Senate
4 December 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2367

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)Following on the resignation of the Foreign Minister, Senator the Honourable Don Willesee, from his other posts, and the abolition of the Departments of Navy, Army, Air, Civil Aviation, Housing and External Territories, I inform the Senate of the following ministerial changes.

The Honourable F. E. Stewart, Minister for Tourism and Recreation, is now also VicePresident of the Executive Council. The Honourable Les Johnson is Minister for Housing and Construction, the Department of Works having been renamed the Department of Housing and Construction. The Honourable Lionel F. Bowen, Postmaster-General, is now also Special Minister of State. He will also be Minister assisting the Prime Minister. Senator Willesee will represent the Special Minister of State in this chamber. The Honourable W. L. Morrison, Minister for Science, will also be Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs in matters relating to Papua New Guinea.

By these changes the number of departments has been reduced from thirty seven to thirty one. Other changes- the abolition of the Department of Customs and Excise and the Department of Supply and the incorporation of their functions elsewhere- are still under consideration. Honourable senators should also know that the royal commission on the Post Office is continuing its work and is expected to report by next March. It may also be of use to honourable senators- I know that this is a little beyond my statement on ministerial arrangements- if there were to be incorporated in Hansard a list of government departments today and as at 2 December 1972. I ask leave accordingly for this list to be incorporated.

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 2367

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AT 2 DECEMBER 1972

Department of Air

Department of the Army

Attorney-General ‘s Department

Department of Civil Aviation

Department of Customs and Excise

Department of Defence

Department of Education and Science

Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts

Department of External Territories

Department of Foreign Affairs

Department of Health

Department of Housing

Department of Immigration

Department of the Interior

Department of Labour and National Service

Department of National Development

Department of the Navy

Postmaster-General ‘s Department

Department of Primary Industry

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Repatriation Department

Department of Shipping and Transport

Department of Social Services

Department of Supply

Department of Trade and Industry

Department of the Treasury

Department of Works

page 2367

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AT 4 DECEMBER 1973

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Attorney-General ‘s Department

Department of the Capital Territory

Department of Customs and Excise

Department of Defence

Department of Education

Department of the Environment and Conservation

Department of Foreign Affairs

Depanment of Health

Department of Housing and Construction

Department of Immigration

Department of Labour

Department of the Media

Department of Minerals and Energy

Department of Northern Development

Department of the Northern Territory

Department of Overseas Trade

Postmaster-General’s Department

Department of Primary Industry

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Repatriation Department

Department of Science

Department of Secondary Industry

Department of Services and Property

Department of Social Security

Department of the Special Minister of State

Department of Supply

Department of Tourism and Recreation

Department of Transport

Department of the Treasury

Department of Urban and Regional Development

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Willesee, is in New Zealand attending the 23rd meeting of the Colombo Plan Consultative Committee. He is expected to return on 8 December. In his absence the Prime Minister is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. I shall represent those Ministers normally represented in this chamber by Senator Willesee.

The Minister for Transport, the Honourable C. K. Jones, is in Europe to attend the European Conference of Ministers for Transport, to which Australia has just been admitted, in Paris, and to have discussions in London and in Holland. He is expected to return to Australia on 9 December. In bis absence the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh, is Acting Minister for Transport.

page 2368

NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME

Petition

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 50 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

1 ) That Australian citizens place great value on their freedom to choose their own doctor in all aspects of medical care.

That we believe in a doctor’s freedom to provide a personal service based on personal responsibility within a system based on quality rather than quantity, as opposed to an impersonal service in which doctor and patient lose their identity.

3 ) That proposals to change the existing health scheme are unacceptable to the people of Australia.

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

Petition received and read.

page 2368

QUESTION

APPLIED ECOLOGY PTY LTD

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I ask: Has Dr Bustard, Managing Director of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd, been sacked by the company’s board? If so, why? Did the Minister know that this action was to be taken and did he approve of the action? Lastly, will Dr Bustard remain a director of the company?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have received notification from Senator Georges, as Chairman of Directors of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd, that Dr Bustard has been dismissed. I have been informed that it was as a result of a number of charges made against Dr Bustard at a meeting last Thursday, at which I believe Dr Bustard asked for those charges in writing. His replies were considered by the directors to be unsatisfactory. Consequently they dismissed him. It was not with my approval and it was contrary to my directions the previous day. As to whether he will be replaced on the directorship of the board, Cabinet has made a decision on the Carr and Smart reports and its decision will be announced when the Premiers of Western Australia and Queensland have been notified of it, which is a formality. Applied Ecology, which was set up as a commercial undertaking, will no longer continue as a commercial undertaking. Applied Ecology will continue as a scientific and research organisation. Therefore the present directors are unsuitable for that function. The future directors, in accordance with the recommendation of Mr

Smart, will comprise 3 scientists, 2 businessmen and a representative of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs. While that board is being set up the only directors displaced will be those who do not come within that category. Therefore, Dr Bustard and one of the representatives of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs will remain and there will be other appointments to meet the requirements of the Smart report.

page 2368

QUESTION

EDUCATION CONTROVERSY: MEDIA COVERAGE

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. I ask it against the growing background of distortion and misrepresentation of the Opposition’s case on the current education controversy. I ask: Will the Minister again pursue his inquiries of Commissioners of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to ascertain why, in the current controversy over the States Grants (Schools) Bill, the program ‘A.M.’ on the morning of Friday last, 30 November, gave publicity only to the Government’s viewpoint by featuring both the Acting Minister for Education, Mr Lionel Bowen, and the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hawke, and no Opposition spokesman? Will he again remind the Commissioners of the ABC that their charter of freedom and independence requires them to maintain objectivity and carries an obligation to give both sides in the controversy a fair go?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am sure that there is no need to remind the Commissioners of the ABC of their overall responsibility to ensure that everybody is given a fair go. I am satisfied that they have done this to date and that, in their ensuring of it, there has been an overall balancing out of programming activities. Senator Greenwood asked me a question along these lines last week. I provided information on this matter to the honourable senator and it has satisfied me beyond doubt that they were setting out to achieve an overall balancing of their programming. I will certainly make inquiries of the Commission to ascertain what other programs were involved, stating the Opposition’s case on the education controversy without the Government’s viewpoint having been reported.

page 2368

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. Have the Federal and Victorian Governments agreed to co-operate in developing small selfreliant cities on the fringe of Melbourne? Is this decentralisation? Is it not certain that the development of so-called ‘systems cities’ on the outskirts of Melbourne Will accelerate rather than slow down the drift of country people to the metropolis?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-A conference reached some agreement on this question. I do not know whether one could call the areas for development ‘fringe’ or not far distant from Melbourne. I believe that Geelong is one area that is under consideration for development. The same kind of development is to take place near Sydney. The purpose of the development is to restrict the growing influx of people to the centre of cities. It will in no way interfere with proposals for the development of towns completely away from cities, such as Albury-Wodonga and new town areas.

page 2369

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: TELECASTS OF INTERNATIONAL SPORTING EVENTS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Media. By way of preface, let me say that three major sporting activities- namely, Korea versus Australia in World Cup soccer, the rugby league ashes series between Australia and Great Britain, which Australia won, and the recent Davis Cup final between Australia and the United States have been telecast direct to Australian audiences by satellite coverage. Is the Minister aware of the keen interest in sporting programs televised by the Australian Broadcasting Commission which is strongly supported by a large Australian audience? Will he ensure a continuation of this policy by the Australian Broadcasting Commission?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As the honourable senator has said, in addition to the satellite coverage of the international soccer matches between Australia and Korea and the rugby league test matches in England, on Saturday the Australian Broadcasting Commission had a direct satellite telecast lasting some 6 hours, which I understand was the longest satellite coverage ever carried out of the Davis Cup final, followed by some additional hours of coverage on Sunday. The Davis Cup satellite coverage attracted an estimated viewing audience of 6 million in Australia. I can tell the honourable senator that the ABC will cover directly by satellite the Commonwealth Games which will be held next year in Christchurch, New Zealand. This desirable and popular type of programming has been made possible by the Australian Government’s desire to see an improvement in the quality of life and by our making available an additional SI Om this financial year to the ABC so that it may specifically engage in this and other more popular types of programming.

page 2369

QUESTION

BLYTHE STAR’ INQUIRY

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Transport. In view of the allegations now being made relating to the conduct of the search for survivors of the ‘Blythe Star’, will he reconsider the decision of the Minister on the request by the Tasmanian Solicitor-General for the addition of assessors expert in marine searches to assist the inquiry into the sinking of the ‘Blythe Star’ and the mammoth but unsuccessful search for survivors?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-The Minister is satisfied that the inquiry that has been established is sufficient to ascertain the necessary details of the disaster. Press reports this morning show that counsel assisting the inquiry intends to bring out the whole question of some neglect. We think that the matter is well covered. There is no need for additional assistance at the inquiry. I think it would be unwise to make statements on the inquiry while it is in progress.

page 2369

QUESTION

LAW OF THE SEA

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Primary Industry now indicate whether the 1974 conference on the law of the sea, with its implications for fishing rights, is still to be held in Santiago or whether, in view of the political turbulence in Chile, a new venue has been determined for this momentous conference?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · TASMANIA · ALP

– My only information is that after events in Chile some months back it was decided to transfer the conference to Venezuela. At the present time my understanding is that that is where the conference will take place.

page 2369

QUESTION

ENERGY

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy. In view of the implications for every country of the current international energy crisis as a result of the withholding of oil supplies from the Middle East and as Australia is not self sufficient in liquid petroleum or oil will the Minister indicate the programs under way with Commonwealth assistance to explore aU sources of energy generation, that is, petroleum, petroleum gas, solar heating, hydrogenation of coal, kerosene shales, nuclear energy and tidal energy generation? Does the Government propose to accelerate or stimulate investigation of or experimentation with these energy sources? If so, what particular expanded programs are contemplated?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I believe that this question should be placed on the notice paper to enable the Minister to give a detailed answer.

page 2370

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that there is a world shortage of wheat which is likely to continue for the next 3 years? Is it also a fact that the much publicised wheat agreement with China covers only the next 3 years? Have the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Overseas Trade given consideration to securing from China a concrete agreement for the sale of wheat beyond the 3-year term as a condition of supplying China during the period of world shortage?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that at the present time there is a world wide shortage of wheat. Every effort is being made during this forthcoming season, both in Australia and overseas, to build up the world’s reserves of wheat. Of course, the length of our agreement with China is a matter of negotiation between the Australian and Chinese Governments. I was not directly involved in these negotiations; they were the prime responsibility of the Minister for Overseas Trade. But I do not think that either the Australian or Chinese Government would be prepared to enter into an arrangement longer than the 3-year term. I am not aware of what discussions may have taken place in relation to supplying China with wheat beyond that period. However, if the Minister for Overseas Trade can supply me with additional information I shall let the honourable senator know.

page 2370

QUESTION

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

-My question is directed to the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. On 16 October and again on 18 October I asked Senator Rae, as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, when the report of that Committee would be tabled. In his answer to me he said that the Committee had been unable to proceed with its sittings from the prorogation of the Parliament in November 1972 until the Committee was reconstituted in April. I ask: Did not the constitution of the Select Committee make provision for it to continue sitting during time of prorogation of the Parliament until the reconstitution of the Committee? Will the report be presented before the Senate rises this year? What delays are now occurring? Will the report ever be presented?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Rae, you will recall the terms and conditions which I laid down previously, namely, that you may reply if you speak on behalf of the Committee.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise to a point of order. Mr President, I have an interest in this matter as you would be aware. I sought to get information from a chairman of a select committee by asking a question without notice. I think the chairman was willing to respond to me but he did not do so because there had not been a meeting of the committee, as you said there should have been before he could reply. I submit that consistency requiries that either I be allowed to ask my question again on the terms under which you are now permitting Senator Rae to answer this question or that Senator Rae be bound by the terms of your earlier ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have a clear recollection of how this whole situation arose. It arose as a result of questions being addressed to previous chairmen of committees and the members of the committees complaining that the answers given were not in accordance with what the committees felt to be the correct position. It is perfectly permissible for a senator to address a question to another senator who is a chairman of a committee and therefore is in charge of part of the Senate’s business. At that time I ruled that the chairman could respond only on the basis that he was responding on behalf of his committee and as a result of a discussion with his committee. Referring now to Senator Greenwood’s observations, I am perfectly aware that I made that ruling in that context. I have no objection to his addressing the question again to the Chairman of the Committee concerned to see whether he has held a meeting of his Committee.

Senator RAE:

– Thank you, Mr President. I will continue to give the answer I had proposed to give before the intervention. I would like to make that clear. The answer I would give is that I shall refer the question to the Committee at its previously scheduled meeting which is to be held tomorrow. An answer will be considered by the Committee at that time. Mr President, I also would like to refer to you, for your authority to publish, certain correspondence which took place in relation to one part of the answer sought by Senator O ‘Byrne.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will discuss that later.

page 2371

QUESTION

APPLIED ECOLOGY PTY LTD

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, in reply to an earlier question by Senator Withers, stated that Applied Ecology Pty Ltd which conducts the turtle farming projects in the Torres Strait Islands will in future be a scientific and research organisation. What effect will this change have on Aboriginal employment opportunities as compared with the commercial turtle farming projects? What are the specific objectives of the proposed new organisation? Will the total present stocks of turtles be taken into the new arrangements or will there be some financial returns from sales of stock now on hand?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I think that the restructuring of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd and its new purpose will have a beneficial effect on the employment of Aborigines. The company will seek methods of farming of native animals and sea life in areas where Aborigines could be employed. Reports would indicate that the present operations in Torres Strait could be a viable commercial undertaking but it is not known what danger we are causing to the ecology and cultural life of the area. Research into this aspect has not been carried out. The farms in operation will continue to be operated as a pilot research project to study the whole question of ecology and culture with the purpose of adopting turtle farming as a commercial undertaking, if no damage is done.

page 2371

QUESTION

LEGAL ASSISTANCE: MR KEVIN GILBERT

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Attorney-General aware that certain allegations and charges have been made by the New South Wales Police against Kevin Gilbert, a resident of that State? Will the Minister undertake to assist Mr Gilbert with any legal assistance to which he may be constitutionally entitled through the AttorneyGeneral’s Department?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I will look into the matter. If he falls within the scope of the assistance provisions of the legal aid scheme that certainly will be done.

page 2371

QUESTION

GAS PIPELINES

Senator YOUNG:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy aware that early in October I placed many questions on the notice paper, all of which have been answered with the exception of one. I ask whether the Minister is aware of that question in which I asked:

Will the Government have any control over the already established Moomba-Gidgealpa pipeline in South Australia. Will the Federal Government construct the feeder pipeline to the proposed petro-chemical plant at Redcliffs, South Australia. Will the Government have control over the feeder line.

Will the Minister endeavour to obtain an answer for me as soon as possible, because the other place will rise soon for the summer recess, or will we in South Australia have to wait during the recess period in a condition of great concern, wondering whether the Federal Government will try to take over the pipeline, including the feeder pipeline in South Australia?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-No, I was not aware that an answer to that question on notice was still outstanding. I agree that Senator Young is entitled to an answer before the House of Representatives rises. I shall contact the Minister for Minerals and Energy immediately after question time with a view to obtaining an answer.

page 2371

QUESTION

TASMANIAN APPLE INDUSTRY

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that the Minister and his colleagues have under consideration at present an application for assistance to the Tasmanian apple industry? Will the Minister take into consideration, in his assessment of the matter, the loss sustained by the industry due to revaluation? Does the Minister not recognise that, by imposing a limit on the compensation for revaluation to crops of 5,000 bushels, a great part of the export was not compensated for? Will the Minister give consideration to that aspect in his judgment on the assistance which should be given to the industry?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The decision on revaluation adjustment payments was a policy decision which was made by the Government earlier this year following the revaluation decision of last December. The case in support of the Government’s decision has been well argued in this place and publicly. I am not aware of any further application for revaluation adjustment payments as a result of any later revaluation decision which was made by the Government. When I last inquired about this matter no application had been made. In the consideration of the problems of the fruit industry in Tasmania, which are currently being considered, all the factors which have created problems for the industry will be taken into account. I certainly would not be in a position to make a commitment that there will be any further specific payments because of revaluation. The inclusion of a limit of 5,000 bushels in the first revaluation compensation decision was, I believe, well founded, and it assisted those growers who needed assistance most. I am quite sure that the stronger growers and those who are better able to survive the very difficult market conditions which almost certainly will obtain in 1974 will be able to surmount the present problems.

page 2372

QUESTION

MARRIAGE CEREMONIES: CELEBRANTS

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

-My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, concerns a rather extraordinary statement which appeared in the Melbourne Press during the weekend. A young lady stated that she was the secretary of an Australian Labor Party member of the House of Representatives and that she was one of two previously unqualified persons who had been appointed by the Attorney-General to conduct marriages in future. The young lady further said that she understood that she had been appointed to conduct marriages as a representative of the Labor Party. Will the Attorney-General inform us whether there have been appointments of this nature? If so, on what basis are they made? Does he intend to appoint persons to conduct marriages as representatives of the Liberal Party of Australia, the Australian Country Party and the Australian Demoratic Labor Party?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What about the Independents?

Senator McMANUS:

-And the Independents?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I regret that I have not seen the report, so I am not in a position to deal with it adequately. If the young lady was correctly reported she needs, I would think, to be corrected on the nature of the office. Certainly no persons are appointed to conduct marriages for members of the Australian Labor Party, or for members of the Liberal Party. It may be necessary to appoint someone to conduct a marriage between the Country Party and the Democratic Labor Party. Apparently the matchmaker has not been as successful as was thought at first. The position under the Marriage Act is that a large number of ministers of the various religions are appointed to conduct marriages- something of the order of 10,000 or more of these people have been appointed-and in addition State officers, who broadly comprise the Registrars-General and their officers in the States, are appointed to conduct marriages. Apart from those people, very few people have been appointed by the Attorney-General, pursuant to the Act, to conduct marriages.

Senator Webster:

– Who are they?

Senator MURPHY:

-There are only about half a dozen of these people. It is proposed that more will be appointed. But not a great number is required, and the suitability of those to be appointed is being considered. If there is some error in respect of understanding the office in the case to which the honourable senator has referred, the matter certainly will be attended to. But so far the system is working very satisfactorily.

page 2372

QUESTION

MEAT PRICES

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry, refers to the report on meat prices by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices. Is the Minister concerned that, although saleyard prices for cattle have dropped, there has been no reduction in the price of meat to consumers? Is there any way in which this situation can be rectified?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that in recent weeks there has been a drop in the price of meat at the saleyard and that all indications suggest that this reduction has not been reflected at the retail level. The Government obviously is concerned about this situation. If there is a reduction in the returns to primary producers, that reduction ought to be reflected to the benefit of the consumer. As a result of the current position, the Government has decided to ask the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, which is a section of my Department, to investigate the prices chain from the saleyard to the retail store. From this investigation we should be able to determine just where the price increases are being maintained. I hope that when this investigation is completed we will have a much clearer idea of which section of the industry is receiving benefits which, it would appear, should be flowing to the consumer.

page 2372

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

page 2373

RENTAL OF EMBASSY OF NORTH VIETNAM

page 2373

VISITS TO SOUTHERN RHODESIA BY AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SERVANTS

page 2373

REACTIVATION OF IMMIGRATION PROGRAM

page 2373

OIL EXPLORATION IN AUSTRALIA

page 2374

NEW AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP LAWS

page 2374

REPATRIATION

page 2374

RURAL RAILWAYS

page 2374

CURRENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM

page 2375

HEALTH INSURANCE SCHEME

page 2375

EDUCATION

page 2375

APPLIED ECOLOGY PTY LTD

Senator Byrne:

– Does the Minister mean that their appointments will be terminated?

page 2376

RENTAL OF EMBASSY OF NORTH VIETNAM

page 2376

APPLIED ECOLOGY PTY LTD

page 2376

LOAN COUNCIL: LOCAL GOVERNMENT

page 2377

NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME

Senator Little:

– None of it was relevant to the question.

page 2377

INFLATION

page 2377

APPLIED ECOLOGY PTY LTD

page 2377

EDUCATION CONTROVERSY: MEDIA COVERAGE

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDEarlier this morning Senator Greenwood directed a question to me concerning the Australian Broadcasting Commission program AM’. I have since had inquiries made of the ABC and I am now advised that it is true that on Friday morning in ‘AM ‘ the subject of education was discussed. The speakers were Mr Lionel Bowen, the Acting Minister for Education, and Mr Bob Hawke. But on Thursday night in the program ‘PM’ the subject of school aid was discussed by Senator Rae and Mr Bowen. Then, later in the same program, in discussing the prospect of a double dissolution the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Snedden, were included. The Acting General Manager of the

ABC feels that under these circumstances suitable balance has been given to the whole question. Of course, in any future discussion of the question balance will be maintained.

page 2378

ASSENT TO BILLS

High Commissioner (United Kingdom) Act Repeal Bill 1973.

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1973-74.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1973-74.

page 2378

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise)- For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Education and Science for the period 1 January 1972 to 19 December 1972.

page 2378

INSTITUTE OF MAKINE SCIENCE

page 2378

SUPERANNUATION BOARD

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise)- Pursuant to section 134 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1973 I present the fifty-first annual report of the Superannuation Board for the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 2378

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO LAND TENURES

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise)- For the information of honourable senators I present the first report of the Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures. Because of the importance of the subject matter of the Commission, I take this first opportunity to lay the report before parliament and release it to the public. The contents of the report have not yet been considered by the Government but its views will be made known as soon as possible.

page 2378

PAYOLA IN AUSTRALIA AND OVERSEAS

page 2378

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO AGED PERSONS HOUSING

page 2378

COAL INDUSTRY ACT 1946-66

page 2378

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE

Senator MURPHY New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I lay upon the table the Annual Report of the Australian Capital Territory Police for the year ended 30 June 1 973.

page 2378

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Carpet Tiles

page 2379

REORGANISATION OF THE DEFENCE GROUP OF DEPARTMENTS

Ministerial Statement

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2382

GATT ANTI-DUMPING CODE AND BRUSSELS DEFINITION OF VALUE

Ministerial Statement

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise)- by leave- I ask for leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statement on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Anti-dumping Code and the Brussels Definition of Value.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 2382

DISCHARGE OF ITEMS ON NOTICE PAPER

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I wish to move that certain notices of motion and orders of the day be discharged. I understand that there has been a discussion among the Whips on this matter. If anyone who has not been consulted objects to the discharge of any item, he merely has to say so and that item will not be discharged. I move:

That the following Government Business orders of the day be discharged from the notice paper-

No. 49 Tourism Development-Papers;

No.50 Federal Financial Relations- Australian National University Centre for Research-Ministerial Statement;

No.53 International Affairs-Ministerial Statement;

No. 54 The Queen and the Privy Council- Ministerial Statement;

No. 57 Discrimination in Employment and OccupationPaper.

Also General Business notices of motion No. 1, No. 4, No.5, No. 6, No. 7, and No. 12 and orders of the day-

No. 1. United States Defence Installations in AustraliaMinisterial Statement;

No. 2 Foreign Affairs- Joint Committee- Report on Australia ‘s Foreign Aid;

No. 3 Royal Australian Air Force- Rules for use of VIP Aircraft- Paper- Ministerial Statement;

No. 4 House- Standing Committee- Report, dated May 1 972, relating to provision of staff and other facilities for members of Parliament;

No.5 National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme- Paper- Ministerial Statement;

No. 6 Public Works-Joint Statutory Committee-35th General Report;

No. 7 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association- 18th Conference 1972 -Report of the Australian Delegation -Paper,

No. 9 Wage Levy for Non-Permanent Ports- Ministerial Statement-Papers;

No. 10 Inter-Parliamentary Union- Rome Conference 1972- Report of the Australian Delegation;

No. 11 Law of Privacy- Paper- Ministerial Statement;

No. 12 Broadcasting and Television- Breaches of Advertising Standard- Paper- Ministerial Statement;

No. 14 Regulations and Ordinances- Standing CommitteeReport on Commonwealth Scholarships and Awards Regulations;

No. 16 Post Office Services and Charges- Papers;

No. 17 Education, Science and the Arts- Standing CommitteeSecond Progress Report on all aspects of television and broadcasting, including Australian content of television programs.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2383

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 3) 1973

Bill presented by Senator Little, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Motion (by Senator Little) agreed to:

That the second reading of the Bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 2383

SUPERIOR COURT BILL 1973

Notice of Motion

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise)- by leave- I give notice of intention to bring in a Bill entitled the Superior Court Bill 1973.

page 2383

FAMILY LAW BILL 1973

Notice of Motion

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise)- by leave- I give notice of intention to bring in a Bill entitled the Family Law Bill 1 973.

page 2383

ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As the second reading speech in relation to this Bill was delivered in another place and has been circulated, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

page 2387

ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

Again, as the Bill was introduced in the other place and the second reading speech has been circulated, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

page 2388

GROWTH CENTRES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr President, as the same conditions apply to the second reading speech of this Bill as applied to the second reading speech of the previous Bill, I seek leave to have this second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

page 2390

LAND COMMISSIONS (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

Mr President, as the same conditions apply to the second reading speech of this Bill as applied to the second reading speeches of the 2 previous Bills, I seek leave to have this second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

page 2392

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Motion (by Senator Byrne) agreed to:

That there be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for inquiry and report the following matter-

page 2393

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Motion (by Senator Maunsell) agreed to:

That there be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment for inquiry and report the following matter

Whether adequate consideration is being given to the environment and ecological factors in aboriginal advancement programs financed from the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account and the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises;

Whether the above Committee should report on the social and environmental aspects of all future aboriginal enterprises financed by the Australian Government.

page 2393

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders: Call of the Senate

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 19 1 1 ), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That standing order 242 be suspended to enable the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill to be passed in each case without a call of the Senate.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I suggest that this motion to suspend standing order 242, moved by the Leader of the Government (Senator Murphy), has been moved in extraordinary circumstances. As we know, standing order 242 is an expression of opinion by the Senate, through its Standing Orders, that any

Act to amend the Constitution should be treated with somewhat more consideration than a mere dog Act and that therefore every senator, representing as he does, with equal voting strength, one of the 6 States, should be given a special opportunity to be present when the third reading of a Bill to alter the Constitution is moved. This would call for 2 1 days notice to be given, and it would follow the spirit of section 128 of the Constitution which places added importance on Bills that alter the Constitution. Section 128 provides that such a law shall be passed by an absolute majority, and that not less than two nor more than 6 months after its passage the proposed law is to be submitted to the electors. Therefore, the Constitution ensures an interval of at least 2 months.

This section provides also that if both Houses of Parliament are not in agreement, one House may have the amendments submitted to the people if it passes a Bill which the other House rejects- and the interval between the 2 decisions has been 3 months- either in the same session or in the next session. Therefore, the Constitution ensures full deliberation on a Bill that either commends itself to both Houses or to one House. Special conditions are put forward as conditions precedent for the holding of a referendum. So the Standing Orders provide that the third reading of such a Bill shall be upon a call of the Senate after notice of not less than 21 days. I should have thought that unless some urgent and imperative reasons were given this was a short and not inappropriate time to give senators an opportunity to make their arrangements. One has only to survey the individual circumstances of those senators who are absent from the chamber today to realise that they are entitled to specific notice and, in connection with a Bill to alter the Constitution, they have a specific responsibility.

The second point I take is that of course, as in all things that Senator Murphy does, there is no inhibition on his part to putting all 4 Bills into one rag bag and dealing with the whole lot as if he were tossing it into a garbage truck that was passing by. Senator Murphy is not daunted in any way by putting the 4 Bills into one can and saying: ‘Let us dispense with a call as to the whole four’. The next point I take is that before the second reading debate has taken place on these Bills Senator Murphy seeks to impose upon the chamberhis impetuous view that there should be no call for the third reading. The mere recital of the short titles of the 4 Bills- the first concerns simultaneous elections, the second concerns so-called democratic elections, the third concerns local government bodies and the fourth concerns the mode of altering the Constitutionwould indicate to anybody with the slightest acquaintance with the Constitution the variety of considerations that these Bills will evoke in debate as to whether they are appropriate matters to be put to a referendum.

Therefore, I think it is bordering on the unreasonable to suggest that at this stage, before the second reading debate has taken place, we should consider whether it is appropriate to dispense with a call in regard to all or any one of these Bills. The course that may be taken by the Senate in the debate on any one of these Bills may vary from that taken in the debate on any of the others. I suggest that we should make up our minds as to whether to have a call on the basis of how the Senate treats each of those Bills. It bemuses me to think that we can be asked to consider a call for the third reading before the Senate has decided to accept, reject or otherwise treat these Bills. I hope that the Senate will reject the motion.

Senator McMANUS:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Victoria

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party made decisions in regard to the Bills to which the motion now before us relates. Those decisions put the passage of the Bills very much in doubt and in our view make a debate on this motion rather perfunctory or unnecessary. We will not oppose the motion, but we do not think it will operate.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The issue with which the Senate is dealing at the moment is a motion for the suspension of standing order 242. A similar motion was debated earlier this year. On that occasion the motion was passed because the Australian Democratic Labor Party joined with the Australian Labor Party. As a result, on 8 December, which is next Saturday, 2 questions relating to alterations to the Constitution will be put to the people.

As I understand it, standing order 242 was adopted by the Senate early in Federation. The reasons for its adoption are fairly important to me. It was considered desirable that, when an alteration to the Constitution was thought necessary and a Bill proposing the alteration was required to be passed by the Houses of Parliament, there should be a 3-week delay for a call of honourable senators so that the issue could be properly debated before it was submitted to the people. Mr Odgers, in his very important work Australian Senate Practice’, states that the Standing Orders make provision for a call of the

Senate in only one set of circumstances; that is, in relation to the very important matter of a change in the Constitution. Apparently, in the past there have been several occasions on which standing order 242 has been suspended. It is my view that the Bills that are now before the Senate are of such importance that standing order 242 should not be suspended.

It is my understanding that the original standing order 242 was copied from the Standing Orders of the South Australian House of Assembly. In 1885 the Clerk of that House, Mr E. G. Blackmore, who later became an early Clerk of the Senate, wrote a book entitled ‘The Practice of the House of Assembly’ in which he said:

When any question of unusual importance is engaging the attention of the House it is thought desirable that any decision thereon whenever taken should represent the sense of the House at large. It is ordered on motion duly made that the House be called over on a certain day.

There we see the first proposal that matters of great importance should be announced and called for on a certain day. It should be noted also that Mr Odgers points out his book that a call of the Senate does not necessarily fulfil the objective for which it is made, in that there is no power to compel senators to vote. But the general reasons for the calling of the Senate have been made quite clear. A call of the Senate is made in regard to issues of great importance. A call of the Senate can be made on an issue which requires our consideration and in respect of which we should have regard to our normal practice of seeking and receiving advice from members of the general public. I believe that we should seek their advice on a matter of such importance as the alteration of the Constitution.

We know that the Senate previously has supported the suspension of standing order 242. I was disappointed to hear Senator McManus indicate that he sees no reason why standing order 242 should not be suspended. He indicated that he will support the Government’s proposal to suspend standing order 242.

Senator Little:

– Transport problems in those days might have had something to do with the 21 -day period.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– Four.

Senator Little:

– Do they not have to be passed before they can be read a third time?

Senator Wright:

– With respect to incomes.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What is the point of the honourable senator’s argument?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I ask for the withdrawal of that statement- that gratuitous insult.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– Does the honourable senator know anything about the New South Wales Legislative Council and does he support what is happening with respect to it?

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– Of course it does.

Senator Wright:

– That is not the principle.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– I rise on a point of order. The motion before the Senate is simply to deal with the suspension of standing order 242. The following proposals are to deal with various Bills. Surely the ordinary rule that one should keep to the subject matter is emphasised in this case. The moment that this motion is disposed of one way or the other we shall move forward and Senator Webster will have an opportunity to say whatever he wants to say about the contents of the Bill.

Senator Wright:

- Mr President, would you permit me to make an observation on the point of order?

Senator Wright:

– I suggest that Senator Webster is not debating the Bill. He is debating the title of the Bill and its veracity as a true description of the contents. As we know, it is the title that goes into the ballot paper. That point, which is basic to the integrity of the vote, would be very germane to the interval for which a call was required. On the third reading the title may appear not to be appropriate. I suggest that so long as Senator Webster’s point is on the question of the propriety of the title he should be permitted to address debate to it.

Senator Mulvihill:

– That is an understatement.

Senator Little:

– We will consider that when it comes before us.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The Government suggests that this Standing Order be suspended. The Constitution makes clear that there must be an absolute majority of the Senate to pass any of the referendum proposals unless it is by way of the subsequent provisions which the Senate rejects or fails to pass. So for all these Bills there must be an absolute majority. It is quite democratic that this be done. If any persons are not present, this cannot affect the position that an absolute majority of senators must approve the proposal in the way it has been dealt with at the moment. Nothing is to be achieved by a call of the Senate. In fact, I would suggest that we could very well do without it. If we think that any measure requires some deliberation, we can take the deliberation. But why we should have to have this call of the Senate for such a proposal is beyond me.

The logical position which the honourable senator suggests is that notwithstanding that there is an absolute majority ready to pass the matter we should stand this over until Christmas Day- 2 1 days from today- and all assemble here and deal with it then. I do not think that that is a very rational way of dealing with the issue. Nor do I think, as Senator Wright suggests, that we should postpone all this legislation. Why not deal with these matters? Why not suspend the standing order, as it ought to be suspended, and then we can go on to debate the issue, and find out whether an absolute majority of senators supports any of the proposals? It seems to me to be perfectly sensible and democratic. Each of those matters has been allowed to stand for some time. They have been here from 20 November, except one which came here on 2 1 November- and before that, they were debated in the House of Representatives. I would suggest, with respect, that the commonsense thing to do is to suspend the standing order.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Murphy’s). be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 27

NOES: 23

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 1.4 to 2 p.m.

page 2398

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 1908), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

- Mr President, the matter before the Senate at the moment is a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the Senate elections are held at the same time as the House of Representatives elections. That is a very noble aspiration. But the initial question one should pose is: Why is this necessary? Why is it necessary to alter the Constitution permanently to bring this about? I believe that this Bill, like so many other actions of this

Government, is nothing but an exercise in deception in which the Government is deliberately attempting to deceive the people of Australia. When this Bill was called on for debate in the other place it was said that the title of the Bill was a fraud. In fact, it was said there also that the title did not reflect in any way the intent of the Bill. Once upon a time, of course, the long title of a Bill to amend the Constitution set out what the referendum proposal was to be. But that is not the case in this Bill; neither is it the case in the 3 Bills that are to follow.

I commenced by asking: Why is this Bill necessary? I believe it is not necessary. There is no need for a constitutional referendum to ensure that simultaneous elections are held. They may be held by 2 means. Firstly, we can have simultaneous elections at any time that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) likes to go and see the Governor-General because in section 57 of the Constitution there is provision for a double dissolution if there is a disagreement between the 2 Houses. If my memory serves me correctly, there has been the opportunity for the Government to request the Governor-General to grant a double dissolution ever since August or September. A double dissolution would bring about simultaneous elections of the whole of this chamber and of the House of Representatives. But, Mr President, it is not even necessary to hold a double dissolution to bring the elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives back to the same date. The Government could, if it wished to do so and if it had the courage to do so, take out the House of Representatives at the next Senate election- that is, when those honourable senators who are due to retire at 30 June 1974 have to face their electors. There is no constitutional or legal reason why the Government should not take out the House of Representatives at that time. I should point out that it is not the Senate which is out of step with the House of Representatives but rather the House of Representatives which is out of step with the Senate.

Senator Poyser:
VICTORIA

– How cheeky can you be?

Senator Laucke:

– I second the amendment.

Senator McMANUS:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Victoria

-This Bill has as its objective the coordination of elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is a most important Bill because it could affect, firstly, the independence of the Senate and, secondly, its existence as a House of review. I point out that it is possible for the Government to co-ordinate the election of both houses without a referendum and without constitutional change. What more ideal moment could there be than the present moment when the Government states that it is being obstructed by the Senate, when the Government has announced that if the Senate attempts to make the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) carry out his promise to preserve basic grants for all schools the Government will deprive the children of Australia of hundreds of thousands of dollars of educational aid and when the Government says that it believes that this issue is so vital that it wants to hold an election? What more ideal moment than the present to co-ordinate the election of the 2 Houses by a double dissolution and an election within the next two or three weeks? I cannot understand the silence from the Government benches. This is the Government’s ideal opportunity. It is not prepared to take the opportunity. Instead it proposes to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on an election and on a referendum when there is no real need for it. There could have been an election if we had defeated the Appropriation Bill only last week.

Senator Milliner:
QUEENSLAND

– I will come back on that.

Senator Milliner:

– Do you want a double dissolution?

Senator Milliner:

– Come on, answer yes or no. Now who has not got the intestinal fortitude?

Senator Milliner:

– What about a double dissolution?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– Only a fortnight ago, when this house was debating the Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill, I drew attention to the fact that the provisions of that Bill represented the thin edge of the wedge in the destruction of the independence of the Senate, and perhaps of the Senate itself. Now we have before us a measure that I believe would drive the wedge deeper. We are told that the main provisions of the Bill are for a new section in the Constitution giving senators a term equal to 2 terms in the House of Representatives, and for simultaneous elections of both Houses. The Prime Minister said in his second reading speech, when this Bill was introduced in another place, that there was no derogation in the proposal from the authority or responsibility of either House, but there were great benefits. The benefits, he said, were in public convenience and worthwhile savings of expenditure, and, most of all, the benefit to Parliament of having the reflection in both Houses simultaneously of the people’s will, so that the Government and the Parliament might get on with the job.

I believe that we can discount the first two benefits claimed by the Prime Minister. This

Government has not shown itself in 12 months of office to be one concerned with the convenience of people. Does the Prime Minister seriously ask the people of Australia to believe that cost saving is one reason why his Government wants to hold Senate and House of Representatives elections at the same time? That is utter rubbish. We know that Labor has a warped sense of proportion and priority where expense is concerned, but a Government which contributes heavily and unashamedly to the rate of inflation through the totality of its own expenditure is most unlikely seriously to consider austerity in the form of reduced election costs. This is merely a red herring, a feeble attempt to disguise the real purpose.

So it is the Prime Minister’s third reason, so called, that we need to deal with in this debate. By his own admission, what the Prime Minister wants by the medium of this legislation is a majority in both Houses so that legislation brought forward by his Government-the good legislation, the bad legislation, and the indifferent legislation- can be given a free passage. Neither he nor his Ministers or backbenchers can tolerate the thorough review to which Labor legislation has been subjected this year in this chamber. The great strength and the great value of the Senate is its independence, and the Constitution, as it now stands, gives it that independence. Take that away and the Senate would become a useless rubber-stamp of the Executive Government’s decisions.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about the mandate? What about the voice of the people?

Senator Gietzelt:

– That is just a subterfuge, and you know it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-We are dealing with a Bill the subject matter of which a committee of which I was a member in 1959 considered and made a report. That committee was constituted by a joint agreement of all parties then represented in the Parliament. This committee was supposed to represent a formidable approach to the issue of constitutional review reform. Of course, the committee brought forth one mouse which was successfully scotched in the nexus referendum. The Bill that is now before us is related to another proposal put forward by the committee. I think it is pertinent to consider what may have taken place in the intervening 14 or 15 years since that committee made its report. Undoubtedly the project of 1959 had become pointed in one direction- to alter the status and the operation of the Senate. Several proposals were then put forward not only in regard to simultaneous elections, which is the subject of this Bill, but also one to avoid consulting the people on a deadlock issue. There were other proposals. But undoubtedly the pre-occupation of the proponents of that constitutional review program was, in some way, to make the Senate conform.

That was the situation in 1959. In the 10 years following 1949, the Senate, under the old system of voting, was almost a rubber stamp of the government of the day. Elections held under the block system were so designed to automatically produce a majority in this chamber for the party which had been voted into the majority of places in the House of Government. So long as this system was maintained it was immaterial whether or not simultaneous elections were held. Between 1949 and 1959 we had only the slightest indications of independence of thought in this chamber. There were a few- and they were growing- and it could be foreseen that if this chamber operated according to its independent judgment life would not be so happy and so complacent for governments in another place. As one of the members of that committee in 1959 1 took the responsibility of dissenting from the majority report of the committee that favoured the proposal for simultaneous elections. At that time the Senate was still a place of potential promise, a place where policy could be influenced and in some cases evolved.

The Senate at that time remembered that it was constituted by the Constitution in a different fashion from the House of Representatives for the very purpose of having a different approach on proper matters. As Senator Withers said in the course of his speech this afternoon, unless there had been a different approach and a different constitution of the Senate there would never have been any Federation. In the 1890s when Federation was being discussed it had first to be determined whether the 6 States would come to the conventions. It was only on the basis that each State had equal representation in the Senate, or the States House as it was called then, that there was the beginnings of interest and agreement. Despite the experience of 70 or 80 years and with all that velocity of development that has taken place those 6 States remain 6 entities and will continue to do so with their own different and independent outlooks for the time that we have experience in politics. The peoples of those States, and not the Governments of those States, are joined here in Canberra and are represented by senators. On the occasions when State interests are at issue the Senate is quite capable of so emphasising the State issues as to be an important outlet for State political points of view. No government in this place would dare move in regard to an industry, such as the sugar industry in Queensland, without being satisfied that the senators from Queensland were in agreement with the proposal. This would be the case also in regard to island shipping for Tasmania or the apple industry of which Tasmania produces 70 to 80 per cent of Australia’s exports in this field. So I simply make the point clear that in 1959 honourable senators represented State interests and had some influence on the Government of the day.

The second point I wish to make about the constitution of the Senate is that honourable senators are elected for a term of 6 years. That, in the minds of the thoughtful framers of the Constitution, would give, and it has given to this place, a stability that is not available under the Westminster system to the House responsive to the responsible Government down below. It was a great experiment that was designed to try to reconcile all the demands of responsible government and all the experience of responsible government with a federal system of government. It had not been essayed in America. The people who assembled at our conventions were quite conscious of the challenge of making the system of responsible government operate.

If we were to turn our minds for a minute to the changes that have come about in the operation of responsible government since 1900 we would see that the Prime Minister who took his lower House to the country at that time purely for political purposes would be scarified by the electorate, but today it has become the convention. At that time if the Prime Minister took his Party to the country on other than some important policy issue he would be condemned for that alone. Today Mr Heath, Mr Whitlam and Mr Trudeau are sniffing the wind not for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is an issue worthy of an election but for the purpose of ascertaining whether the breeze is blowing favourably and whether it would be propitious to go to the country. Hence Mr Whitlam ‘s nervousness and, in a sense, hesitation in the aura of the recent election in New South Wales. He just wants to know what his chances are. Irrespective of whether he had another 3 months or 2 years of his 3-year term to run he would, if he thought it was favourable for party political purposes to do so, force an election. That sort of thing is condoned. That attitude has been engendered by the predominant influence which the political commentators have over the situation today. Parliament has allowed them to take over the expression of political will and has not required them to write the political will as expressed by parliamentarians. In an era in which such a system has been developed it is doubly important to maintain the importance of a fixed term of election for the House which has to oppose a government which has a majority. That is most important if we are to have stability of government and a degree of responsibility.

Having given the Senate that 6-year term the Constitution founders said: ‘There is only one event in which the Senate can be dissolved’. I should think, relying on memory, that that event would have been debated more than any other single issue in the Convention debates. In what circumstances can the States House be dissolved so that the Government, recruited in the main from the two or perhaps three most populous States, could overawe the Senate? Because the wilting of the Senate that took place between 1 900 and 1 949 had not been experienced in 1 900 and because it was expected to be a bulwark of State rights, it was decided that the Senate should not be subject to the whim of Whitlam or any other person who occupies the position of head of government. Whoever he may be, the Senate is not to be at the whim of the Prime Minister of the day as to whether it is to be struck down and dissolved. But if the House of Representatives puts an issue to the Senate and the Senate rejects it or fails to pass it and the House of Representatives proposes it to the Senate a second time, it is possible for the Prime

Minister of the day to go to the GovernorGeneral and get a provision for the double dissolution of Parliament a simultaneous dissolution of both Houses. The issue upon which the Senate has stacked its existence is then made prominent in the minds of the people. That issue then can be expected to be determined by the people with that in mind.

As I stand here and remind myself of the arguments that persuaded me in 1959 to dissent from the views of the other eleven, it is not much wonder that I stood my ground because as I restate the arguments I am more than ever convinced that the Senate needs the constitutional stability and safeguards to which I have referred. But I do not approach the matter in 1973 with the same experience before me as I had in 1959. The intervening 14 years of experience have been most pregnant from the point of view of exhibiting the political potential of which this chamber is capable. There are some in the Senate who think that the committee system began in a recent era. If they were to study the debates they would learn that a very patient campaign carried on through the 1950s and accentuated in the early 1960s resulted in the gradual acceptance by the Government of a committee system in the Senate. For example, many years ago it was suggested that we should have Estimates Committees of the type we have now. If I may direct an observation to you personally, Mr President, and not to you as the occupant of the Chair, you will remember a very important committee was set up when it was proposed to amalgamate and, indeed, emasculate the amendable Bill of appropriation. In that and in the Estimates Committees the Senate has shown its strength with regard to the examination of appropriations- a strength not always maintained, a strength which was miserably and disgracefully ruined last week when we had an impulsive guillotine thrown upon us at half past four in the afternoon of the last day upon which the Government could get appropriation, so it was said, and enough members of this chamber were prepared to go along with it to enable a social party to begin at ten past six in the afternoon. Those who do not see that the programming of Parliament requires the Appropriation Bill to come on a month before it has to go through are sadly blind to the degree to which, simply by maneouvring, the power of the Senate over appropriation can be thwarted. But enough of that.

I am saying that in the Estimates Committees the Senate has grown in strength. We had a suggestion the other day that if the Senate probed too far in the Estimates Committees we would have to reconsider their existence. So said Senator Murphy who, in halcyon days, claimed to be something of a protagonist of those committees. I do not think that the Senate will ever allow the Senate committee system to be terminated. Through not only the Senate committees but through other committees dealing with the innermost and most dynamic fields of policy the Senate has been probing and expressing opinion and carrying into effect policy that in 1959 it was never dreamed would be the responsibility of the Senate. If my dissenting report is perused- I had not looked at it for 10 years until I brought it in here and I had not thought of this remark- it will be seen that I quoted there that in its first 50 years of existence the United States Senate was made light of and that jests were made that the senators could be found going to the House of Representatives to observe the proceedings there, and that they were insignificant and of no account. I prophesised that the first 50 fameless years of this Senate would reproduce the American experience. Since the constitution of our select and standing committees the Senate has had a great impact upon policy. I believe that it is probably the most formidable agency for responding to the people’s will when the Government submits its legislative program to Parliament, due to some extent to the lack of real political perception of the media, and to some extent to the people.

If in 1959 it was essential to maintain the separate independent status of the Senate for its proper purposes, in 1973 it is ever so much more important to do so. I rise briefly to expound a point of view which although not very much listened to in this place is, I am sure, appreciated by those who out of principle make constitutional study their preoccupation, that it is necessary that we remind ourselves from time to time of the reasons why these differences exist. If we should fall victim to the myopia that seems to be clouding the outlook of the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and vote for a Bill that is designed to make the Senate the echo of a government party on the hustings every time an election is held for the House of Representatives, it would mean, I think, that we would be doing less than our duty.

A dissolution of the House of Representatives takes place as I have pointed out, not only because of matters of high principle that have been debated in Parliament. It may take place because of the purely fortuitous circumstance that leaders disagree. If there were today an ambitious contention between 2 members of the governing party in the House of Representatives, the

Government might fall. Half of the Senate is to go to an election next year. Suppose that we had an incident similiar to the one that we witnessed this morning involving the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) and the Government nominee on the board of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd (Senator Georges) arising from the dismissal last week by the directors of the Government expert, Dr Bustard, after which the Government yesterday presumably summoned up its courage and said: ‘No, we are going to keep Dr Bustard but we are going to remove the directors’. If we were a Party of a government that might very well create in Caucus tomorrow morning such a situation that there would be an election which would take the other House to the people. I would like to think of them going along the beach Uke a group of turtles following the whimsies of Mr Whitlam ‘s whimsicality.

So I just pause for a little silent pity towards the author of this proposal; and the more so when I reflect on how he has masqueraded as a constitutional constructor. A constitutional convention was in the wind when he came into office, and he said he would support it. He went along and, after certain discussion, he produced a great idea. ‘In the Constitution, I have pointed out’, said Mr Whitlam to the assembled Convention in Sydney, ‘it is possible only for the States to refer matters to the Commonwealth. I suggest the reciprocal process should operate: It should be possible for the Commonwealth to refer matters to the States’. What a magnificent condescension! How original! If honourable senators recall the piece of paper- the statement, or whatever it is called- that they put out after these conventions, this was the great idea. Then Caucus met and it said: ‘We are not going to have any of this funny business. We want a referendum on prices’. And it said: ‘We won’t have anything on incomes’. No. But next week Mr Prime Minister said: ‘Unless you include incomes, I am finished ‘. So, Mr Hawke being silent, Caucus succumbed, and we are told a great impression was produced. And then the Democratic Labor Party took a hand in it- and of that I will say nothing.

The difference between the 2 referenda has been referred to by Senator Webster briefly when arguing about suspension of the Standing Order. He was required to confine himself to the title and its truth. I just want to reinforce what he said by reference to the way the convolutions of Mr Whitlam ‘s constitutional mind go. He has come forward out of Caucus, not with a proposal to control incomes as was agreed to about prices, but a constitutional proposal with respect to incomes. In the course of the second reading debate, Senator Murphy said: ‘I want you to know that this power, if given, will not be exercised always in a negative sense. It will enable the Australian Parliament to give those guarantees which hitherto the States alone have given’. Always curious to know how these great minds work, I asked a question. I was told quite frankly that it would enable the Australian Parliament to fix the basic wage and to legislate, possibly, for hours of work and for sick leave, annual leave, long service leave and all the other safeguards of wages. That was the second contribution by Mr Whitlam to this process of constitutional study.

It is like a boy licking his fingers after eating a toffee apple. Mr Whitlam has made a couple of proposals and he says: ‘We might do a little more of this making constitutional proposals’. So we have these 4 sticky proposals which will be before us this afternoon. We have before us now this proposal dealing with simultaneous elections. This must be the joke of the whole session. As Senator McManus has pointed out so clearly, if bringing the elections of this Parliament into gear is the desideratum of those who are concerned about the expenditure of $2m in order to consult the people in the election of the Senate, is that mere waste or gross extravagance in relation to the purchase of ‘Blue Poles’- blue, black or brindle; I do not care what it is called- which is a bit of duco stuck on canvass and for which the agent’s fee was $100,000? Dear, oh dear, the economic sense of the Government which deters it from going to the people. Let us both go together. Let us go on this occasion, now that the Senate has stipulated the things upon which it is in definite disagreement and registered its stand so that double dissolution circumstances have occurred. The opportunity faces the Government now, if it has the courage to go to the country and so bring the elections for the Houses together. But a government which manages turtles and the purchase of a painting such as ‘Blue Poles’ as it does will not do so.

It offered $8m towards the cost of draining Lake Pedder and resuscitating a button grass plain in order to form a warm habitat for 6 varieties of broad tongued rats or other things that are found there. The other day my good friend Senator Webster reminded me of these things. I was advocating a national view in relation to the seas and submerged lands. Senator Webster was taking a State view. I turned around and said to him ‘Troglodyte’, in happy memory of the visit which we paid to New Guinea, where we saw the mud men. I pictured the fiat, muddy floor of Lake Pedder and thought that one word would be sufficient for understanding. The poor people up in the Press Gallery say that I turned in acrimony. God help us. May they acquire a little humour and broadness of outlook. This Government offered $8m to drain Lake Pedder which is a magnificent body of water, 93 square miles in area and 50 feet in depth. It is the loveliest and the major water storage in the southern hemisphere. The Government offered $8m to drain that. Yet it wants to avoid a Senate election because that will cost $2m. Do honourable senators think that that is prudence? Do honourable members think that is real political intelligence? I hope that we will be able to reflect these views properly before the country shortly.

I support the proposal that this Bill be subjected to the scrutiny of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That Committee has representation from all sections of this Parliament. It would be interesting to see just what the Government members on that Committee, on sober consideration, would say. It is my experience that committee operations bring forward a detachment from partisan or party considerations. I think that an objective report from the Senate Standing Committee on this issue at this time would be most valuable for the record and as a guide to this chamber. For myself, I would prefer to see the Bill go before the Committee; but, if not, I think that it should be defeated.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-As one who has always stood for the independence of this chamber, I think that I should say a few words in connection with this Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. The matter has been set out by the previous speaker, Senator Wright, in a very able manner. Senator McManus also brought a very good, practical, down to earth approach to the matter. Over the years this chamber has developed to a stage which, possibly, at one time people felt it would not reach. I think it can be truly said that today the Senate plays a much more important part than it did some few years ago. The way in which the committee system has developed and the approach of the Senate in certain ways and to various subjects have been outlined. I think that this has all been to the good so far as the legislatures of this Commonwealth are concerned. I feel that nothing should be done to detract from the passage which the Senate has been travelling for some years. It would be tragic if things were done to deflect the Senate from the approach which it has been making and from the development which has been achieved.

As has been pointed out, the need for the synchronisation of elections has not been brought about by the Senate. As has been clearly stated, it has been brought about by the people in the other place. I do not think it is a very good move at all to change the Constitution to enable this place to be taken to an election every time the House of Representatives decides to go to an election. It is quite possible that in the other place situations may develop from time to time which may bring about more elections than are being held now because of the elections for the Houses being out of tune with each other.

From the Senate’s point of view, having a Senate election apart from the House of Representatives election focusses attention on the Senate much more than when the 2 Houses go to the polls together. In the past the tendency was always to cloud the issue of the Senate by featuring the House of Representatives to such a great extent. I know that people in the other place like to feel that they dominate and, as a consequence, they like to put the Senate in an inferior position. But it has been recognised by members in that other place that over recent years the Senate has made strides of which they are envious. I remember that about 18 months or a couple of years ago, when the Senate Estimates committee system had been established, on 2 occasions then Opposition members- now Government membersin the other place stood up and asked: Why cannot we do this? Why cannot we do that? The Senate does it. We are just so and so’. The honourable members meant that today the Senate is a House of very great importance. On another day members of the House of Representatives who are members of the Party of which I am a member stood up and said almost the same. It was an indication in their minds that the Senate was achieving things, was going places and was developing to a much higher status than it had attained before. I think that this is all to the good of the parliamentary system of this country. We do not want to let people in the other place do their best to destroy the Senate. I have no hesitation in saying that because I know what has been said to me by the person concerned. The present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) - arrogant Gough- hates the Senate and would love to see the Senate reduced considerably in stature.

Senator Lillico:

– He took the rise out of you this morning.

Senator Lillico:

– He had too many guns for you this morning.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about the cost of separate elections?

Senator MURPHY:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– In reply- I am grateful to Senator Wood for what he said about me, especially as he has been a great parliamentarian. A lot has been said about the Senate committees. It should not be forgotten that when the Labor Party was in Opposition it put forward the proposal for the legislative and general purpose committees- the standing committees- which are now praised. It was the votes of Senator Wood and the independent senator, voting with the then Opposition, which secured the establishment of those committees against the combined vote of those who are now praising them. I think the record will speak for itself concerning the establishment of those committees.

A number of issues have been raised. I do not wish to go through all of them. One thing is clear. The present Government, through the Prime Minister, before the last election put in the policy statement to the people:

We will hold referenda to synchronise elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate . . .

He : spoke in support of another referendum proposal also. So it was a clear statement of intent that this referendum would be sought. In our view, the people are entitled to voice their opinion on the question whether there should be synchronisation of elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. The proposal ought not to be sent to the Committee; it ought to be sent to the people. If the people have to choose, they may accept the arguments that have been put forward by a number of senators opposite. They may listen to what has been put by Senator Wood, ibr example, and may choose to vote in favour of it. At least they ought to be given the opportunity. They ought not to be denied the opportunity to vote because this proposal is sent to a committee of the Senate. That is not how the Constitution ought to be altered. It is difficult enough to alter it now, but when the House of Representatives proposes an alteration which was previously put to the people at election, one would think that in all decency it ought to be put to the people.

If the proposal is not put to the people immediately because the Senate declines to do so and accepts the proposal to refer the matter to a committee, the Government will treat this course as a failure to pass in terms of the Constitution and will, at the earliest opportunity, bring forward the proposal again in such a way that the provisions of section 128 can be availed of, and it can be put to the people without the concurrence of the Senate. The wisdom of those who framed the Constitution has been praised. It is interesting to observe that they had the wisdom to provide for a contingency such as this. If one House declines to pass a referendum Bill which has been passed by the other House, after the constitutional interval the matter can be put directly to the people so that this kind of obstruction cannot prevail. The interposition of a committee between the alteration of the Constitution and the people ought not to be supported. The arguments need not be gone over again. There are too many elections. Elections of the House of Representatives and the Senate ought to be synchronised conveniently, either by this method or by having some fixed term for both Housesfor example, a 6-year term for the Senate, as it is, and a 3-year term for the House of Representatives. That proposal would mean significant alterations to our system of government. For example, it would mean that the House of Representatives could not be dissolved if a government had lost the confidence of the House. Therefore, it appeared to the Government that the convenient way of synchronising elections of the 2 Houses was to alter the Constitution so that when there was an election for the House of Representatives there was one for the Senate also.

The other suggestion is that there ought to be elections from time to time- mid-term elections -and that in some way the judgment of the people could be reflected in a mid-term way. That suggestion is not satisfactory. Governments need a period in which to legislate and to allow their legislation to take effect. Everywhere it has been found that if a country is to have stable and efficient government there needs to be some reasonable period between the assessments by the people and possible changes of government. Whether it is 3 years or 5 years, as in the United Kingdom, these periods are thought to be reasonable. If there is to be accepted some doctrine of a more regular approach to the people and an assessment of their viewpoint, such as every 1 8 months, surely logic demands that if the people have changed their minds after 18 months that should be accompanied by a change of government. If they do not want the policies which are being implemented, let there be a change of government. It is very hard to sustain the proposition that one should accept the verdict of the people and not give effect to it properly. Instead, each House is see-sawing against the other.

I can see some force in the arguments put by honourable senators opposite, and there are countervailing arguments, but the overwhelming ground for the passage of this Bill is that the argument will then be decided where it ought to be decided, and that is at the hands of the people. Let them make their judgment. Let there be no doubt about it, the Opposition parties are combining to prevent the people from having their say. They are not prepared to say: ‘Here is a proposal that was put to the people by the Prime Minister at the last election. We will go out on the hustings and fight it. We are prepared to accept the verdict of the people at the next Senate election’. They say: ‘No. We do not want the verdict of the people on this proposal. We want to shelve it, as we will no doubt shelve the other constitutional proposals. We will prevent the people from having their say. Instead, we will have the Senate election. The best way of getting the first of these proposals away from the people and putting up some cover of respectability for what we are doing is to send it off to a committee to look at it’. We say that that is not a proper course of action and that it would be far more consistent with democracy to let the matter pass. Even if the Opposition wanted to indicate its disapproval, it should say that it would go out and fight the matter and let the people decide. That is what we ask of the Opposition. We say that if the Opposition votes for the amendment or votes against putting the matter to the people it is denying the people the right to say whether the elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives should be synchronised.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 30

NOES: 24

Majority…….. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Withers’ amendment) be inserted.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 30

NOES: 24

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 30

NOES: 23

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2413

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 1910), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

- Mr President, the Bill currently before us has the short title Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974. As I said in the debate on a previous Bill, this is only typical of this Government’s approach. The long title to this Bill is deliberately misleading. The Bill has 7 clauses and what would be put to the Australian people is an acceptance of all 7 clauses. Parts of this Bill the Opposition would be prepared to accept, such as clause 3 which seeks the deletion of section 25 from the Constitution. I state for the benefit of those members of the Labor Party who have not bothered to read their own Government’s Bill that this clause deals with the provision as to races disqualified from voting

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Austraiian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) has just pointed out, in relation to the Bill now before the chamber one could be excused for saying that if ever there was any doubt that the Labor Government employs a double standard this Bill must dispel that doubt. For years, this Parliament and the people of Australia have heard Labor champion the electoral principle of one vote one value. For years, we have listened to Labor claim and complain that people in the country areas of Australia have greater voting strength than people in the cities. Yet here we have a Bill that proposes to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that members of the House of Representatives and of the Parliaments of the States represent numbers of people rather than numbers of electors. One major effect of such a change would be to take our electoral system further away from the one vote one value principle. Why the double standard? Why propound one principle and follow another? Clearly, this is another attempt by Labor to fool the people, and for that reason alone it deserves to fail.

A few months ago, the Senate rejected a Labor Government Bill which sought to give the cities more representation in Parliament and the country areas fewer representatives. Now wc have a new Bill with a different title but the same objective. Its one major difference is that now the Government seeks to let the people decide by referendum. What Labor wants is not equality or fair representation for the people, or one vote one value or whatever else it might like to call it. It wants political advantage for the Labor Party- and this Bill, presented so soon after the Electoral Bill was thrown out, demonstrates its determination to get it. The motive is consistent with this Government’s deep-rooted antipathy towards rural areas. I do not propose on this occasion to go through the long and growing list of decisions made by this Government that have disadvantaged country people. They are well known.

In view of the obvious aim of the Bill, I ask: How serious is the Government about its decentralisation policy? If it succeeds in having electoral boundaries determined by numbers of people, the Government will have the greatest representation where it wants it- in the heavily populated worker suburbs of the cities. I submit that it is most unlikely that Labor will set in train policies that would bring more people out of the cities into country areas: it would be defeating its own electoral purpose by doing so. To prove my point that Labor argues one principle but adopts another, I shall give figures showing how the proposal in the Bill will take us further away from one vote one value. If the present proposal had applied at the time of the 1969 election, one vote in the electorate of Sydney would have been worth 1.7 votes in the electorate of Robertson, and one vote in the electorate of Melbourne would have been worth 1.77 votes in the electorate of Diamond Valley. There are many other similar examples.

I now turn to Labor’s effrontery as exhibited in this Bill’s proposal to give the Federal Government the right to tell the States how they shall elect their representatives to their own Parliaments. This is just one more attack by the centralist, socialist Government on the rights of the States. It is preposterous for the Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam) to ask the Senate-the States House- to approve a measure that would strip the States of such a fundamental right. That he had the temerity to do so emphasises, if emphasis were needed, the Federal Labor Government’s determination to grab every significant State power for Canberra- a process which would lead, of course, to the achievement of the Prime Minister’s ambition to abolish the States, which he sees only as an encumbrance. For these reasons, clearly the Bill should be rejected in its entirety, and the Country Party means to see that that is what happens.

Senator McMANUS:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Victoria

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party will vote against these Bills. We realise that they can only be delayed and that we cannot prevent the referendum from being held. But we believe it is worth while to vote against the Bills at the present time to highlight our opposition to what is an obvious attempt to gerrymander elections. I was interested some years ago to read a paper upon this very point in the ‘Australian Quarterly Review’ of March 1969. This article was written, I believe, by a member of the Australian Labor Party who was particularly interested in the subject of elections. In the course of the article he pointed out that any proposal such as this, which allegedly will make electorates of equal size and so bring about equality in voting, cannot fail to do the opposite. He could not see in it any great reform and he pointed out that the objection always to anything of this nature comes from the fact that it can lock up large minorities in certain seats and in effect give those minorities no say in the government.

What, for example is the worth of a Labor vote in Kooyong? The people of Kooyong who vote Labor have no representation. Contrarily, what is the worth of a Liberal vote in Gellibrand? Under this system of equal electorates the Liberals in Gellibrand have no representation. In a number of seats the Australian Democratic Labor Party has quite sizable minorities but it does not get one member in the House of Representatives. On occasion we have obtained in elections 500,000 votes. But we do not get any representation in the House of Representatives. Is there any provision in this Bill, by a Government which says that it wants electoral justice, to give the DLP with 500,000 votes any representation? There is none at all.

Let me say categorically that the purpose of this Bill is not electoral justice. The Government is not interested in electoral justice. This is one more attempt to get control of the electorate in order to perpetuate Labor government. This issue was raised prior to the last election. The DLP in the course of its advertising predicted that the Labor Party if elected would do just this. At the time no attempt was made by the media or most of the Press commentators to deal with the question of electoral justice. They did not deal with the DLP’s argument that the Labor Party would do this. They said that it was unthinkable that a Labor Government would attempt to do this type of thing and therefore they did not give our arguments any consideration. There were people in the Labor Party who became very eloquent and said that the advertising of the DLP was unacceptable, that it was wrong that that kind of advertising could be used. At that time Mr Hugh Cudlipp, who is a leading personality in the British Press, was in Australia. Some members of the Labor Party went to him in the hope that he would issue a statement attacking the DLP’s advertising. But he laughed at them and said that the sort of political advertising that he had seen in the Australian election was cream puff advertising. He said: ‘I would be sorry to see British elections conducted on these lines. I prefer a bit of fight ‘.

However, that did not prevent a number of representatives of the Press, many of whom now occupy lucrative positions to which they have been appointed by the Labor Government, coming out and expressing horror that the DLP could suggest that people like Mr Whitlam or Freddie Daly would seek to gerrymander electorates to perpetuate themselves in office. All I will say about these people is that they knew perfectly well from their association with Parliament that the average attitude of political parties is not ‘Is this electoral justice? ‘ but ‘Who is going to win? ‘. That is the attitude in this Bill. Mr Daly has sat down and has tried to work out a system under which his Party will win and be perpetuated. He is putting it up here in a Bill seeking a referendum in the hope that he will pull the wool over the eyes of the people. The situation is that we are to have, say, 100,000 people in each electorate. Has there ever been a greater joke than that? Suppose that we had 100,000 people in each electorate. Honourable senators opposite know very well that in the inner areas of the big cities, particularly areas in which there are a large number of migrants- and the migrants have big families-out of 100,000 people 40,000 to 45,000 might be adults and 55,000 to 60,000 might be children. In other electorates where old retired people live the proportion of children is much smaller.

So the position is that under the arrangement put forward by the Labor Party we would have certain electorates in which there would be inevitably far more adults who are entitled to vote than in other areas. Members of the Australian Labor Party have sat down with their experienced men in electioneering and worked out that such a proposition would suit the Labor Party down to the ground because such an arrangement would favour them. The Government has now introduced this proposal which it says would give one vote one value. If the Labor Party believed in the principle of one vote one value it would introduce this principle in its own Party. In the proceedings which resulted in my leaving the Labor Party there was a vote in which the three small States and one delegate from a small State voted against us. The 2 States where all the population is- Victoria and New South Walesand one of Queensland voted for us. But in the event the Federal Executive decided against us because there was no representation on a population basis. The representatives of the two bigger States and one of Queensland were defeated by 7 votes which came from the smaller States.

What has the Labor Party done about representation in the Senate to bring in the principle of one vote one value? I was defeated in the Senate elections of 1961 for 3 years. At that time I scored 2 10,000 votes. There were 10 senators in the Senate from Tasmania at that time who together represented 1 80,000 voters. I did not get a seat although I got 2 10,000 votes. But 10 senators with an average of 18,000 votes each got in for Tasmania. What was the attitude of the Labor Party? I said to Senator O ‘Byrne, who is a Tasmanian senator: ‘Do you agree, Senator O ‘Byrne, with a situation whereby 10 senators from Tasmania representing 180,000 voters were elected and I did not get a seat although I got 30,000 more votes than the 10 of them’. He said: ‘Of course I do’. But Senator O ‘Byrne will vote for this Bill on the ground that he favours one vote one value.

There is not one vote one value on the Federal Executive or the Conference of the Australian Labor Party; the States get equal representation. But why does not the Labor Party follow the principle of one vote one value in its own Party parliament? There is not one vote one value at the Australian Council of Trade Union conferences. The unions would not have it. At the Australian Council of Trade Union conferences small unions get representation out of all proportion to the big unions. One did not get one vote one value- this has been changed recently- on the Trades Hall Council in Melbourne. A big union of 70,000 to 80,000 members would get 4 votes and a union made up of 53 members would get one vote. Members of the Australian Labor Party do not believe in the principle of one vote one value, otherwise they would introduce it into the affairs of their own Party. That is why I say that this proposition is just one more example of the attempt to fix the ballot box, to fix the ballot paper, in the interests of maintaining the Australian Labor Party in office.

If members of the Australian Labor Party really believed in the principle of one vote one value they would advocate the system of election which gives the nearest approximation to the principle of one vote one value, that is, the HareClark system. In saying that I am supported by the opinion of some distinguished people inside the Australian Labor Party. In a recent address to the Proportional Representation Society in South Australia, Mr Clyde Cameron said that in his opinion the only system of election which could be calculated to give electoral justice to all parties was the Hare-Clark proportional representation system. I endeavoured to produce in this chamber a report which the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party commissioned about S years ago on this subject. A committee of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party, led by the late Senator Sam Cohen, Mr Gordon Bryant and other leading personalities of the branch, was asked to sit down and determine the system which in its opinion would give electoral justice and would ensure that if the Australian Labor Party ever received 50 per cent of the votes it would be in government. The committee sat down and produced an excellent report which indicated that the fairest system of election and the system which gave the nearest thing to electoral justice was the Hare-Clark proportional representation system. When I attempted to have that report incorporated in Hansard we had the amazing situation of one supporter of the Government, Senator Mulvihill, refusing me leave to do so.

Senator Milliner:

– You know why. Because you refused to give leave the day before.

Senator Milliner:

– You refused to give leave the day before.

Senator Milliner:

– Yes, the day before.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– I rise merely to draw attention to one aspect of the Bill which is before the chamber. Before doing so I want to say that I found myself to be in agreement with most of what Senator McManus had to say- I suppose 90 per cent of it- but not with what he had to say about a comparison between the electoral figures for Tasmania and the electoral figures for Victoria and the other States. The precise reason why the Senate was created was to counteract imbalances such as that which exists in another chamber between Tasmania and the other States. In my view it is fit and proper that the position at present with regard to the small State of Tasmania and the larger State of Victoria should pertain. The long title to this Bill states:

To alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Parliaments of the States are chosen directly and democratically by the People.

That in itself is a misnomer. Senator Withers quoted from an article by Malcolm Mackerras, who wrote an article for the ‘Bulletin’ in regard to this measure. He said that the Bill should be labelled:

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to rid Australian Parliaments of anti-Labor gerrymanders and to insert pro-Labor gerrymanders in their stead.

He went on to cite as an example 6 blue ribbon seats- 3 blue ribbon Liberal seats and 3 blue ribbon Labor seats- and said that if they were assessed on a population basis only 59 per cent of the people would vote in the blue ribbon Liberal seat of Bradfield, 44 per cent in the blue ribbon Labor seat of Grayndler, 46 per cent in the blue ribbon Labor seat of Sydney, 62 per cent in the blue ribbon Liberal seat of Warringah, 59 per cent in the blue ribbon Liberal seat of Wentworth and 43 per cent in the blue ribbon Labor seat of Werriwa. That is the direct opposite of the proposition that we heard so much about some time ago of one vote one value.

I am disappointed that a neighbouring country in which this system has been practised ever since the acceptance of elected parliaments in that country has not been quoted. No mention has been made of it. I refer to New Zealand. Just before 2 December- in the week before 2 December- there was an election in New Zealand. The newspapers in this country hailed it as a landslide victory to Labour in that dominion. There were various contentions as to what effect it would have on the subsequent election in this country. While I was in New Zealand I got hold of some Press cuttings on the election results. It should be remembered that in New Zealand elections are assessed on a population basis and that New Zealand is pretty meticulous in this respect. The New Zealand legislation lays down that there must be a redistribution every census. Incidentally there must not be a disparity of more than 5 per cent between any of the electorates. Among the newspaper headlines in New Zealand- in my view the newspaper headlines in New Zealand are just as foolish as some of the newspaper headlines in this country- there was one which said: ‘Labour Sweeps to Power- Mr Kirk party’s fourth P.M.’. Another said that Labour had the backing to redeem its policies. They went on and on. I think one of the headlines said that the New Zealand Labour Party had a mandate to put all its policies into operation because of the landslide victory. In the forefront of this screed I have before me a dissertation by a lecturer in political science at the Auckland University in which he devoted many pages to the reasons why there should be such a terrific swing to Labour and what caused it. It should be remembered that in New Zealand the electorates are assessed on a population basis.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I rise to express appreciation of what Senator Lilico has addressed to us. It relieves me entirely of any need to refer to this swindle that the Bill proposes, switching from a creed of one vote one value to the idea of the number of people. It makes me wonder whether the conference between the New Zealand Prime Minister and our own Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) soon after the elections transported this idea across the Tasman. This may have been the secret of his success. The switch has never been explained up to date.

However, I rose to refer to clause 7 of the Bill. I am in search of enlightenment. I seek the expression of better opinion. When I find in an Australian Parliament’s proposal to amend the Federal Constitution a provision saying on what basis each House of the Parliament of a State shall be constituted, I just wonder what the

Government will be dreaming up next. In the Federal Constitution, which is a Federal compact between the States, certain provisions are set out. In Chapter V, headed ‘The States’, section 106 begins:

The Constitution of each State . . . shall, subject to this Constitution -

Senator Webster:

- Senator Murphy forgot to look at that part.

Senator Little:

– You are having more success in finding out things than I have had. You are receiving an answer. I have not received an answer at all.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– in reply- I thank Senator Wright who has just indicated that, irrespective of what might be put by any member of the Government including myself, a decision has already been taken by the Opposition Parties to oppose the Bill.

Senator Wright:

– And convert them from bicameral to unicameral?

Senator Byrne:

– The honourable senator does not think that we have to go back to the Constitution Act itself for such a fundamental change?

Senator Little:

– Why does the Minister not advocate proportional representation?

Senator Little:

– Hear, hear!

Senator Little:

– I would accept that if I thought the major political parties were fair dinkum, but you are not.

Senator Byrne:

– Would you be prepared to introduce proportional representation for the House of Representatives?

Senator Wright:

– Under a Federal Constitution do you say that by referendum you can convert a State Parliament into a State municipal council?

Senator Little:

– In another there is no upper House.

Senator Byrne:

– Has that House a correspondingly limited power because it is not a House of direct election?

Senator Byrne:

– In New South Wales does it have absolute power of rejection as we have here?

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 25

NOES: 29

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2423

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LOCAL GOVERNMENT BODIES) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 191 1 ), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The Liberal Party will vote against this Bill. It will vote against the Bill because it is unnecessary, because it is a further erosion of the Constitution and because it is an underhand way of grabbing powers from the States to centralise arbitrary power in Canberra. The Liberal Party acknowledges the emphatic right of local government to receive assistance by way of funds, according to the total capacity of the nation to produce funds. We do not believe that local government should be treated like poor country cousins. It should not be given an occasional handout by the Federal Government and told to go home and make do. We believe that local government should receive extra money. We further believe that it is within the Government’s power now, under the present Constitution, to make this money available. Section 96 of the Constitution states: the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

I repeat, ‘on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit’. Therefore it is possible for the Federal Government to make grants to local government now under section 96 of the Constitution.

The proposed alterations to the Constitution are irrelevant and unnecessary. The Government is proposing another bureaucracy in a fast growing bureaucratic system. There are almost 1,000 municipalities in this country. Imagine the machinery which would be necessary to examine the affairs of these municipalities and to decide which ones were doing what, why they were doing it, how they were doing it, whether they needed assistance, if so what assistance and how much assistance. I ask: Does local government really believe that it will get a better deal from a bureaucratic organisation such as this? Will its claims be heard more readily? I doubt it. What is more likely to happen is that local government will become enmeshed in a tangle of red tape created by the Federal Australian Labor Party Government and paid for by the long-suffering taxpayer. What could and should happen under the present Constitution is that money going to local governments ought to go to them via the State governments. There is nothing to stop this Parliament appropriating X number of dollars as a national purpose for local government, to be distributed to the State governments on a prescribed formula and to be distributed among local government bodies by the 6 State governments.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

-We are told by the Government that the purpose of the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill is to make Federal funds available direct to local government bodies, by means of grants and low interest loans, to ease the burden of rates and to improve municipal services. An alteration to the Constitution is necessary before the Government can implement its plan, and the people are being asked at a referendum whether they believe that the constitutional alteration should be made.

This is one of 6 major changes to the Constitution proposed by the Labor Government. It is one of the 6 new avenues of power the Labor Government seeks from the electors by means of referendum. I believe that the people are well justified in asking just what is going on.

Senator Milliner:

– How many? Tell us a couple of them?

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

-The Australian Democratic Labor Party is opposed to the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill. It admits that the principles sound very attractive. Indeed, struggling local government councils seeking desperately a way out of the dilemma in which the financial policies of successive previous governments and this Government have placed them are bound to find the overall proposition apparently attractive. But if one is a practical politician- every senator ought to be if he is not- one has to remember that only just recently, at the time of the Parramatta by-election, there was a sudden decision to build a $8m hospital in the area because it was necessary to win votes.

Without castigating the present Government very much at all but simply looking at practical politics and practical politicians, I wonder just what would be the circumstances of the Federal Government going into local government council areas with an open cheque book and saying: ‘We will look after you’. I wonder what would be the position in relation to, say, the inner Melbourne suburb of Collingwood which forms part of a blue ribbon Labor seat. The Labor Government would not have to worry about the local council at Collingwood because it could not lose the seat. But what would happen in the outer suburban areas which are in borderline seats?

Senator Devitt:

– How would you know?

Senator Webster:

– Is that where his son is?

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– That is a good suggestion.

Senator Wilkinson:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– What about hire purchase?

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– in reply- Once again the Opposition Parties have indicated that they are prepared to. vote to prevent the people considering the question whether the people’s own Constitution should be amended in a particular way, that way being to enable the Commonwealth to borrow money for and to grant financial assistance to local government bodies. The policy speech, which was presented by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) immediately before the election of 2 December 1972, expressed a determination to make local government a genuine partner in the Federal system. The newly elected Government has pressed for and secured direct representation for local government on the Constitutional Covention which met for the first time in the middle of this year and which intends to consider various constitutional matters. The Grants Commission Bill, which has been passed by this Parliament on the initiative of the Government, empowers the Commission to inquire into and report on applications for grants from approved local government bodies. At the Constitutional Convention, the Prime Minister secured the agreement of the leaders of five of the State delegations that the Australian and State governments should come together to consider amending the financial agreement that is referred to in the Constitution.

On 1 1 October, the heads of Government met in Canberra to consider the Australian Government’s proposals that there be a voice and vote for elected local government representatives on the Loan Council, and that the Australian Government should be empowered to borrow on behalf of local governments. The Prime Minister indicated that if this could not be agreed to he would seek the necessary constitutional amendment of section 105a. Those events are the lead up to this Bill. As it has not been possible to achieve the assistance to local government that has been sought by consultation with the States, the Australian Government has proposed and the House of Representatives has agreed that the question should be put to the people to decide simply whether this Australian Parliament should be empowered to enable laws to be made for the borrowing of money by the Commonwealth for local government bodies, and whether the Parliament ought to be empowered to grant financial assistance to any local government body on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

It is extraordinary, with all that is said by senators opposite about local government, that now, when local government wants something and when the Australian Government thinks it should be able to borrow on behalf of local government and to grant financial assistance to local government, the Opposition Parties should indicate that they are prepared to prevent the people of Australia having a vote to say whether the Parliament should be empowered to do what I have outlined. If honourable senators opposite face up to the matter, the brutal truth is that they are opposing the wishes of the Australian Government and the House of Representatives to let the Australian people exercise their right under the Constitution to vote on whether the constitution should be changed in this way.

Honourable senators may rationalise and satisfy their own consciences or judgments as to what they are doing. The most they will be able to do is to postpone this measure for some months because, fortunately, the kind of obstruction in which they are now indulging was foreseen, and it is possible for the House of Representatives to pass the Bill again and, if it is rejected again in the Senate, to put the matter to the people, despite the obstruction by the Senate. Then, if the people want this proposal, it will become law, the Constitution being altered. If the people do not want it, very well: That will be the voice of the people. However, the Senate is taking the stand here that it will not allow the people even to vote on the matter. This obstruction reveals the anti-democratic attitude of the Opposition Parties, which will not even allow the people to have their say. It is hard enough to alter the Constitution, even when the proposals get to the people, because of the mass of misinformation put before them, but Opposition senators are not even willing to let the people have a say on the matter. What has happened when these proposals have been brought in? They have stalled one matter, rejected another, and have now indicated that they will again refuse to let the people have their say.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 24

NOES: 29

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2429

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (MODE OF ALTERING THE CONSTITUTION) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 November (vide page 2016), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I shall be brief with this Bill. It exhibits all the traits of dishonesty and fraud which were evident in the other referenda Bills. Take the long title, for instance. It reads:

To facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow Electors in Territories, as well as Electors in the States, to vote at Referendums on Proposed Laws to alter the Constitution.

The title makes no mention of what is intended in paragraph (c) of the second clause of the Bill, that is, to reduce the number of States required to indicate their approval for a proposed change in the Constitution. At present section 128 of the Constitution requires a majority of the States to vote for a proposal. At present that is 4 States. The Government’s proposal is that the number of States required to be in favour of a proposal be reduced to three. But there is no mention of this in the long title. However, I will not quibble about that because when we come to the committee stage I intend to move for the deletion of clause 2 (c) and I intend also to move if that amendment is carried to amend the long title to the Bill so that it bears some relationship to the purpose of the Bill.

The Constitution which was drawn up at the end of the last century was a compact between all the States. It was not imposed upon them from above or without. It was a decision taken for the benefit of all. Undoubtedly a very strong reason for their agreement was that for any proposed changes to the Constitution, a majority of States would be required to signify their approval. If a majority of States had been ignored and were not given a controlling place in the federal structure, there would have been no Federation and no Commonwealth Parliament and therefore no Commonwealth Government. It is not for the Commonwealth alone to make decisions affecting the federal structure. The States must have and are entitled to have a major role in any proposed changes to the Constitution. The States have a separate interest to be protected with respect to constitutional change, and it is up to the Senate, composed of senators elected on a State-wide franchise, to ensure that the State interest is protected.

Clause 2 (b) of this Bill, is supported by the Opposition. This clause proposes that the following words in section 128 of the Constitution shall be omitted:

But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

These words have long since been overcome by events and should therefore be omitted. Clause 2 (a) of this Bill proposes to alter section 128 of the Constitution to allow qualified electors in the Territories to vote. The Liberal Party endorses this proposal wholeheartedly.

As I have indicated, it is our intention to move to amend the long title of this Bill so that it clearly states the major intention of the Bill- that is to allow electors in the territories to vote at a referendum. The Opposition hopes that the Government will accept our amendments so that the proposal for giving electors in the territories the right to vote at referenda may be put to the Australian people with the support of the Australian Parliament. Such a proposal should not be buried in with other matters on which there is not agreement as the present Government proposes.

In conclusion I ask the same question that I asked when I dealt with the last Bill. If the proposition of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) is that the Senate ought not to reject any Bills that have originated in another place so that the matter may be placed before the people, will he also give an undertaking that if any Bill is passed by this chamber that Bill will also be submitted to the people? The Leader of the Government cannot have it both ways. I remind Government senators that under the Constitution it is not the Government which submits propositions to the electors, it is the Parliament or one House of Parliament after the other has rejected the legislation and then the Governor-General submits it. It is no use talking about mandates. The Leader of the Government has put up the proposition that because one House passes a Bill for an Act to hold a referendum we in this place ought not oppose it but we ought, in the interest of democracy, to allow the people to exercise their judgment on it. If that is his proposition in regard to the legislation now before us will he also accede to my proposition that if the Senate passes a Bill for an Act to submit to the people a referendum to alter the Constitution, the House of Representatives also should let that Bill go to the people?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

-The Australian Country Party agrees with the provision of this Bill that will give electors in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory the right to vote on proposals to alter the Constitution. It is obvious that every qualified person should have a say in whether the Constitution is altered, regardless of where in Australia he or she lives. But my Party is opposed to the proposal contained in this Bill that the Constitution can be changed, given an overall majority of electors, with agreement on a 50-50 basis between the States. I believe it is very likely that the people of Australia will want to give voting rights to the territories but that many electors will have grave doubts about altering the majority of States clauses.

The Bill we have before us does not permit us to vote for one proposal and not the other. We must vote for both or neither. One wonders why the Government would put forward a proposition that clearly invites defeat. It cannot be that the Australian Labor Party is half-hearted about its desire to alter the constitution. As I have said in debate on another Bill, Labor is proposing a multiplicity of constitution changes- so many that we cannot doubt it is serious.

We must look elsewhere for the reason why this tug-o-war Bill has been brought forward in this form. I see 2 possible reasons, each consistent with Labor style. The first is deceit, in that the Government hopes the electors will see the issue merely as one in which they are asked to give voting power to the Territories, and disregard the other proposal. The other possible reason, of course, is that the Government may reckon its chances of getting Constitution alteration proposals past the States are enhanced if the required majority of States is aligned with the number of Labor State governments. As we know, there are 3 Labor State governments at the moment, and a three-three ‘majority’ of the States is what the government’s amendment to the constitution proposes. I submit there cannot be a valid reason for seeking the change. A majority is a majority. It is not three out of six. For that reason the Australian Country Party will support the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers).

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

-I direct my remarks primarily to that part of the Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill which deals with the determination of the majorities necessary to ensure the passage of a referendum. I feel that the proposal is based on a total misconception of the very purpose of the Constitution and the nature of the federation of the States. The preamble to the Constitution states:

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania . . . have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth. . .

In other words, the Commonwealth of Australia is not a union of all people; it is a federation of designated colonies emerging as designated and original States. The proposal to alter the provision concerning the alteration of the Constitution to 3 States from the present constitutional requirement of four appears to me to be a denial of the concept of the banding together of a series of colonies and States into a federation.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– in reply-The Government will oppose the amendment which has been foreshadowed by Senator Withers. The foreshadowed amendment seeks to leave out a significant part of the proposal which has been put forward by the Government. The criticisms of the Bill are not justified. The Bill is for an Act to facilitate alterations to the Constitution. A number of complicated matters are involved. I would like to see an honourable senator opposite start to draft a long title of the Bill which expresses it in a better way than the present long title, which states:

To facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow Electors in Territories, as well as Electors in the States, to vote at Referendums on Proposed Laws to alter the Constitution.

The proposal is one which, if carried by the people, would facilitate alterations to the Constitution. The Constitution is difficult to alter. The requirements are such that there must be not only a majority of the people of Australia- that is, in the States- voting in favour of a proposal but also a majority of the States. There is no doubt that that makes it extremely difficult to alter the Constitution. The proposal, if carried, would facilitate its alteration. It would mean that, if a majority of the people- we wish to extend that from a majority of the people in the States to a majority of the whole of the people of Australia, whether in the Territories or in the States- were in favour of a proposal and at least half of the States were to vote for the proposal, the constitutional referendum would be taken to be approved. Where is the justification for saying that the people should not be given the opportunity to make alterations to the Constitution easier? Those are the words of the long title; that is, to facilitate alterations to the Constitution. We are plainly putting to the people that we want to make it easier to alter the Constitution.

Senator Little:

– We cannot say that we will not let it go to the people. We are saying only: Take back your Bill, we do not like it’.

Senator Wright:

– You want to shout him down.

In Committee

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

Section 128 of the Constitution is altered-

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– As I indicated earlier that the Opposition would move an amendment during the Committee stage, I move:

I think the arguments for and against this were well canvassed in the second reading debate and I have nothing to add. It can go to a vote.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Before Senator Murphy replies I want to raise a point on this matter and I ask the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) to enlighten me. I take the view that this proposal in paragraph (c), limiting the majority to half of the States, is a provision of the Constitution relating to a State and that no State would be bound by it unless a majority of electors voting in that State approved the proposed law. I suggest that that comes from a consideration of the second last paragraph of section 128 which reads:

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent.

That expression ‘And if in a majority of the States a majority of electors voting approve the proposed law’ is a provision of this Constitution in relation to the States which states:

Therefore no alteration in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

I know that this has been the subject of a division of opinion, but I would like to know, from the Attorney-General, for the purpose of considering the Bill at the appropriate stage what is the view of the Government on whether an alteration to this effect would be valid in any State where a majority of voters were against this proposed law which enables the Constitution in relation to that State to be altered by a 3-State majority instead of a 4-State majority.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– The Government opposes the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers). The reasons have been given- that this matter ought to be determined by the people according to the provisions of the existing Constitution. If they choose to alter it that is their entitlement, and the paragraph ought not be deleted from the Bill. As to the matter that Senator Wright put, he asked as I understand it, that if this alteration were made, would that then affect the proposition, say, in relation to a proposal to alter the limits of a State, or diminish the proportionate representation of a State in either House of the Parliament; whether this provision, if carried, would alter the special requirements that it shall not become law unless a majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law. I cannot say that I have given full consideration to that proposition but, on the face of it, I would think that it would not alter the situation applying under the paragraph in section 128 which begins:

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State. . .

That would be unaffected by this proposed alteration to the Constitution. This proposed alteration simply deals with the preceding paragraph which commences: ‘And if in a majority of the States’. The proposal relates to that. It is not referable to the last paragraph. The words ‘in a majority of the States’ do not appear in the last paragraph. On the face of it I do not see that the specific provisions of the last paragraph would be affected by this alteration. This would simply say that in the other matters, which are outside the scope of that last paragraph, where it provided that in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting was required it would now be only a majority of voters in at least half of the States.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-While the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) was speaking in reply on this matter I noted that he did not take up the point raised as to the wording of the long title compared with the various other matters which are contained in the Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I thought I dealt with that point. I indicated that this was a Bill to facilitate alterations to the Constitution. This certainly is such a proposal and it does that. If the provision of a majority of the electors in the States were altered to relate to all the States taken together so that one had a majority of the people of Australiawhich would include the Territories along with the States- that would not facilitate the alteration of the Constitution. But if, as well, there is a requirement only for at least half of the States instead of a majority of the States, then that would facilitate alteration to the Constitution. So that is a fair description of what the Bill is about.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator Wilkinson)

AYES: 30

NOES: 23

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I indicate that the Government is opposed to the clause in the amended form. I will not call for a division.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title.

To facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow Electors in Territories, as well as Electors in the States, to vote at Referendums on Proposed Laws to alter the Constitution.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

The long title will read, if the amendment is carried, ‘to allow Electors in Territories, as well as Electors in the States, to vote at Referendums on Proposed Laws to alter the Constitution.’ This basically is a formal amendment. The matters concerned have been discussed and canvassed before.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– In a sense I suppose that what Senator Withers said is right. The Committee having removed the provisions of the Bill that it has removed, the Bill would not facilitate further alterations to the Constitution. While it would still relate to the extension of a vote to the people of the Territories as well as the States, the Bill would not provide a facilitation for alterations to the Constitution. I suppose in that sense the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) is right in saying that this would be in conformity with what has been done, but because the Government disapproves of the alteration of the Bill in this way we will oppose it on the voices. Since what I have said is on the record I do not think that there will be a need for a division at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– May it again be recorded that the Government is opposed to these changes.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment and an amendment to the title; report adopted.

Third Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

I indicated during the Committee stage that the Government is opposed to the alterations which have been made to this Bill. That has been made very clear. The report which has been adopted has made a very substantial alteration to the proposal which the Government wished to be put to the people and which the House of Representatives has agreed should be put to the people. Having said that, the simplest course is to allow the matter to proceed, the government indicating in this way that the deletions are not acceptable to it.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator Wilkinson)

AYES: 30

NOES: 23

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wilkinson)- Order! The question now is: ‘That the words proposed to be inserted, be inserted ‘.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25.

In this Part, “Commissioner” includes an Associate Commissioner.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– Clause 25 deals with the question of temporary assistance. The Opposition has circulated a series of amendments which flow from and are dependent upon the amendment to clause 25 which I shall now move so that the record will be clear. I move:

Leave out the clause, insert the following clause- 25 (1). There shall be a Temporary Assistance Authority, comprising not more than three persons, appointed by the Governor-General on a full-time or on a part-time basis as appropriate.

Members of the Temporary Assistance Authority shall hold office under such terms and conditions as the GovernorGeneral determines.’.

I will proceed now to discuss that new clause 25.

page 2437

ADJOURNMENT

Appointment of Commonwealth Solicitor-General

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– Consistent with what I said I would do when I was answering a question last week, I inform the Senate that as of today Mr Maurice Hearne Byers, an eminent Queen’s

Counsel, has become Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 7.2 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 December 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19731204_senate_28_s58/>.