a State AuditorGeneral.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 51 by leavetaken together, and agreed to.

Clause 52.

  1. Where a licensed travel agent, being a natural person, dies and the Board does not grant a permit authorising a person to carry on the business formerly carried on by that agent on behalf of the legal personal representative of that agent, that legal personal representative-

    1. shall, in respect of each financial year of the agent to which this paragraph applies by virtue of sub-section (5), lodge with the Registrar, within a period of 4 months after the day on which the agent died, for the consideration of the Board-
    1. a profit and loss account;
    2. a balance-sheet; and
    3. the certificate referred to in sub-section 46 (2) relating to that profit and loss account and balance-sheet, in respect of the business carried on by the agent during that financial year,

    4. shall give to the Registrar, as soon as practicable after the death of the agent, any notice under subsection39(4),(5)or(6)
    1. that the agent had been required to give, but had failed to give, to the Registrar before he died; or
    2. that the agent would, but for his death, have been required to give to the Registrar; and

    3. shall, as soon as practicable after the death of the agent, cause any moneys in the possession of the agent immediately before his death, being moneys that the agent would, but for his death, have been required to pay into an account maintained by the agent in pursuance of sub-section 39 ( 1 ) to be paid into such an account.

Penalty: $1,000.

  1. For the purpose of paragraph (3) (a), a financial year of a licensed travel agent who has died, being a financial year that ended on or before the day on which he died and in respect of which he has not lodged with the Registrar a profit and loss account, a balance-sheet and the certificate referred to in sub-section 46 (2) relating to that profit and loss account and balance-sheet is a financial year of the agent to which that paragraph applies.
Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– I seek leave of the Committee to move amendments numbers 21 and 22 together.

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
Mr Keith Johnson

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

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I move:

They are machinery amendments consequent upon the amendment to clause 43.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 53 to 55 by leave taken together and agreed to.

Clause 56.

  1. 1 ) The Registrar or any other person may complain to the Board, in writing, that a licensed travel agent, or a registered travel agent manager to whom section 54 applies, has failed to fulfil the duties of a travel agent under this Act.
  2. A complaint under sub-section ( 1 )-

    1. shall set out particulars of the failure; and
    2. if the complaint is by a person other than the Registrarshall be made to the Board by delivering it to the Registrar and depositing the prescribed amount with the Registrar.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

The amendment relates to complaints to the board about the conduct of a travel agent. The Registrar and other people can complain, and the Opposition is concerned that there ought to be a tightening of the arrangement under which a complaint can be made. We want any person complaining to the Registrar to include a statutory declaration of the person having personal knowledge of the facts specified in the complaint. Would the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) like to respond to this suggestion? We should bear in mind that although this is consumer protection legislation there are rights which have to be maintained for the travel agents. If there are to be complaints, it is reasonable that we should give sufficient protection to the agent to see that those complaints are real and can be verified.

Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– The request seems reasonable and we will consider it. Clause 57 (2) (a) says that if it is of the opinion that the complaint is vexatious or frivolous, the Board can reject the complaint after it has heard it. Perhaps it is necessary to include this provision. In most political parties some form of deposit had to be lodged if one is going to complain about a fellow member of that party. I think that if someone complains about a travel agent or a travel agent applicant, the complainant should be prepared to put in a statutory declaration.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keith Johnson)- Do you accept the amendment?

MrSTEWART-No.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-There are a few remarks I want to make about clause 56. It provides for the consideration of complaints against travel agents or travel agency managers.The board also may investigate an agent or a manager of its own volition. In subclause (2) (b) is the provision that if the complainant is someone other than the Registrar a prescribed amount’ has to be deposited with the Registrar. If the board rejects this complaint the amount of the deposit is said to be forfeited. I suggest that the Bill should ensure that travel agents do not have to bear the legal costs of defending a complaint later rejected by the Board.

The Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) has mentioned that there are certain provisions for this but I am not sure that they are really adequate. I would like to give an example. In New South Wales recently there was a complaint against a travel agency known as Harvey World Travel. The Travel Agents Registration

Board of New South Wales heard the case over several weeks. Although the case was won by Harvey World Travel that firm had to meet legal costs of over $2,000.

It seems iniquitous, to say the least, that such costs should be incurred regardless of the outcome of the inquiry undertaken by the Board. After all, the Bill is supposed to be concerned with consumer protection but I could well imagine, under certain circumstances, that there is also a need for the Bill to give reasonable protection to the agencies themselves. Furthermore, the Bill does not specify any use to which the deposits may be put. Perhaps the Minister for Tourism and Recreation could explain to us what he is going to do with the deposits from some 1 500-odd agencies. Presumably the Board could order that the deposit by used to defray costs of legal representation in cases where a complaint against a travel agency is dismissed. At least this would be some means by which we could protect agents against large legal fees accruing in cases where they are found to be innocent parties. Therefore the Bill could include a clause which would cover people under those circumstances.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I admit that I cannot give the answer to the honourable member’s question. We will look at it and if it is felt necessary make the amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 57 to 71- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 72.

  1. A person shall not, by writing or speech, use words calculated

    1. to influence improperly the Board or a witness before the Board in relation to an inquiry or proposed inquiry under this Act; or
    2. to bring the Board into disrepute in connexion with an inquiry or proposed inquiry under this Act.

Penalty: $500.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

At present sub-clause (2) (b) reads: to bring the Board into disrepute in connexion with an inquiry or proposed inquiry under this Act.

It is most important when an inquiry is being conducted that we have a real degree of reason and fairness. We question the need for these words. We are concerned that they might rule out reasonable criticism. This is a matter of significance to the Opposition. I understand that this principle has arisen in other legislation; it is one that we will press to the limit as much as we possibly can. I would like the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) to give some consideration to whether sub-clause (2)(b) is necessary or whether it unfairly restricts the right of people in an inquiry.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the amendment. I am told that the wording in the legislation is a standard provision which appears in much legislation of a similar nature. Having read through this clause again this afternoon I feel that having regard to events over the last two or three weeks perhaps a provision similar to clause 72 ought to be inserted into our Standing Orders. It provides that the ‘use of insulting language to the Board or a member of the Board’ is not allowable and that no one is allowed ‘to bring the Board into disrepute in connection with an inquiry or proposed inquiry under this Act’. Perhaps you, Mr Deputy Chairman, could submit that to the Standing Orders Committee.

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
Mr Keith Johnson

– The Minister can do that himself if he wishes.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 73 to 79-by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 80.

  1. The holder of a permit shall, within 7 days after the permit is revoked or expires, return the permit to the Registrar.

Penalty: $500.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I move:

This amendment removes the obligation on the holder of a permit to return the permit after it has expired. Once a permit has expired it is of no further use. On the other hand a revoked permit could be misused and its return would be essential.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 81 to 95- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 96 (Board to consider claims).

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

This clause refers to consideration of claims by the Board. The Opposition is concerned that, where we do have frivolous or vexatious claims and the Board decides not to make a payment, there ought to be some protection given to a travel agent or to a witness. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Board to direct the claimant in those circumstances to find expenses incurred by the travel agent in connection with the claim, the sum, of course, to be determined by the Board. Equally, a person who has appeared as a witness should be able to be reimbursed for expenses, fees and allowances. I would like the Minister to give the Government’s response to that proposal. Here again we seek reasonable protection for those who are involved in the business of a travel agent against some people who may misuse the consumer protection legislation which this Bill will enact.

Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– This clause relates to claims against the fidelity fund, not directly against travel agents. Compensation is not payable unless the licence has been revoked, suspended or surrendered or has expired and has not been renewed. I will take up the other points made by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) and see whether there is justification for any amendment to clause 96, but at the moment the Government does not accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Mr Connolly:

– I seek leave of the Committee to speak to clause 87I am sorry, I missed the call previously.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keith Johnson)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Clause 87.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

– I have no objection to the concept of a fidelity fund in principle. In fact it is a perfectly natural procedure which is adopted in many professional organisations today. Clause 87 provides in addition to that that levies may also be collected for other purposes relevant to this section where necessary. However, the Bill does not specify how these levies are to be imposed. I suggest to the Minister for Tourism and Recreation that as a means of avoiding an undue burden being placed on smaller agencies it would be preferable for this levy to be based on agency turnover. This is a very important point because there is a tremendous variation within the industry between those at the top and those at the bottom. I think it is quite unfair to apply an annual levy to all agencies irrespective of the size of their annual turnover. Certainly the smaller agencies within the industry would find some difficulty in meeting these provisions.

Mr STEWART:
LangMinister for Tourism and Recreation · ALP

– This matter has not yet been resolved. Discussions are taking place with the industry to try to achieve an equitable system of collection of the fund’s or the agent’s fee. It has been suggested that each location will draw a special fee, which will not depend on the size of the operation. So those people who are operating a number of travel agencies or offices will be paying so much per office. If necessary, if the fidelity fund is used we hope that it will not be used because this legislation will perhaps prevent itthe amount may be increased or reduced as the case may be. The matter is under consideration at the moment and will be covered by the regulations.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Adoption of Report

Motion ( by Mr Stewart ) proposed:

That the report be adopted.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will wait until I have put the question to the House. The question is that the report be adopted.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker, under the provisions of standing order 236 -

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Stewart)- by leave proposed:

The the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Wentworth:

– The Government is corrupt and it is covering up corruption.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member that if he speaks without the call I will deal with him.

Mr Wentworth:

– You are a corrupt gang.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have warned the honourable member. If he makes another remark such as that I will deal with him. The question is that the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2561

TRAVEL AGENTS (DEPOSITS AND LEVIES) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 March on motion by Mr Stewart:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith?

Mr Wentworth:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Chairman of Committees -

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker, I am not quite certain where we are.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has objected to the House proceeding to the third reading. The Bill must therefore go into Committee.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-This Bill is, of course, ancillary to the Travel Agents Bill which was just considered.

One of the dreadful things is that the Government in the debate on that Bill covered up what is undoubtedly corruption.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the question be now put.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keith Johnson)- The question is that the question be put. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary ‘no’.

Mr Wentworth:

– You are prepared to gag -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member will not speak while I am putting a question to the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion (by Mr Stewart) proposed:

That the report be adopted.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker, under the provisions of -

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is nothing before the House.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Stewart)- by leave proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-In regard to these Bills, the Government is endeavouring to cover up corruption.

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker, I rise -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not entitled to rise after the question has been carried that the question be now put, and I have put the question that the Bill be now read a third time. ( Quorum formed) .

page 2562

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 August 1975 on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-This Bill is one of the least exciting pieces of legislation that comes before the Parliament; nevertheless it is a very important one. The legislation which is before the House now began 5 years ago in June 1970. It began as a result of a deliberate series of actions undertaken by the Commonwealth Government at the Premiers Conference in June 1970, 2 features of which are touched upon in this Bill. The Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean), when introducing this Bill, had this to say:

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment of capital grants to the States in 1975-76 totalling $430,333,000. This amount represents the grant component of the State governments’ Loan Council programs for 1 975-76 and is equal to one-third of the total program-

The amount of money does not arouse much interest, but the circumstances under which this program was found necessary 5 years ago deserve to be recapitulated even if for only one or two minutes. Owing to the way in which the loan programs are organised between the Commonwealth and the States, and owing to the way in which the capital assistance of the loan programs is organised between the Commonwealth and the States, there have been quite wild and great fluctuations in the debt positions of the Commonwealth and the States from 1927 to the present time. The net result was that the Commonwealth was able to write off its debt and to get into an effective net surplus in the early 1960s while the States were getting into further debt. It was as a result of that position- it would have been interrupted by the war- that in June 1970 2 programs were set in action. One of them, the States grants capital assistance program, is dealt with specifically in this Bill and the other was a program to write off over a period of 5 years $ 1,000m of States’ debt, the Commonwealth taking responsibility and liability for that debt. That was the position.

We also know that during the late 1960s many a State Premier mounted his steed and made a very vigorous political case within his own domain as to the intolerable and insufferable burden of debt which the State was bearing and the impact of the debt upon its finances. During those years it became a reason and an excuse for States not to undertake certain works. It became a standard explanation by a State when it was being attacked by various Oppositions. All States did it, all State Premiers did it and all State Treasurers did it. Of course that was part of the political program. I refer in that context to the speech of the Acting Treasurer, the honourable Frank Crean. He said:

These grants represent a continuation of arrangements initiated in June 1970 under which the Australian Government provides a proportion of the State governments’ Loan Council program in the form of interest-free grants in lieu of what would otherwise be borrowings by the States. Savings to the States in debt charges resulting from these capital grants are substantial.

As that is now equivalent to well over $400m and represents a third of the total Loan Council borrowing programs, those savings are indeed very substantial.

That brings me to the first point which I should like to make in relation to this measure. This year it could be calculated that the savings to the States as a result of this measure are equivalent to approximately $80m worth of relief in debt charges. The question that has to be answered- it has never been answered up to the present- is the equity of the distribution of the relief in debt charges among the States. That will have to be dealt with as the amount of relief given under this program increases. Some States have always had proportionately a very large borrowing program from the Loan Council; others have not. The reason for that is simply the history of the matter. They have been tied, to parody another phrase, to the chariot wheels of history in terms of their Loan Council allocation programs. As the amount of relief and of debt assistance increases, so the allocation of the effect of those grants among the States deserves to be taken into account. At the moment that is not taken into account.

I produce evidence to indicate that the Grants Commission, a most expert body in this area, has rather sidestepped the problem and has relied, in its own words, on principles of broad judgments. The first point I want to make on that matter is simply that the program is welcomed. It was a reflection of what occurred during the 1960s. It gave real relief to the States but the comparative effect as between the States remains uncharted. I turn now to the amount of assistance being given under this program. In the speech of the then Acting Treasurer there is a misnomer and I believe we were misled. The Acting Treasurer, looking at the total Loan Council program which had been increased significantly above the previous year, had this to say:

The figure of 20 per cent represented the Australian Government’s best, albeit very approximate, estimate of possible cost increases in the capital works field in 1975-76.

In other words, the intention was to maintain the programs at roughly the same ‘real ‘ level as in the previous year.

That is unexceptional enough. If one looks at the rate of increase of inflation on fixed capital expenditure and public capital expenditure and at the real increases in inflation in the national accounts, one sees that that real rate of inflation over the year to June was of the order of 20 per cent. So what was done in this growing country, a country with increasing demands on public capital works programs which have to be kept up for us even to remain in the same position, was that an amount was made available under this total program only to keep pace with what would be the rate of inflation of public fixed capital expenditure. That means quite simply that there has been a real decrease in the funds available to States under this program. It should not be represented as meaning that the same amount of funds per capita, per person or per unit of work required is available. Less was available, given the increase in Australia during the actual year.

The program which is before us does not represent a matter of keeping pace; it represents the fact that we have slipped behind. This program, quite legitimately but nonetheless as a fact, is part of the austerity program which the Government is imposing on some sections of the Australian community. It deserves to be recognised as being a fact. The real rate of inflation is all that it keeps pace with, not with the rate of increase of demand given that the demand for works in Australia at the moment is still increasing.

If there is another criticism that deserves to be directed to this program- it needs to be a fairly muted criticism- it is simply that because of the domestically caused economic mess into which the country has been led the austerity is being put in terms of public fixed capital expenditure which ought not to have been necessary and which ought not to be required.

My first 2 points I believe are the most significant that need to be looked at in respect of this legislation. I adverted during my earlier remarks to the fact that the relief between the States and the relief among the States needs to be taken into account as the amount of capital assistance increases. I would suggest that this is an area into which the Government must turn its attention because the way in which that relief among the States is presently calculated is quite unsatisfactory. I turn to the Grants Commission report for 1974- the forty-first report- which deals with debt charges between the States. I refer in part to paragraphs 4.172 and 4.173. The first paragraph reads in part:

In the absence of such overall comparisons of effort in the recovery of debt charges, comparisons might be appropriate in particular fields where relative effort can be assessed. This raises the problem of how to compare the budgetary impact of the treatment of depreciation, replacement and the maintenance of the assets of State business undertakings. The Commission has been trying to find a satisfactory basis for assessing the impact of railway depreciation-

In the subsequent paragraph the Grants Commission said:

Where the reduction in loan expenditure is considered to relate to assets for which there would be a partial recovery of debt charges, the exclusion will be on a proportionate basis.

I believe the last sentence gives the clue to the situation. It reads:

However, the Commission will use broad judgment in deciding the extent to which the different policies and practices of the States have led to different levels of unrecouped debt charges.

Repeated in the Grants Commission report of 1975 is an acknowledgement of the same kind of difficulty in terms of the debt charge position as between States. I refer to paragraph 4. 1 68 which deals with a general description of the general approach on debt charges. It states:

The Australian Treasury, in its submission at the Canberra Hearings in April 1973, stated that it was unable to add to its previous submissions on this matter. The Commission has summarised and discussed these submissions in previous Reports.

Previously it indicated that it was going to continue to rely on the general judgments which have been made previously. I believe that we are coming to a time when the general judgment which the Commission has indicated, and which has involved a comparison of all the States, needs to be made more specific. It needs to be made more specific because of the amount of assistance which has been given under the program. As I indicated previously, the amount of assistance would be over $430m. With regard to the amount of relief of State debt which is appropriate to that assistance, one could make all kinds of calculations. It certainly would be in the vicinity of $70m, $80m or $90m. The break-up of that assistance among and between the Australian States remains an unchartered sea. I believe it ought to be referred to. There is good evidence for referring to it. It is one of the growing and very important areas of Australian Government finance. I refer to a very excellent and very short paper which was read at a meeting of the Fifth Conference of Economists at the University of Queensland in August this year. It was a very excellent paper by a Mr McCauley, an excellent gentleman whom I know. He makes it quite clear in his calculation as to the net debt position of the Commonwealth and the States that the data is quite imprecise and a lot more work needs to be done. I hope that the Treasurer (Mr Hayden), who is in the chamber, will take this on board and ask some of those people who gather round him and who are able to advise him to see what further work can be done to make the calculations more precise. The comments of Mr McCauley sum up the reasons why this matter is important, even though this is not a particularly interesting or exciting debate. To sum up the usefulness of public debt sector net debt statistics Mr McCauley gives 4 reasons. Firstly, they seem indispensable to an adequate understanding of the net outcome of the finances and the functions of the public sector. Secondly, they seem fundamental to an adequate knowledge about Federal-State financial relationships and to any basic or continuing adjustments to arrangements stemming from the 1927 Financial Agreement. Thirdly, they help to elucidate economic management and the implications for fiscal and monetary policies. Fourthly, they serve as a useful indicator of the annual improvement or the worsening in the finances of the various levels of public authorities. The difficulty of the task should not indicate that it deserves to be ignored.

In relation to that, I should like to make one further comment. There is evidence that while the public debt position of the Commonwealth has improved, and continues to improve, and while the position of the States has improved, the gap between the two over the last couple of years has increased significantly. In 1970 the gap between the two was over $ 1,300m. The gap between the two now is only $ 1 ,800m It is growing; everything is growing. But I wonder whether this gap deserves to grow in the way in which it is. I take solace in looking at the matter of CommonwealthState relations in this way- and bear in mind that they are the kinds of relationships that have bedevilled every government since Federation. Some need to bear more blame than others. Some have been more sympathetic than others.

I quote the words of Australia ‘s first Commonwealth Treasurer in his first Budget Speech. He was well aware of the difficulties involved in Commonwealth-State relations. He felt at the time that the States were hanging over him like the sword of Damocles. It is worth recording his statement and his sentiment. He said:

While we should spend all that is reasonably necessary for the purpose of defending and developing our country, we must see, at all events in the early stages of our career, that there is no extravagance, because the money we spend is money which comes from the States -

And this should please every States righter: . . . and if we do anything which may put them into a difficult position they will feel inclined to curse rather than to bless Federation.

I only wish him well and that he was not living three-quarters of a century later. There is one other point which I would like to bring forward, and I believe it can be brought forward. It is impossible to discuss the net debt position without looking at the total securities on issue and the total problems of the Commonwealth in terms of the difficulty it has financing its own loans. This country is getting into quite a unique position at present and one of which the people of the country deserve to be made aware. I turn to the document Government Securities on Issue which comes with the Budget Papers at the presentation of each Budget. This document indicates the Government securities on issue at 30 June of each year. If one looks to this document this year and compares it with similar documents in previous years, one comes to this quite inescapable position: Australia has itself, I believe, into a short term 2 year recycling monetary problem because at present there are more securities redeemable in Australian currency which come to maturity in the next 2 years than ever before in the history of this nation. More than $3 ,000m of securities will come to maturity within less than 20 months of this date. That represents approximately 28 per cent or 29 per cent of all the securities on issue. That situation immediately raises a number of problems.

The first problem is this: The Commonwealth has got itself into a short term monetary recycling problem. It is trying to finance long term programs, for which the securities are supposed to be the basis, with short term subscriptions. This has never occurred to that extent before. It was never a problem that worried the Scullin Government to the extent to which it now must worry this Government. In the second place, it means that, if the people of this country decided that they wanted to cash their securities, did not wish to convert them, and in fact suddenly wanted to invest them in commendable and worthwhile private enterprise projects, we would be faced with the worst position of all because this action would immediately add more than $3,000m worth of value to the money supply within Australia.

Without going into all these other terms used-I refer to ‘Ml’, ‘M2’ and ‘M3’, which always seems to me a bit like MI5- whichever one we talk about, this fact means that there is a great risk of a very great increase in the money supply if people decide not to convert their securities. In that sense the loan which is now before the Australian people I believe it may have closed yesterday and the loans which will be before the Australian people within the next number of month represent as big a problem here as did the famous loan which was negotiated during the height of the Depression and which involved the proposition whether repudiation would be a fact of Australian life. So there is a short term monetary recycling problem and the Government has got itself into a situation in which it needs to finance long term projects with short term finance, and that is never a good position for a government to be in. It certainly represents a clear, explicit and a very obvious threat to stability in the increase of money supply. I am not one of those who believe that changes in the money supply determines everything that goes on in the country. There are people who seem to think that the management of the economy can be organised through monetary arrangements rather like putting an automatic carburettor on the Reserve Bank and running away to let the automatic carburettor look after the rate of increase in the money supply. That is far too simple a proposition and rather a meaningless one; nevertheless the size of the problem and the growth of the size of the problem, as indicated by the securities on issue most of which have been issued on behalf of the States, cannot be ignored, I believe, and the Government, I hope, has this in mind.

So I make 3 propositions which could be looked at and which deserve to be looked at. The first is the nature of the debt assistance programs to the States and the way in which debt has been written off under these programs which come to finality this year. I believe that the Government ought to look at redeveloping a debt assistance program for subsequent years. The second point is that the growth in the difference between the Commonwealth and the State debt is increasing and while the States are not in the position that they were in in the late 1 960s in this respect it will continue to increase. I believe that the Government needs to take into account the differential effects as between States, the relief given to the States through capital grants assistance in terms of debt negotiation through the Loan Council on account of securities issued on behalf of the States. The third point follows upon the nature of the Commonwealth debt at the present time. Some way has to be found to persuade people to invest in long term securities rather than in short term securities; otherwise there is a threat to the money supply. This is running not a milk bar kind of economy, but an ersatz coffee kind of economy; that is, it looks strong, it appears strong but it has a hangover due to come on within 1 8 months to 2 years.

I put this proposition to the Treasurer (Mr Hayden): In order to persuade people to invest in longer term securities the Treasurer might consider the indexing of Commonwealth securities and bonds. That means indexing them beyond a 5year period. The last loan had all its contributions within the short term end. There were none within the long term end. There are examples of areas in which indexing Commonwealth bonds would be successful. Programs are currently being undertaken in the United Kingdom concerning securities which are available to aged people and which are indexed to take account of inflation. That needs to be done in Australia, because if there is one economic problem which is related to this measure and which is probably the most pervasive it is simply that there is insufficient confidence on the part of the people to undertake long term investment. You cannot recycle short term investment without running grave risks and there is a need to undertake long term investment knowing what are our real rates of inflation not the last consumer price index which is not an inflation index and which certainly understates the rate of inflation quite seriously and that type of investment needs to be encouraged and needs to be encouraged quite quickly.

In terms, of the general sentiments of the legislation, one agrees with them. One applauds the Government for the fact that it has increased the amount of capital assistance available, but above all I just want to make this one final point I do not believe it should misrepresent the position by indication that the amount of assistance in fact keeps pace with the demands for public fixed capital expenditure. It only keeps pace with what are the national accounts, the real rates of inflation. It does nothing more. This legislation is to that extent the victim of the domestic economic crisis which is occurring in Australia, no part of which has effectively been imported.

Debate (on motion by Dr Jenkins) adjourned.

page 2565

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker -

Motion by (Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 54

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 6.2 p.m.

page 2566

TREATY

The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 28 October 1975 by command of His Excellency the GovernorGeneral:

Paris Convention of 20 March 1883 for the Protection of Industrial Property as last revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967Declaration, dated 10 May 1975, extending instrument of accession deposited by Australia.

page 2567

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circula

National Service (Question No. 2299)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Emigration, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to indexed item 60- Department reports on suspected breaches of the National Service Act.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. 4) If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Riordan:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Urban and Regional Development · PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. and (4) I am informed that detailed information on breaches of the National Service Act was provided by the then Minister of Labour and National Service in a reply to a question by Mr C. R. Cameron (Question No. 2666, Hansard, 20 April 1 97 1 ). I also refer the honourable member in particular to part 3 of the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 2243 which appeared in Hansard on 13.5.74 (page 2198).

Health Problems of Alcohol (Question No. 2757)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the small working group established by the National Health and Medical Research Council to test the method for a survey of alcohol associated illness and facilities for its treatment in Australia.
  2. When will it be known if this method is satisfactory.
  3. When will a full scale survey be undertaken.
  4. Have the States promised their co-operation in this survey.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1) A working group of the Standing Committee on the Health Problems of Alcohol of the National Health and Medical Research Council was set up in August 1974 to investigate the possibilities of surveying alcohol associated illness and facilities for its treatment in Australia. This group designed a draft questionnaire which is included in the published report of the committee as Appendix IV. The questionnaire was to be tested through a research design and procedure to be devised and implemented by the Victorian State Mental Health Authority.
  2. An initial feasibility study of the questionnaire is just being completed by the Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Branch of the Victorian Mental Health Authority and the results of this study are expected at an early date.
  3. A full scale survey will be considered as soon as these results are available. In the course of planning the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health Problems of Alcohol of the National Health and Medical Research Council will be considered, including the setting up of a statistical team. The newly appointed Medical Services Adviser on Drugs of Dependence has already done some preparatory work on this matter and will continue to give it high priority.
  4. It is anticipated, on the basis of earlier discussions, that State authorities will co-operate in a well designed survey.

Sheep and Wool Research (Question No. 3156)

Mr Lusher:

asked the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

With reference to the press statement of the former Minister for Agriculture dated 19 September 1975 entitled Sheep and Wool Research 1 975-76, how much of the $ 1 8.2 million for sheep and wool research programs is being provided by (a) the Australian Government and (b) the woolgrowers.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. The Australian Government will provide a direct contribution to wool research in 1975-76 of $1 1.8 million from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
  2. The balance of the wool research expenditure, i.e. an estimated $6.4 million, will be provided from the Wool Tax revenue and/or the reserves of the Wool Research Trust Fund.

On the most recent indications, the Wool Tax is estimated to yield $27 million, of which $26.6 million will be allocated to the Australian Wool Corporation for wool promotion and for marketing administrative costs. Any balance will be allocated to the Wool Research Trust Fund from which research expenditure will be met.

The reserves of the Wool Research Trust Fund represent the accumulation of amounts remaining from Government and grower contributions, together with earnings from interest and royalties, after meeting research expenditure in past years. A number of approaches are possible in attempting to quantify the proportion of the reserves which represent past contributions by woolgrowers or by the Government. However, it is considered that, on any reasonable basis of assessment, Government contributions would have to be regarded as the original source of at least fifty percent of the reserves.

On the above basis it would appear on present indications that, of the total of $18.2 million set aside for sheep and wool research programmes in 1975-76, at least $14.3 million will be provided from the current Government contribution or from reserves accumulated from Government contributions in previous years.

Regional Employment Development Scheme (Question No. 3157)

Mr Lusher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

How many Regional Employment Development Scheme projects have been approved since the inception of the Scheme in each Electoral Division in Australia, and what has been the total sum approved for projects in each Division.

Mr Riordan:
ALP

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

My Department has not maintained statistics of the Scheme in relation to Electoral Divisions although it has, in relation to some specific requests, extracted and provided this information. To provide the information sought for each Electoral Division in Australia, however, would require a considerable amount of time and work to be undertaken within the Department and I am reluctant to ask that this be done. I would add that it was never the intention of the Scheme to approve projects by Electoral Division, although it was the practice to advise all Members of the House of Representatives of projects which had been put forward in local government areas which fell, wholly or partly, within their electorates and to seek their comments on them.

My Department has been able to compile figures which show that, since the inception of the Scheme on 10 September, 1974, the number of projects approved has been 8191 and the amount of funds approved for payment under the Scheme at 1 6 October, 1 975, was $ 1 89,78 1 ,549.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 3175)

Mr Malcom Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When he is seeking legal advice for his Government ‘s actions, is he prepared to act on advice from an AttorneyGeneral who says merely that a certain course could probably be regarded as legal.
  2. Did he regard the Attorney-General’s advice concerning the raising of money for temporary loan purposes as adequate; if so, why.
  3. 3 ) Did he seek legal advice from other sources.
  4. What advice was given him by the Solicitor-General.

Mr Whitlam: The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1) to (4) I have previously, in statements in the House, and in answers to questions, described in considerable detail the Government’s consideration of the legal matters involved in the proposed borrowing (Hansard, 9 July 1975 at pages 3597-9, Senate Hansard, 26 August 1975, page 211 and my answer to the honourable member’s Question No. 3256: Hansard, 15 October 1975, page 2188). I would only add that the legal advice to which the honourable member’s present question refers, concerned a question of constitutional power. On such a question, as the honourable member will appreciate, it is not always possible to express an unqualified view.

Trade Commissioner’s Office in Soviet Far East (Question No. 3206)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice.

  1. 1 ) What steps have been taken to establish a Trade Commissioner’s Office in the Soviet Far East at either Vladivostock, Khabarovsk or Nakhodka.
  2. Is it considered that there should be a Trade Commissioner in this area in addition to the one in Moscow.
Mr Crean:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows.

  1. 1 ) There have been no steps taken so far to establish a Trade Commissioner’s Office in the Soviet Far East. However, the Trade Commissioner in Moscow visits the Soviet Far East from time to time to foster contact with regional commercial bodies and local enterprises and to encourage greater consciousness of Australia’s ability to supply many industrial and consumer requirements of the area.
  2. I believe that the Soviet Far East has sound trade development potential based on planned mining, industrial, transport and urban projects but at the present time most of the economic activity in the area continues to be controlled by Moscow-based ministries and foreign trade organisations and the main emphasis of our approach to the market is directed through these bodies. Thus it is considered that the Moscow Trade Commissioner’s Office can adequately service this market at present.

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3327)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Police and Customs, upon notice:

  1. What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under the Minister’s control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. ) In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Minister for Police and Customs has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. to (4) See the answer provided by the Minister representing the Minister for Media on 4 December 1974 (Hansard, page 4590).

Fruitgrowing Reconstruction Scheme (Question No. 3209)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What acreage of fruit trees in each of the following categories in each of the States have been removed under the Fruitgrowing Reconstruction Scheme: (a) apples (b) fresh pears (c) canning pears (d) apricots and (e) peaches.
  2. What was the average price per acre compensation in each of the categories in each of the States.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Fruitgrowing Reconstruction Scheme provides for the initial approval of trees for removal and for the financial assistance to become available only after the trees have been actually pulled. There is therefore a time lag between approvals and removals. At 31 August 197S approximately 90 per cent of approvals had been removed.

Acres of trees approved for removal to 31 August 197S were:

  1. Rates of assistance are not specified on a variety basis. One rate is provided for all canning fruit covered by the Scheme, and another for fresh fruit.

Average assistance paid per acre has been:

Rainforest (Question No. 3089)

Mr Hunt:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the extent of rainforest remaining in Australia.
  2. Are the rainforests being depleted.
  3. If so, what is the rate of depletion.
  4. Are any studies being made of rainforests ecosystems.
  5. Is there any legislation, Federal or State, designed to protect rainforests.
  6. Are there any areas of rainforest protected in National Parks.
Mr Berinson:
Minister for Environment · PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Because its scattered occurrence limited surveys in many areas, and the problem of definition of the term rainforest it is very difficult to provide reliable estimates of the extent of rainforest in Australia.

Specht Roe and Boughton, editors of the publication Conservation of Major Plant Communities in Australia and Papua New Guinea (July 1974) (known as the Specht Report) use the structural classification ‘closed-forest’ to include most of those forests popularly known as ‘rainforest’. This classification includes a wide range of forest types from the cool temperate rainforests of Tasmania to the tropical rainforests of North Queensland and includes some of the better-developed mangrove and brigalow vegetation.

Table 1 reproduced from the Specht Report indicates a total area of closed forest in Australia of 71 377 so km or approximately 0.93 per cent of Australia’s area. Although these figures are the best estimate available the table is based on data collected twenty years ago and thus the figures should be treated with caution.

The ecological survey currently being funded by the Department of Environment is expected to provide accurate assessment of the present extent of rainforests and other plant communities in Australia. This is however a major project and it will be some time before the results are available.

  1. Rainforests are being extensively cleared for agricultural, pastoral, forestry and mining purposes, for urban development and for the construction of roads, power lines and other public facilities.
  2. Because rainforests on both private and public land are being cleared for a variety of reasons and by many different authorities, companies and individuals, it is not possible to provide any accurate estimate of the rate of rainforest depletion.
  3. The Rain Forest Ecology Section of the Division of Plant Industry, CSIRO, is responsible for studies of rainforest ecosystems. Further details may be obtained from the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs.
  4. 5 ) Although there is no legislation specifically intended to protect rainforests, all States have legislation which can be used for this purpose. Under their respective conservation legislation all States and the Australian Government have the power to set aside areas of rainforest in national parks or other reserves and to protect individual plant species including some rainforest species.

Some Forestry Acts also carry provisions to enable areas of forest to be protected from exploitation. Although the security of tenure of such reserves is less than that of national parks they nevertheless protect substantial areas of rainforest.

  1. Many national parks and other reserves in Australia contain rainforest vegetation. Specht et al have prepared an assessment of the conservation status of structural formations and alliances in each State of Australia. The assessment for rainforest (Closed-forest) is given in Table 2. According to this table approximately 39 per cent of rainforest alliances are not recorded in or are poorly represented in the existing reserve system.

Advance Notice to Premiers on Budget Matters

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– In answering a question this morning from the Right Honourable the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony), I referred to Premiers being given advance notice of the ‘Budget’ and Budget papers. I meant of course that Premiers are given details of matters of direct interest to them affecting their own responsibilities which are about to be announced in the Budget Speech and Budget papers. There are some areas such as general revenue assistancewhere details may be settled with the States at a Premiers’ Conference in advance of the Budget and the States have knowledge of funds that will be coming to them through the Budget in such cases. There are other areas where the Budget contains allocations of funds to the States for particular programs which they may not be aware of. It is a matter of courtesy to advise the States in advance of matters of that kind. It is a practice that I have followed. It is entirely proper that Premiers should be given advance notice on matters of that kind.

Petroleum Exploration (Question No. 2530)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can he say what funds have been channelled, from overseas sources, into petroleum exploration since the reduction of the variable deposit rule.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

Between 8 August 1975, when the Variable Deposit Ratio was reduced from 25 per cent to 5 per cent, and 30 September 1975, the latest date for which information is available, applications approved under exchange control to bring in funds from abroad specifically to finance exploration programs for oil (including natural gas) totalled $2 1.8m. Of this sum, $ 10.5m was approved in the period from 8 August to 10 November 1974 (when the VDR was 5 per cent) and the remaining $1 1.3m was approved after the variable deposit requirement scheme was suspended with effect from 11 November 1974.

These figures do not include funds brought to Australia under ‘general’ authorities issued under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations. Such authorities allow specified classes of transactions to be carried out without prior Reserve Bank approval in each instance but provide for advice to the Bank of details periodically. The records of these inflows are not classified in a way that allows information of the kind sought to be specifically identified.

Mineral Exploration (Question No. 2630)

Mr Hyde:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are overseas money drafts to mining companies vetted to ascertain whether the miner is seeking an Australian equity in the lease upon which the money in question is to be spent.
  2. If so, what is the procedure that is involved.
  3. How long are drafts delayed pending clarification of Australian equity or other questions.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3). The Government’s policy in respect of foreign participation in mineral exploration in Australia was outlined in detail by the Prime Minister in Press Statement No. 564 on 24 September 1975.

Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 2832)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that a grant of $5,900 has been made by the Minister for Social Security under the Australian Assistance Plan to the South-West Sydney Regional Social Development Council for a centre for mothers supporting a child or children.
  2. If so, did the Minister for Social Security seek his advice on this project before approving it because of the extensive involvement that the Department of Manufacturing Industry has in this type of area; if so, when.
  3. Does this project conform with the activities the Department of Manufacturing Industry is pursuing; if not, why not.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. and (3) See answer to ( 1 ).

Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 2833)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that grants of more than $2,000 have been made to Lakemba Public School and Petersham Baptist Church under the Australian Assistance Plan for after school programs.
  2. If so, did the Minister for Social Security seek his advice before approving these projects to ensure they conformed with activities that the Department of Manufacturing Industry is pursuing in this area through the Children ‘s Commission; if so, when, and what was his response; if not, why not.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No, but I am informed that there was consultation with the Office of the Interim Committee for the Children’s Commission before the grants were approved. ‘Lateline’ Radio Program (Question No. 2923)
Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

Further to the answer to question No. 2751 where he stated that the ABC checks to ensure that the lateline radio program is balanced, what balance has been provided to the leftwing and anti-religious nature of some of the programs by providing time for rightwing and pro-religious groups.

Dr Cass:
Minister for the Media · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Balance in ABC programs is maintained within the context of the ABC’s total program output.

Radio Station 3ZZ (Question No. 3040)

Mr Street:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1) Do the guidelines for radio station 3ZZ state that the station should not be used by political parties or trade unions.
  2. Is the chairman of the station’s planning committee a Mr George Zangalis
  3. ) If so, is Mr Zangalis an official of the Communist Party of Australia, and did he stand as a candidate for that Party at an election for the Victorian State Electoral Division of East Brunswick in 1973.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. Yes.
  3. 3 ) The political affiliations of Mr Zangalis are not known to the ABC.

Insurance (Question No. 3138)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. In the light of the recent failure of the Northumberland Insurance Company, can he say whether (a) legislation exists in the State of South Australia which permits the establishment of a nominal defendants’ fund to pay compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance claims against an insurance company which has gone into liquidation, (b) similar legislation has been passed at various times in other States, except that it has dealt with specific companies, (c) legislation in South Australia covers all companies which are placed into liquidation and (d) there is no similar legislation in South Australia or elsewhere providing for the establishment of a nominal defendants’ fund to pay workers’ compensation claims against failed insurance companies.
  2. In view of the recent collapse of this company and the resultant hardship inflicted on people in Australia, will he take up immediately with the States Attorneys-General the necessity for legislation providing for the establishment of nominal defendants’ funds to pay claims against failed insurance companies in relation to (a) third party motor vehicle insurance and (b) workers’ compensation insurance.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to a statement in the Australian of 12 August 1975 by its Financial Editor that the New South Wales Government has adopted a strange attitude in the case of workers’ compensation claims against the failed insurance company Northumberland Insurance Co Ltd.
  4. If so, can he say whether the strange attitude of the New South Wales Government accords with the proper principles of State Government responsibility when its citizens are defrauded.
  5. Is there any action he can take to enable citizens, in future, to enforce claims against defaulting insurers without recourse to their employers.
  6. Will he make representations to both the New South Wales and South Australian Governments in an endeavour to obtain justice for the individuals who are awaiting their compensation payments, in particular, Mrs Ormsby, a widow with six children, whose husband died in an accident in 1971, and who has been waiting since that date for the sum of $ 10,000 owing to her by this company.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. (a),(b),(c) and (d) Yes
  2. I am advised that in most States where insurance companies writing compulsory third party motor vehicle and workers’ compensation insurance policies have gone into liquidation, special retrospective legislation has been enacted to provide funds to meet policy owners’ claims under such policies. In South Australia there is general provision in the Motor Vehicles Act for claims to be made against the nominal defendant where a third party insurer has gone into liquidation.

It is also relevant that, in the event of an insurance company being placed in liquidation, the deposit lodged with the Treasurer under the Insurance (Deposits) Act 1932-1973 is available to pay the company’s claims under policies. Any liquidation would, of course, be handled under the relevant State or Territory law and it would be necessary for a policy owner who has a claim against an insurer, to lodge proof of debt with the liquidator appointed under that law.

  1. Yes.
  2. The Premier of New South Wales recently announced that his Government has decided to legislate to create a fund to meet workers’ compensation claims against the Northumberland Insurance Company Limited (In Liquidation) on a basis similar to legislation passed earlier in relation to the establishment of a fund to meet workers ‘ compensation claims against the Riverina Insurance Company Limited (In Liquidation).
  3. The Government is well aware of the inadequacy of the existing workers’ compensation insurance system. Under the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme which will replace workers’ compensation, the Government seeks to provide a scheme including the payment of earnings-related benefits to all persons including workers incapacitated as a result of injury.
  4. I have been informed that the New South Wales and South Australian authorities responsible for the administration of the funds to pay unsatisfied workers’ compensation and compulsory third party motor vehicle claims against the Northumberland Insurance Company Limited (In Liquidation) anticipate being able to finalise these claims promptly.

Government Advertising (Question No. 3203)

Mr Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How much money has his Department spent on advertising of Government policy.
  2. What proportion of this advertising has featured the Government Minister concerned.
  3. What areas of policy were promoted in this way.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. 1) No funds appropriated to my Department have been spent to advertise Government policy. Advertising expenditure by my Department has, however, at times been incurred to gain public awareness about rights and entitlements available to the public arising from Government policy.

In the 1973-74 financial year for example, $1,250,000 from my Department’s ‘Machinery of Government’ vote was expended on an advertising campaign which included advertisements on the workings of Parliament and on community/Government joint responsibilities in areas such as migrant assimilation and pollution of the environment. In the 1974-75 financial year, $392,000 from the ‘Machinery of Government’ vote was expended on an advertising campaign which highlighted community response to Government initiatives in the fields of community health, child care and education.

  1. ) and (3) Not applicable.

Bank Premises (Question No. 3221)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many bank premises were tendered for by the Commonwealth Trading Bank during 1 975 to date.
  2. How many new Commonwealth Trading Bank premises have been constructed throughout Australia during the last 2 years.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation has provided the following information:

From 1 January to 15 October 1975 tenders were called for 23 building projects by the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia. This number included some new buildings and some alterations to existing buildings.

9 new buildings for bank premises were commenced for the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia during the past two years. During the same period 16 major alterations were commenced.

Apartheid (Question No. 3260)

Mr Peacock:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the United Nations adopted a Convention dealing with the suppression and the punishment of the crime of apartheid.
  2. If so, (a) what are the terms of the Convention, (b) did Australia support its adoption and (c) what Governments (i) supported, (ii) opposed and (iii) abstained on the adoption of the Convention.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 3068 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973, adopted and opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
    1. Copies of the full text of the Convention are available at the Parliamentary Library to honourable members. To summarise the terms of the Convention, States Parties thereto declare that Apartheid is a crime against humanity and that acts resulting from the policies and practices of Apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination are crimes violating the principles of International Law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and constituting a serious threat to international peace and security.
    2. Australia abstained in the vote on UN General Assembly resolution 3068 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973, which adopted and opened for signature the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Australia abstained because, notwithstanding its complete condemnation of Apartheid which it has demonstrated on numerous occasions, it had difficulties with the machinery provisions of the Convention, namely that States Parties to the Convention would have to create national criminal jurisdiction to try persons charged extraterritorially with crimes under a broad definition of Apartheid.
    3. Resolution 3068 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973 was adopted in the General Assembly by a vote of 91 in favour, 4 against (Portugal, South Africa, United Kingdom and United States of America), and 26 abstentions.

As a recorded vote on this resolution was not taken, I am unable to give details on how every Member State voted. A recorded vote was taken in the Third Committee of the General Assembly, where the draft Convention was debated and discussed in detail, on 19 November 1973. The draft Convention was adopted in the Third Committee by a vote of 93 in favour, one against and 24 abstaining. The following are the details of how Member States voted in the Committee:

In favour: (93)- Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.

Against: ( 1 )- Portugal.

Abstaining: (24)- Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany (Federal Republic of). Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.

The majority of Member States probably voted the same way in the General Assembly on 30 November 1973 as they did in the Third Committee on 19 November 1973. Australia abstained in both votes. However the United Kingdom and the United States of America delegations changed their votes from abstention in Committee to opposition in plenary.

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3314)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. ) What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows-

I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to question 3304. (Hansard 15 October 1975, page 2 188).

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3315)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. ) In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Bowen:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. None.
  2. , (3) and (4) Not applicable.

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3326)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. 3 ) In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) I refer the right honourable member to the answer to Question No. 1581 in House of Representatives Hansard, 4 December 1974 (page 4590).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751028_reps_29_hor97/>.