Senate
10 April 1974

28th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 1 1.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 853

PETITIONS

Pornographic Literature

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 168 citizens of Australia:

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

That the undersigned persons believe that some literature and films being published and shown throughout Australia arc detrimental to the wellbeing of the Community.

Your petitioners thereby humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the publication and availability of pornographic and other material of that nature is restricted and that the people are made aware of the dangers to the Community from such literature and films.

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

Petition received.

Human Rights Bill

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

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

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

a ) that for religion to be spiritual, and government to be liberal and egalitarian, religion and government need to be kept separate.

that this principle is fully recognised in Section 1 16 of the Australian Constitution.

that the taxing of any citizens to propagate or support any religion is contrary to this principle, and a violation of human right.

Your petitioners humbly pray that Part II, Section 3, of the proposed Bill of Human Rights, which now reads:

No one shall be subject to coercion which will impair his freedom to have or to adopt a belief or religion of his choice. be amended to read further: and no revenue derived in any way from any Australian citizen shall be appropriated by the Australian Government, or by a State Government, or by a Municipal Government, for the propagation or support of any religion.

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

Petition received.

Social Security: Pensions

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 1 8 citizens of* Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate and the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of

Representatives in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That inflation which now besets so many countries today and in Australia is now at the rate of 1 4.4 per cent per annum is most seriously affecting and making life intolerable for those least able to take corrective action to maintain their position, namely, pensioners and those now retired living on fixed incomes.

Whilst the Australian Government is giving effect to its election policy of making $1.50 per week pension increases each autumn and spring such actions have been completely nullified by the stated rate of inflation.

This fact of life impels your petitioners to call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Make a cash loading of $5 per week to those pensioners who have little means other than the present inadequate pension eroded by inflation.

That each Autumn and Spring the increase in social security pension payments be not less than $3 per week to ensure that within a reasonable period the Government’s policy pledge to affix all pensions at 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings be achieved.

In order that money may go to areas of greater need the Tapered Means Test ceilings of income and assets be frozen.

To allay the concern of social security recipients as to their future when in 1975 the means test has been abolished and replaced by a National Superannuation Act that there be an assurance by the Australian Government that the said Act will provide a guaranteed minimum income to social security recipients based on the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation and that of the Australian Council of Trade Unions namely, the payment of 30 per cent of average weekly earnings adjusted from time to time in accordance with figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician and published quarterly.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aboriginal Hostels

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 342 citizens of Queensland:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That whereas the hostel proposed to be established by Aboriginal Hostels Limited in the premises presently known as Elan’ Private Hotel, 155 Moray Street, New Farm is in conflict with the amenity of the area,

And whereas this area is occupied to a large extent by aged and retired people living in private dwellings, home units and nursing homes,

Your Petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to prevent the establishment of such hostels in the aforesaid area.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Estate Duty

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 470 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:

That we urge the Parliament to legislate for the total abolition of all Commonwealth probate.

That Estate Duty has become an oppressive, punitive and discriminatory tax which is carried by those people least able to afford it.

That Estate Duties tax the poorer citizen rather than the richer citizen.

That Senator J. T. Kane’s Bill now before the Senate entitled Estate Duty (Termination) Bill should be supported by all Senators irrespective of their party membership.

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

Petition received and read.

National Anthem

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– 1 present the following petition from 26 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That whereas our National Anthem ‘God Save The Queen’ is a perpetual reminder of the Monarchy as a major feature of our Constitutional heritage:

And whereas the changing of the National Anthem without consulting all the people would deprive the electors of their right to a free choice on such a major question;

Therefore your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure the right of every Australian elector to have a vote at a National Referendum, Senate of Federal Elections for the retention of the present National Anthem ‘God Save The Queen ‘, before the Commonwealth Government attempts to substitute a new Anthem.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 854

PYRAMID SELLING ORDINANCE 1973

Notice of Motion

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

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

That section 8 of the Pyramid Selling Ordinance 1973, as contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 56 of 1973, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1972, bc disallowed.

page 854

SEAWEED PROTECTION ORDINANCE 1974

Notice of Motion

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

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

That the Seaweed Protection Ordinance 1974, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 3 of 1 974. and made under the Scat of Government ( Administration) Act 1910-1973, be disallowed.

I ask for leave to make a brief statement on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee in relation to the notice of motion.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted to Senator Devitt to make a short statement? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator DEVITT ( Tasmania )-The first notice of motion relates to an ordinance which prohibits pyramid selling in the Australian Capital Territory. Section 8 provides that where a corporation is convicted of an offence against the ordinance, each director of the corporation shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and liable to conviction and punishment unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he took all reasonable steps to prevent it. The Committee has objected to this type of provision in the past, and has caused it to be amended in other ordinances. It is regarded as objectionable because it reverses the onus of proof and places an unreasonable burden upon the defendant in the matters which he is required to prove, and thereby trespasses unduly upon personal rights and liberties.

The second notice of motion relates to an ordinance which prohibits the removal of seaweed from the waters of the Jervis Bay Territory. The ordinance makes it an offence to be in possession of seaweed in the Territory and provides a penalty of $2,000. It is a defence to a prosecution for such offence that the defendant proves that the seaweed was obtained from waters outside the Territory. The Committee considers that what amounts to reversal of the onus of proof and an extremely heavy penalty for such an offence makes the ordinance unduly oppressive and an undue trespass upon personal rights and liberties.

I have given these notices of motion so that, should the Senate be dissolved, the Committee will have a clear 1 5 sitting days in the new Parliament to deal with the ordinances, in accordance with the Acts Interpretation Act.

page 854

QUESTION

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

Senator WITHERS:

– I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the statement which he made last Thursday in answer to my question regarding sitting times. He said:

There has been circulated to honourable senators an indication of proposed sitting times of the Senate. I indicate that unless some notice is given I propose to move, at the appropriate time, that we sit in accordance with the times set out in that document.

According to the list circulated, the Senate is to rise at 5 p.m. this day for Easter and resume on Monday, 22 April, at 2 p.m. As no notice to the contrary has been given, may it be assumed that unless something intervenes, such as a double dissolution, the Senate will rise this day at 5 p.m.? If the Senate does rise at 5 p.m. and the Parliament is not totally dissolved, when does the leader of the Government expect the Senate to resume its sittings.

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

– I have discussed the program with the leader of the Opposition and I think I can fairly say that given the co-operation of the Senate we will be able to dispose of, or should I say deal with in one way or another, the business which is before the Senate. It has to consider the Bills which I mentioned last night and which are numbered 1 to 5 on the notice paper. Other Bills which are to come before the Senate and which I do not think would be in question are the Flood Relief Bills and the Bill providing for the disbursement of surplus funds from the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund for public servants. Of course there are several Appropriation Bills. On what has been put to me by the Leader of the Opposition- and I do not wish to tie him down- the expected times for debate on these various Bills are short because the Senate has made up its mind on these various matters.

Senator Marriott:

– Speak for yourself.

Senator MURPHY:

– May I say that most honourable senators have made up their minds, even if Senator Marriott has not made up his mind. I would think that on those indications it would be possible for the Senate to rise at 5 p.m.

Senator Byrne:

– Did you say it was possible or impossible?

Senator MURPHY:

-Possible. May I say that I would not like to predict anything about the resumption because others need to be consulted and certain arrangements may need to be made in the event of various happenings. I would endeavour to inform the Senate as soon as I could. I think that the best course for us is to get through our own business as expeditiously as possible with the view of rising at 5 p.m., if, as I say, the co-operation of the Senate is forthcoming.

page 855

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICAN TENNIS TEAM

Senator GREENWOOD:

-My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is the Government’s announced policy that sporting teams from South Africa will not be allowed into or through Australia applicable to the South African Davis Cup tennis players? If it is, will the Government give consideration to lifting its ban or is a ban to apply while current conditions prevail in South Africa so long as a Labor government is in power?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I cannot be sure of the precise application by the Australian Government to the Davis Cup teams. However, I can inform the honourable senator that I am aware, having looked into this matter closely a year or two ago, that there is a special resolution of the United Nations which expresses concern that lawn tennis competitions are one of the grave departures from the policy of the United Nations. The resolution calls for action by governments in respect of that aspect. I would apprehend that the Australian Government would be implementing its policy in accordance with the views of the United Nations. As the honourable senator may recall, this subject matter was touched on at the Teheran Conference on Human Rights and since. My understanding, and I am subject to correction, is that while any country practices apartheid the other nations of the world are expected to cut off cultural, sporting and social contacts with it in order to bring that country to its senses and have it desist from practising this awful crime against all mankind.

page 855

QUESTION

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for the Media: Is it a fact that the Leader of the Opposition in another place recently attacked the machinery of government advertising campaign launched by the Department of the Media before the campaign had really begun? Is it a fact that officers of the Parliament were consulted by the Minister’s Department and that these officers assisted in the drafting of the advertisements which are designed to inform members of the public about the operations of the Parliament? Has the Minister seen the advertisement in this morning’s ‘Australian’ newspaper which plagiarises the form of advertising of the structure and functions of the Parliament and purports to emphasise the role of the Australian Country Party in the Parliament? Can the Minister say what effect this advertising by the Country Party will have in informing members of the public?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did see the advertisement that was inserted in this morning’s ‘Australian’ with the authority of the Australian Country Party. I say quite frankly to my colleague that in my opinion this is the most blatant form of plagiaristic propaganda that I have ever seen. In my opinion the advertisement referred to by the honourable senator was a very poor attempt at copying what had been an effective machinery of government advertising campaign. For a start, obviously the Australian

Country Party does not even know who its members are. It had Mr Nixon being shown as Mr Holten and Mr Holten being shown as Mr Nixon. If the Country Party cannot even insert an advertisement correctly, goodness only knows how it can run the affairs of a country.

As I said yesterday in reply to my colleague Senator Mulvihill, the machinery of government advertisements were prepared by my Department after discussion with you, Sir, as President of the Senate and with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and after the wording of those advertisements had been amended by parliamentary officers. As a result of my Department’s inserting the advertisements in the newspapers, on a completely apolitical basis, my Department has been inundated with requests from a wide cross-section of the Australian community for copies of these advertisements. Before the advertisements were inserted, let alone prepared, we were accused by our political opponents of using public funds for political purposes. That accusation has now been well and truly laid at rest. But unfortunately the Country Party, by adopting this attitude in its advertising, is transferring this type of constructive and informative advertising into party political matter. I certainly intend to refer the matter to the Media Council of Australia.

page 856

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF NAVAL VESSELS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Will the Government secure a fixed price contract for the patrol frigates it intends to purchase from the United States of America? If not, can the Government be assured that the final cost will be only marginally higher than the $90m a ship announced on Sunday? Is the Minister aware that a conservative estimate of some informed people is that $200m a ship might be the final cost? In view of this estimate, is it possible that the Government could be committing Australia to a $400m payout for ships that the Navy considers inadequate?

Senator BISHOP:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Minister for Defence has already stated quite clearly that the Government will not be caught in the same way as the previous Government was caught over the purchase of the Fill aircraft. Senator DrakeBrockman will remember that when he was Minister for Air the price for those aircraft had escalated from $122m to a final figure of about $350m. In the meantime Senator DrakeBrockman, as the Minister- and in that capacity he did a good job- was faced with recurring expenses associated with the need to send specialist investigation groups from the Royal Australian Air Force to the United States to muck about with the position and safeguard the interests of Australia in connection with the design of an aircraft which had not been properly developed. Although the Government said we would not save any money on the deal, Mr Barnard went to the United States of America this year and saved $30m.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I challenge that.

Senator BISHOP:

– Of course. We understand that. Having that experience in mind, we will not be caught in a situation similar to that which the previous Government allowed to develop. The Minister has given an assurance along the lines requested in Senator Drake-Brockman ‘s question and I can assure the honourable senator that we will not get into that kind of position. When looking at the question of negotiations for other accompanying equipment, such as the options on the maritime patrol aircraft and options on the tanks, we will make sure that there is sufficient competition to ensure that we get the equipment at a proper price.

page 856

QUESTION

VICTORIAN PARLIAMENT

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In order to inform himself on the political situation, will he study Hansard of the Victorian upper House or Legislative Council for 22 October 1952 which reveals that the Australian Labor Party in that upper House- a property House at that- moved that in view of the inequitable electoral system supply sought by the Bill then under discussion should not be consented to? Will he take note that the Australian Labor Party in that upper House of fat succeeded in forcing the lower House, the elected House, to an election and that in that election the people overwhelmingly endorsed the action taken to deny supply in the upper House by giving the Labor Party an immense majority which enabled it to become the Government?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– All that the honourable senator is saying is that the upper House in Victoria had the power to do something and it took the consequences. The consequences of such action may be good or bad, and I assure the honourable senator that his Party will have to take the consequences for its actions. He knows and his followers, diminished as they are, also know their fate. It is well and truly written across their faces. They know that they will be obliterated in the coming election.

page 857

QUESTION

ROAD CONSTRUCTION

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport whether he can say what road building programs would be affected if cuts were made on this type of expenditure should Mr Snedden ‘s so-called antiinflation plan be implemented.

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

-I do not know what roads would be affected. That obviously would be a matter for whoever implements such a plan as Mr Snedden proposes. Any reduction in grants for roads must have the effect of reducing road construction below the rate that this Government envisages. As I stated yesterday, under the Commonwealth Roads Aid Act agreement to come into operation this year any curtailment of expenditure must be at the sacrifice of new road construction.

page 857

QUESTION

ALWEST ALUMINIA PROJECT

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade: Is it a fact that the Australian Industry Development Corporation has been having discussions with Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd over the past few days with regard to the Alwest aluminia refinery? Has the Australian Industry Development Corporation informed the Government that it has access to hundreds of millions of dollars of overseas-raised funds which can be brought into Australia without the application of the variable deposit rule, since the funds were raised before these exchange control regulations took effect in December 1972? What sum of capital is involved?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · TASMANIA · ALP

– I am not aware of the details referred to by the honourable senator. I can only inquire of the Minister responsible and obtain a reply for the honourable senator today if possible.

page 857

QUESTION

TIMOR OIL EXPLORATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Australian Government has initiated any discussions with the Portuguese Government in regard to the latter’s recent action of offshore oil prospecting in the region of Timor.

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes. Our Ambassador in Portugal has been in touch with the Portuguese Government about this matter.

page 857

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-On 5 March this year I asked the Minister for Primary Industry a question regarding superphosphate subsidies. In answer he pointed out that South Broken Hill Ltd had found great deposits of phosphate rock in north-western Queensland. He went on to say:

There were some extensive negotiations with the previous administration on the development of those deposits. Since the change of government, my understanding is that the Company has not proceeded with any further discussions with the Government on the development of those deposits.

I ask: What is the reason negotiations have not continued between this Government and the company concerned?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I recall the question asked by the honourable senator. To the best of my information the negotiations between South Broken Hill Ltd and the previous administration were discontinued quite some time- two or three years, I think- before the change of government. I spoke to the Minister for Minerals and Energy about this matter at the time the honourable senator asked the question. The Minister indicated to me that it was his intention to discuss the matter with the company concerned. I have no further information which I can give the honourable senator at this time.

page 857

QUESTION

ABOLITION OF MEANS TEST

Senator NEGUS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Has the Government considered the fact that if a double dissolution occurs the promise given by this Government to abolish the means test during its term of office will fall by the wayside and as a result many people will continue to suffer the injustice of the means test? Will the Minister endeavour to put such legislation through this Parliament before the double dissolution occurs?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is true that if a premature double dissolution is brought about by the obstruction of Opposition senators it will not be possible to take many worthy legislative steps. People will suffer in the community because they will not have the advantage of another 18 months of beneficial rule of this Labor Government. We can see from what Mr Snedden said yesterday what prospects the people will have if they are foolish enough- which they will not be- to allow such a ragbag of people to get into office. Mr Snedden said that there will be a squeeze and that he will cut down on social services, public works and all the things that the people voted for.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Schools.

Senator MURPHY:

– And schools. He will cut down on education, health and social services. He will chop back these things and he will fritter away moneys in areas where it is not necessary. The answer to the question is that this temporary interruption will not prevent the Labor Government from acting speedily to carry out its undertakings which it gave to the people, on the basis of which the people swept it into office. We will do that.

page 858

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF NAVAL VESSELS

Senator MARRIOTT:

– My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Repatriation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that the frigates which the Government proposes to purchase for the Royal Australian Navy at some time in the future have single screw propulsion and that in the event of engine malfunction when at sea as fighting vessels of the RAN they will be propelled by outboard motors that will give them a speed, in favourable weather conditions, of 5 knots? This is not a joking matter. Can the Minister inform the House now, next week when we meet, or as soon as possible at what maximum distance from a friendly port it is anticipated that these vessels will be able to operate?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The question calls for some technical information. Although Senator Marriott said that it is a question without notice, it should be asked on notice because obviously such a question cannot be answered off the cuff. It is too technical and too important for that. One would imagine from Senator Marriott’s question that the people we employed, and whom the previous Government employed- these specialists in the Department of the Navy whom honourable senators on both sides often complimentdid not know what they were up to. The reply is as follows: The ship has bow thrusters capable of propelling it at about 5 knots. The power units on the 2 bow thrusters are large electric motors run from main generators and are similar to motors in the most highly specialised United States submarines. The single screw is driven by 2 gas turbine engines. If both engines failed or the shaft or screws were put out of action the bow thrusters would be used. The chances that these events would happen are very slight indeed.

Senator Young:
Senator BISHOP:

– These are not my views. The United States Navy conducted very extensive studies of battle damage to warships and found in very few cases where ships were sunk or damaged was there any advantage in ships having 2 screws instead of one. The technical information continues as follows: If battle damage were sufficient to destroy a single screw or shaft it is almost certain that the second screw or shaft in a twin screw ship would be put out of action. The information we have received from the experts shows that the patrol frigate will prove to be one of the most efficient ships that the Australian Navy will have.

page 858

QUESTION

SALES OF DRUGS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is the Minister aware that Queensland Druggists Ltd and Drug Houses of Australia Ltd have issued a circular advising that in future there will be a $5 opening fee plus taxi fares both ways when particular life saving drugs are required by chemists for seriously ill patients? Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether drug wholesalers have taken this matter to the Prices Justification Tribunal? Alternatively, is this a further example of profiteering as encouraged by the Leader of the Opposition in another place? Will such matters not be subject to price restraint until such time as this Government is given a new mandate?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In my capacity of Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, I tell the honourable senator that I have not seen the reports. I most certainly will refer his question to my colleague in another place, the Minister for Social Security, for his information and comment thereon. If the facts are as mentioned by the honourable senatorthat Queensland Druggists Ltd and Drug Houses of Australia Ltd intend to impose a $5 opening fee plus taxi fares for the provision of life saving drugs to seriously ill people and chemists when they are needed- surely such action must have a very bad effect on the living standards of a very large section of the Australian community which, because of the tactics adopted by the Opposition in this place, already has been deprived of a more efficient and more up to date national health scheme. Frankly, I find it incredible that large organisations such as those referred to by the honourable senator would adopt what I might call- if the facts are correct- such callous approach. I certainly shall raise the matter with my colleague and ascertain the position. Although I cannot say with certainty, as far as I am aware no such matter has been referred to the Prices Justification Tribunal.

page 858

QUESTION

WARBURTON MISSION ABORIGINES

Senator REID:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Approximately how many Aborigines reside within a 30-mile radius of the Warburton Mission in Western Australia? Are they all receiving unemployment payments? Is it not true that the area is rich in minerals and gemstones? How many people are on the staff of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs at the Mission? What funds have been expended by the Government on staff housing over the last year?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-Approximately 450 Aborigines reside within a 30-mile radius of the Mission, although the number varies dramatically because of Aborigines who pass through and stay for some time. As in other places, very few Aborigines there are on unemployment relief. In this area there are only sixteen. The area was prospected by Western Mining Corporation Ltd for copper and other mineral deposits. I understand that that company has left the area, which suggests that mining was not profitable. There was a small amount of Aboriginal copper mining in the area, but this has been abandoned now. I have no knowledge of any worthwhile gemstones in the area. I think the final question was: How many staff of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are at the Mission? There is only one member of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs planning staff there. I do not have any information as to residences built for the staff, but I imagine that there would not be a great building boom to house the one staff member we have in the area.

page 859

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security seen reports of the confused ramblings of the Leader of the Opposition in which he proposes drastic cuts in public spending? Does the Minister not agree that the lack of any clear proposals by the Opposition, together with its obsession with public spending, must mean that it would want to cut spending on education, health and welfare? Does the Minister not think that it would be immoral for any government to cut pensions? What would be the general effect of cuts in social welfare payments?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have seen the reports attributed to the Leader of the Opposition at his impromptu and unexpected Press conference on the steps of Parliament House yesterday. I assume that they are the ramblings to which the honourable senator is referring. In reply to my colleague, Senator Milliner, it occurs to me that Mr Snedden having been a former Federal Treasurer apparently believes that the way to deal with inflation and its effect is to reduce taxes and interest rates on the one hand and increase defence spending on the other and then hope that no one notices that social welfare spending has to be cut back. But certainly I think that the pensioners of Australia would notice that. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition in another place is complaining amongst other things that since this Government came into office some 17 months ago -

Senator Cotton:

- Mr President, I rise to order. Will you help by indicating whether the question is strictly in order and whether this answer also is in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have been listening with some care. There are 2 matters obviously arising in the Senate this morning. Questions are being directed for the purpose of providing vehicles by which statements can be made, and they are not literally seeking information. I think Senator McClelland could respond directly with a yes or a no or words to either effect.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– All I need say is that if there is to be a cut back in social security payments, which apparently is being considered by the Leader of the Opposition in another place and our political opponents, surely the Australian pensioners will realise that since this Government came into office not only has it increased pensions by a total amount of $6 a week but also -

Senator Cotton:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. It seems to me that the Minister is departing entirely from the scope of answering a proper question. Further, might I ask you to credit the question to Senator Dorothy Dix, a noted female impersonator.

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. Surely it is reasonable and in order for senators on this side, confronted with certain statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place, to seek from the Ministers the consequences of such declarations and intentions. I think such questions are perfectly in order since we are seeking information and since we expect the Minister to give us that information.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It is quite true too that Senator Milliner should verify the accuracy or otherwise of the newspaper reports from which he was quoting. I just wish to draw once again the attention of honourable senators to the Standing Orders, as I am perfectly aware that the opening of the duck season is not very far away and most people are interested in the gauge of guns they are going to use and the weight of shot they are going to put in them. But, inside those parameters, I would be grateful if senators would come back to the Standing Orders.

page 860

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Am I correct in understanding that the assistance he announced for the dairy industry in lieu of the bounty that was reduced this year is in the form of a $28m loan over 2 years? Has the Minister any figures more recent than those for 1971 or 1972 that indicate that the average income of dairy farmers throughout Australia is of the order of $4,600 a year?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– No, I would not have any later figures than the figures indicated by the honourable senator which, to the best of my memory, would be approximately correct. The amount of the assistance to be provided on an interest-free loan basis is $28m over a 2-year period.

Senator Wright:

– It is to be a loan?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes, a $28m interest-free loan will be made available under the restructuring process. I do not know what else I can say to the honourable senator. The main difference between the previous bounty and the assistance now to be provided is that whereas previously the money was handed out on the basis of the bigger you are the more you get and the smaller you are the less you get, our scheme will be designed to help those dairy farmers who really need some help.

page 860

QUESTION

REPATRIATION PENSIONS

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Repatriation. How much would be lost by ex-servicemen and their dependants receiving repatriation pensions if expenditure on these pensions were to be cut in the way that Mr Snedden ‘s so-called economic package would require?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Are you referring to a newspaper report of an alleged interview on the steps of Parliament House?

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am referring to a statement which I have seen Mr Snedden make on television.

The PRESIDENT:

– Did he say it on television?

Senator WHEELDON:
Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I have seen a transcript of the interview which Mr Snedden gave on the steps of Parliament House.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– lt was shown on television.

Senator BISHOP:

– I do not know about that. I saw the transcript. From reading the transcript, it appears to me that on a number of occasions Mr Snedden has stated clearly that he will reduce spending on social welfare and education, but particularly -

Senator Greenwood:

– And a host of other things.

Senator BISHOP:

– Let me continue.

Senator Greenwood:

– Do not single out one or two items.

Senator BISHOP:

– I am just stating what I have seen. The transcript shows clearly that the reduced spending will occur more particularly in capital areas. That is the clear answer. Let me relate the question to what is happening today. If the Senate fails to pass the Appropriation Bills many people in Australia who are entitled to repatriation payments which have been approved by this Parliament will not receive those payments.

page 860

QUESTION

RUSSIAN SCIENTIFIC STATION IN AUSTRALIA

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs in a position to state what the attitude of the United States would be, particularly with regard to the ANZUS Pact, if a Soviet scientific station were established in Australia?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The question of ANZUS did not arise in the discussions on the request or suggestion by some scientists, when they were here recently, that a scientific base be established. A scientific body came from the USSR and had discussions with our scientific people. We intend to sign a pact with them on the whole question of co-operating in science. Arising out of that discussion, they repeated something that they had said in 1971, 1 think, in which they suggested that we might co-operate in looking at things in the sky and that type of thing. Following that, when we were seeking information, talks went on between the American Ambassador and my Department. The question of ANZUS did not come into the talks. It was a question of discussions at this level. It is very clear that if there is any military connotation in this matter it will be rejected by us.

page 860

QUESTION

DOUBLE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMMENT

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Following the statement made to the Senate last night by the Leader of the Opposition that if the Government did not jump he would push, can the Leader of the Government say whether Senator Withers has now advised him that Senator Withers does not have the numbers to reject the Appropriation Bills because South Australian Liberal senators now realise that a double dissolution will ensure the election of Mr Steele Hall to the Senate and so enable him to set up a power base for the purple Liberal movement on a national basis as was done by the late Senator Cole in 1955 in regard to the Australian Democratic Labor Party?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator McLaren, you cannot ask the Leader of the Government to look into a crystal ball. You can put a factual statement and you can expect a factual answer. You are seeking information, not hypotheses.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

- Mr President, I am afraid you have illustrated the problem perfectly. One cannot look into the crystal ball to see what will happen in future. All we know is what happened in the past.

Senator Young:

-A crystal ball or a Steele Hall?

Senator MURPHY:

-That is right. There are Steele Halls and all sorts of objects going around the sky- national liberal parties, national country parties, the National Alliance, the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Country Party.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– You are day dreaming again.

Senator MURPHY:

-Perhaps the problem is best illustrated by the position of the honourable senator who is interjecting. He is the leader of a party. Is it the National Alliance or the Country Party? He leads a party to which he does not belong in Western Australia. If these rag-tag and bobtail parties manage to come back in some kind of fashion they will be fighting among themselves in future, as they have been in the past in Opposition.

page 861

QUESTION

HON. V. C. GAIR

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to you, Mr President. Are you aware of a statement made in another place yesterday by the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, in which he attempted to place the blame for the circumstances of Senator Gair’s continuance or resignation as a senator on the inaction of the President of the Senate? I recall to you, Sir, page 1214 of the House of Representatives Hansard which records Mr Whitlam as saying:

The Constitution makes it plain that whenever a vacancy happens in the Senate, the President of the Senate shall notify the same to the Governor of the State in the representation of which the vacancy has happened. Quite clearly, the President of the Senate should have notified the Governor of Queensland of the vacancy caused by the appointment of Mr Gair as Ambassador.

I ask: Did the Prime Minister consult you, Mr President, on this matter prior to his statement which denigrates the position of the President of the Senate? Have you, Sir, noted that the Prime Minister on several occasions has sought to blame other Ministers, and indeed his own Party leader in this place, for his, the Prime Minister’s failures? Is the Prime Minister’s statement–

Senator Murphy:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. The honourable senator is not entitled to use question time, let alone any other time, to engage in this kind of reflection upon a member of another House. He is endeavouring to make reflections upon the Prime Minister. One would think that if somebody wanted to express some criticism of the Prime Minister there ought to be ample opportunity for his colleagues in the other House to do it. It is not seemly that this exercise should be engaged upon here, and it is contrary to the Standing Order.

The PRESIDENT:

– That latter part of the honourable senator’s question is out of order.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If I may complete my question to you, Mr President- and this is the most important part: Is the Prime Minister’s statement true, or should this Senate take steps to bring Mr Whitlam before the Bar of the Senate -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Webster, you are now giving information or expressing opinions. The propriety of your question is completely without question up to the part where you embark into an area of expressing opinions. I will have to rule the question out of order if you proceed along that line.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I simply ask you: Is the Prime Minister’s statement true?

The PRESIDENT:

– I heard yesterday that the Prime Minister had made a statement in relation to my action in the context of the supposed resignation of Senator Gair. I say ‘supposed resignation’ because it is embodied in the statement I made earlier to the Senate. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would let me have a look at what are known in the House of Representatives as his ‘greens’. The Prime Minister was gracious enough to send me a copy of the transcript of what had transpired in the House of Representatives and his observations. I was surprised, I might add, that any ruling of a presiding officer should be canvassed in another place. As a result

I have this morning examined the Hansard of the House of Representatives, and I therefore feel it is proper that I should make some observations on this.

My observations are these: My attention has been drawn to the Prime Minister’s statement made yesterday in the House of Representatives. As honourable senators know, the position is that on 3 April 1 received from Senator Gair a letter, dated that day, relating to his appointment as Ambassador to the Republic of Ireland. I read that letter to the Senate. Later in the sitting on the same day, 3 April, I made a statement to the effect that I did not think Senator Gair’s letter was one of resignation on which I could have taken action to notify the vacancy to the Governor of Queensland. Rather did I think that Senator Gair’s letter was a notification that the effect of his appointment as Ambassador to Ireland was to vacate his place as a senator by virtue of the disqualification provisions of sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution. If that was the position, 1 was in doubt as to the date upon which the vacancy occurred. In all the circumstances, I considered that it was a matter that should be determined by the Senate and accordingly I referred to the judgment of the Senate the question of whether a vacancy had happened and when. Those matters are unresolved.

Because that is repetition of what I said on 3 April, I now go on to add- and I shall say no more than this-that in those circumstances the Prime Minister’s statement, namely, that quite clearly I should have notified the Governor of Queensland of the vacancy caused by the appointment of Mr Gair as Ambassador, cannot, I believe, be fairly sustained.

page 862

QUESTION

HON. V. C. GAIR

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– May I ask a supplementary question, Mr President?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a supplementary question to that asked by Senator Webster. Is it not a fact -

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. The initial question was directed to you as President, and you have allowed and developed a practice of allowing supplementary questions to be asked of the same person to whom the original question was directed. Whatever might be the question which Senator O ‘Byrne now desires to address to Senator

Murphy, apparently for the purpose of canvassing your statement, in some way it is not within the rules which you have laid down, Sir.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is quite true. When I accorded Senator O ‘Byrne the right to ask a supplementary question I did so within the context of those rules. I assumed that the honourable senator intended to address his question to me.

Senator O’Byrne:

– May I address it to Senator Murphy?

The PRESIDENT:

– No, not as a supplementary question.

Senator Georges:

– I would like to speak to the point of order.

Senator O’Byrne:

– My question arises from the question asked by Senator Webster. May I ask another question now?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, when I call you, Senator O’Byrne.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Could I be called now?

The PRESIDENT:

– No. Other honourable senators wish to ask questions. If Senator Murphy extends question time I might get around to you. I call Senator Laucke.

page 862

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. This is the second successive question asked from the Opposition side. I thought that in your impartiality -

The PRESIDENT:

– I thought I had called all those Government senators who wished to ask a question. You are quite right, Senator O’Byrne. I see that Senator Devitt is now starting to rise to his feet. I trust that Senator Laucke will be agreeable to letting me call him again later. I call Senator Devitt.

page 862

QUESTION

REFUSAL OF SUPPLY BY OPPOSITION

Senator DEVITT:

– My question which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate arises out of the observation on the part of Senator Withers last night which I took to be an invitation to the Prime Minister to jump or to be pushed. I suppose this puts the honourable senator in the position of being the Leader of the Push. I ask the Leader of the Government: Did he get the impression that Senator Withers was hoping that the Government would take a course of action which would then provide an excuse for the Opposition to avoid voting against the granting of Supply and the odium and, of course, the impropriety of such an action? Will the Leader of the Government assure members of the Opposition that we have not the slightest intention of letting them off the hook, where they are now suspended, and that we will call their bluff and put them to the test -

The PRESIDENT:

– What are you quoting from, Senator Devitt?

Senator DEVITT:

– I am referring to the observation made by -

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you quoting from something?

Senator DEVITT:
The PRESIDENT:

– Are you expressing an opinion?

Senator DEVITT:

– No, I am not. I am asking Senator Murphy whether he will do certain things and whether he will give certain assurances.

The PRESIDENT:

– But you are expressing an opinion.

Senator DEVITT:

– I am not expressing an opinion.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Murphy.

Senator DEVITT:

-I have not finished asking my question.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not I who am sitting you down. Senator Murphy was standing up and trying to take your place. I call Senator Devitt.

Senator DEVITT:

– May I ask the final part of my question again?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, of course.

Senator DEVITT:

– Will Senator Murphy, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, assure members of the Opposition that we have not the slightest intention of letting them off the hook, where they are now suspended, and that we will call their bluff and put them to a test of their courage by requiring a vote on the measures which are designed to give the Government funds to carry out its lawful purposes.

The PRESIDENT:

– I just want to advise honourable senators that if they intend to try to take points of order on the Presiding Officer I will take points under standing orders 98 and 99. For example, under the Standing Orders honourable senators are not entitled to ask for an expression of opinion. However, as this is a matter which is of interest to honourable senators, I will allow the question.

Senator Devitt:

– I rise on a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is your point of order?

Senator Devitt:

- Mr President, you imputed to me motives which I completely reject. I had no intention whatsoever of flouting any of the Standing Orders of this chamber. You made a reflection on the manner in which I asked my question. I assure you, Mr President, that I intended nothing of that sort at all.

The PRESIDENT:

– No point of order arises. All I am saying to the honourable senator is that I am allowing a wide latitude within a reasonable discretion because of circumstances which all honourable senators understand. If honourable senators start to canvass my rulings on the conduct of question time, I shall be compelled to do nothing more nor less than apply the Standing Orders strictly. If I strictly apply the Standing Orders there will be a lot of dissatisfaction in the Senate. I call Senator Murphy.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The honourable senator asks for an assurance that the Government will force the matters forward and require the Opposition to demonstrate its attitude on the measures, including the Appropriation Bills which are to provide moneys for carrying on services, for relief and other matters of high public concern. I assure him that we will do this.

page 863

QUESTION

ACTS OF VIOLENCE BY ABORIGINES

Senator LAUCKE:

– Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs received urgent messages from the President of the Northern Territory Legislative Council and the Legislative Council member for Alice Springs, Mr Kilgariff, expressing great concern at acts of violence by Aborigines, allegedly inspired by non-Aboriginal radical elements not acting in the best interests of the Aborigines but whose well-being they purport to promote? If so, what action does the Minister propose taking to meet this disturbing and dangerous situation?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I do not know exactly what the question refers to. There was a disturbance on Saturday evening at a place called Row Creek in the Northern Territory. As a result of that disturbance I have received a letter from the honourable member for the Northern Territory, Mr Calder. I have received a telegram from a Mr Don Burgess of the Kilgara Hotel-Motel. I have also received a telegram from Legislative Council members- Mr Greatorex, the member for Stuart, and Mr Kilgariff, the member for Alice Springs, asking that the matter be inquired into. Of course, the matter has been looked into. It appears that a group of young Aborigines from Papunya journeyed by bus to Row Creek, which is 1 1 miles from Alice Springs, to meet the elders of the Areyonga tribe. Either while waiting for such elders or as the result of a disputation between themselves and the bus driver, the bus driver refused to continue the journey any further, abandoned the passengers and went back to Alice Springs. The Aborigines were left at Row Creek.

I am informed that during Saturday they arranged for a large amount of liquor to be brought from Alice Springs by taxi. At 6 p.m. on Saturday night the police were informed of the stoning of passing traffic. Two policemen who went to the scene attempted to pacify the group, but they themselves were stoned and returned to Alice Springs. The police returned with reinforcements and one policeman was hit by a stone. A Mr Mervyn Torres from Papunya, a member of the staff, arranged for trucks to pick up members of the group and take them to Victoria Downs Station where, I believe, they are still waiting for the elders to arrive. On Monday morning 7 Aborigines appeared in the Alice Springs police court. Six of them were charged with disorderly behaviour and one was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon. I want to say that this is in no way associated with any acts which people seek to describe as racial violence between one race and another. It was a reaction of a group of men who had too much to drink. The Northern Territory section of my Department has arranged for Mr John Hunter, who has great experience and who is acceptable to the Aborigines, to undertake an in-depth study to see what, if anything, can be done to reduce any such incidents or prevent a recurrence of such incidents in the future.

page 864

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Senator Gietzelt proceeding to address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate)-

The PRESIDENT:

– That is asking for an opinion, Senator Gietzelt. (Senator Gietzelt continuing to ask his question )-

Senator Withers:

– I rise to a point of order. The honourable senator is reflecting upon votes of the Senate and he is not entitled to reflect upon or call into question votes which have taken place in the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must uphold the point of order. Senator Withers is perfectly correct in quoting that standing order.

Senator Georges:

– I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you canvassing my ruling, Senator Georges? I have given my ruling.

Senator Georges:

– No. I am sorry, but I was on my feet before you gave your ruling, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Rubbish. I did not see you.

Senator Georges:

– And I do not doubt that you would have benefited from my point.

The PRESIDENT:

– You are often on your feet raising a point of order, Senator Georges. Apparently you are an expert on every standing order in the place.

Senator Georges:

– I take objection to that remark.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I am going to be quite firm about this matter. Senator Withers’ reference to the Standing Orders was an impeccable point of order and I must uphold it.

page 864

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Senator Little proceeding to address a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer)-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! A point of order is going to be taken against you, Senator Little, because you are giving information and not asking a question.

Senator Poyser:

– That is right.

The PRESIDENT:

– Ask for information but do not give it, Senator Little. (Senator Little continuing to ask his question).

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I will not allow the question.

page 864

QUESTION

NATIONAL ANTHEM

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware that a Press report has stated that the Prime Minister has declared that ‘Advance Australia Fair’ will now be the Australian national anthem? Does he believe that the opinion of 52 per cent of 60,000 Australians is a true reflection of the will of 13 million Australians? Will the Prime Minister conduct a referendum giving all Australians the right to say whether they want the national anthem changed?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I think that a poll was taken in a reasonable way- on a sampling basis. A decision has been made and it will be adhered to.

page 864

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Little, if you will rephrase your earlier question I will call you again.

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the newspaper reports of 1 April which disclosed that borrowing by Australian companies of fixed interest capital was at record levels? Were those levels recorded as being $434.2m for the December 1973 quarter as against $ 1 53.6m for the same quarter of 1 972? In view of those figures, does the Government still persist with the view that the vicious increase in interest rates will deter borrowing and assist in controlling inflation or does the Minister consider that the Australian Democratic Labor Party is right and that higher interest rates encourage the lender, expand credit and aggravate inflation?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The answer to the first question is no, I did not see the report. The answer to the second question is no, I do not think the Australian Democratic Labor Party is right.

page 865

QUESTION

FREE MILK FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the concern expressed by many teachers and parents over the effect of the withdrawal of free milk for school children? Some weeks ago I raised this matter and the Minister for Primary Industry said that he would refer it to the Minister for Health and obtain an answer. I now ask: Will the Minister representing the Minister for Health let the Senate know what is the position in relation to this scheme or some alternative scheme in substitution for it?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Government, in deciding to withdraw financial support for the free milk scheme, considered all aspects of the matter, but after detailed consideration and study it was unable to find evidence of nutritional deficiency which would warrant the issue of a particular food to school children. In the circumstances, the Government does not propose to consider the re-introduction of the free milk scheme.

Senator O’Byrne:

- Mr President, my first question was ruled out of order. I have not asked a question this morning.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, on that basis and seeing that you stood up and because of the intercession by your Leader, I will give you the call.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Thank you.

Senator Rae:

- Mr President–

The PRESIDENT:

– Wait a minute. Please resume your seat, Senator O’Byrne. Senator Rae, are you taking a point of order, or what?

Senator Rae:

– No, I was seeking to ask a supplementary question in order to get an answer to the final part of my question.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is the part that was not answered?

Senator Rae:

– The part I asked relating to any alternative or substitute scheme. It was a serious question and it was asked seriously.

The PRESIDENT:

– All right.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-When this matter was proposed by the Government there was no suggestion of any alternative scheme, as far as I know. We were asked to consider whether or not we would re-introduce the free milk scheme. The Government, having given consideration to the matter and having made a detailed study of it in its search for evidence, was unable to find evidence of nutritional deficiency which would warrant the issue of a particular food to school children. In those circumstances, as I have already said, it is not proposed to consider the re-introduction of the free milk scheme. If the honourable senator wishes to propose an alternative scheme to us for our consideration, we will have a look at it.

page 865

QUESTION

HON. V. C. GAIR

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to a public assertion by Senator Kane, the General Secretary of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, that Senator Murphy concealed the fact for many days that an ambassador was sitting in the Senate and the Senate was deprived of valid representation from Queensland. I ask Senator Murphy: Is it not a fact that former Senator Gair told Senator Kane, as Secretary of the Democratic Labor Party, that he had accepted the post of ambassador on Friday, 29 March, a week before the Senate resumed on 2 April and before the former Senator came into the Senate? Why is Senator Kane afraid to tell the Senate the facts which I have outlined and which he knows to be the truth?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I am aware of the assertion made by Senator Kane on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party in today’s Press. It appears in an advertisement. It makes the statement that I claimed to have conspired in breaking the Constitution. That statement is a lie. It also states that I claimed to have concealed certain facts. I say- and everyone here would know- that statement is a he. Also, it was intimated to the Senate on 8 April- this weekthat Senator Gair stated that Senator Kane was told by Senator Gair in the week before the Senate resumed. So before 2 April Senator Kane, the Secretary of the Democratic Labor Party- and I suppose also a party to that Party’s alliance with the Country Party- was aware of the facts. It is interesting that Senator Kane keeps out of this debate and has not been able to stand up and tell the truth to the chamber.

Senator McManus:

– A point of order, Mr President?

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you asking a question?

Senator McManus:

– A point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is the point of order?

Senator McManus:

– My point of order is that I take exception to the offensive remarks which are being made by the Attorney-General in the absence of the person concerned. I ask the Attorney-General, in common decency, to wait until the honourable senator is here to speak for himself.

Senator MURPHY:

-I wish to speak on the point of order.

Senator McLaren:

– Why has not -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator McLaren, 1 will put you in the chair here one day and you will find out what it is all about. I call Senator Murphy.

Senator MURPHY:

-Senator Kane, on what might be the last sitting day of this chamber in this session, chose to place an expensive advertisement in the Press, which, no doubt, is paid for by his multi-national backers. Senator Kane makes untruthful statements in that advertisement and then stays out of this chamber during question time- bobbing in and out but staying out most of the time- although he has splashed this all over the newspapers.

Senator Withers:

– I rise on a point of order. The honourable senator is not raising a point of order; he is debating a matter of substance.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is so. I will allow no more.

page 866

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY REFRESHMENT ROOMS

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to make a statement. Honourable senators will recollect that on 2 April I made a statement in relation to the industrial problems we have been experiencing in respect of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. I am grateful for the forbearance of all honourable senators in the difficult situation in which the Presiding Officers have found themselves in this context. I now wish to inform honourable senators that I have received the following message from the relevant trade union:

  1. . The stop-work meeting today resolved that all the staff would return to duty at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.
  2. The return to work was conditional on the payment of wage increases being made to the sessional staff as soon as possible.

To which Mr Speaker and I have agreed-

  1. The return to work was agreed on the understanding that discussions would take place with the Public Service Arbitrator at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr Speaker and I have sent a letter to the Public Service Arbitrator on that aspect.

Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2.15 p.m.

Diplomats: Travel Restrictions

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Do travel restrictions apply to Chinese diplomats in Australia? If restrictions do apply, how many Chinese diplomats have been granted permission to travel beyond the limits imposed, and for what reasons? Do travel restrictions apply to Australian diplomats in Peking?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– There is a protocol covering this matter, and I shall find out the details for the honourable senator.

Senator Murphy:

– I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.

Estate Duty

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Negus, I understand that a Minister has informed you that he has available an answer to a question you asked him yesterday. Is that so or not?

Senator NEGUS:

– Yes. I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question regarding death duties and a hardship clause.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I announced yesterday that I had spoken to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on this matter. The Treasurer has made a statement about the hardship clause, and it is proposed that an appeal tribunal be set up to deal with cases of hardship under federal estate duty. Later I shall seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the precise statement which the Treasurer has made.

page 866

QUESTION

PROPOSED JOINT SOVIET/AUSTRALIAN SPACE OBSERVATION STATION

Ministerial Statement

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I seek leave to make a very short statement associated with a question I was asked this morning.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WILLESEE:

– Honourable senators will remember that Senator Lillico asked me a question which I answered. This statement is not in answer to that question. It is a public statement that I want to make, and I want to make it in this place first.

Mr President, the Government has given careful consideration to an informal proposal, made by a group of Soviet scientists who visited Australia in February, to establish a joint Soviet/Australian station for photographic observations of space objects. In the light of the careful examination given by the Government to the proposal, it has been decided not to proceed with it. This decision has been conveyed to the Soviet scientists and, as a matter of courtesy, to the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I seek leave to move a motion “that the Senate take note of the statement’.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I move:

I am obliged to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Willesee, for making this statement. The Senate will recall that on 2 April Senator Hannan asked a question on this matter and at that time the Minister replied as follows:

Following that visit the USSR renewed its request. At the moment the position is that 1 have asked the departments interested- it is not only the Department of Foreign Affairs- to move as quickly as they can to assess the scientific information we have and, if we do not have enough information, to gather it from other countries and report to me on the matter as soon as possible.

The Minister went on to say what he had said to me earlier. On the same day, 2 April, I had asked Senator Willesee the following question:

My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, concerns the request by Russia to establish a defence intelligence monitoring system in Australia, which system will be masquerading as a scientific facility. 1 ask: Why is it necessary for the Government to wait until June to announce its decision instead of rejecting the request out of hand?

At that stage Senator Willesee said that to do what I suggested would be a terrible thing and the Government had to consider the matter. Now he has come in here today, the day or the day before the day of a probable- more than a possible- double dissolution, and made this statement. All I can say is that this really is not a ministerial statement; it is another in the long list of items of window dressing for the election. This Government would not dare go into an election in Australia with the thought hanging over its head that it was considering a request from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to establish in Australia a base which would put the ANZUS pact at risk. We know that the Australian people will not be fooled by this last minute panic move, because they know that there has been one promise broken after another. This is the stance of the Government today; but the Australian people have no assurance whatever that there would not be a different stance if the present Government, by some great mischance, were returned to office. This statement is another in the long list of pieces of propaganda that we will see during this election campaign.

Yesterday a defence statement was made and it was exposed as a phoney operation. Today this statement has been made. Why was it suddenly made today? It is all part and parcel of the same operation. The Australian people ought to be grateful for honourable senators who sit on this side of the chamber with me and who have brought the Government to its senses so that it is starting to make the proper decisions, even if it is making them only for cheap electoral purposes. I welcome the statement because we on this side of the chamber always felt that this base ought not to be established. The matter never needed consideration. It did not even need to wait until June. I am only delighted that the threat of a double dissolution has brought the Government to its senses.

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

– I notice from the ranks of Government supporters an indication that they claim that this decision is just an ordinary routine decision which had nothing to do with the coming election. I shall try to believe that, as in the same way I tried to believe, until I found that it was not true, that Senator Gair had ceased to be a senator on 14 March. This Government has made statements of the most courageous nature in recent days. Its members have been beating their chests like Tarzan. They have said that they are the greatest. They have said that they are not frightened of any election and will play a straight bat against anybody. Then they resort to contemptible and hypocritical little subterfuges such as this. I think that the Russians are a bit unlucky. If there had not been an election, they would have had a good chance. But I am sure that they will watch the results of the elections most anxiously in the certainty that when the elections are out of the way Mr Whitlam will be able to show towards them the kind of friendship which in South East Asia has earned him the title of the running dog of Chairman Mao.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The Australian Country Party adopts a view similar to that of the Liberal Party and the Democratic Labor Party in regard to this matter. We are pleased that the Government has decided to reject the offer of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to set up in Australia a photographic observation station. When the suggestion was made, and was made public here, there was no doubt in the minds of members of the Country Party that there should be an immediate rejection of such a proposal. The military consequences for Australia could be quite great. A judgment could have been made on this very promptly.

The point of concern to the Country Party is that the Australian Labor Party is willing to dally with the communists of this world. We heard a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) that it would need some assessment; that this was not a matter that could be concluded immediately. One can only imagine that the same consideration that has been given to this offer could be given to any similar offer made to the Australian Government by any other communist country. The public of Australia can recognise that under Labor firm consideration will be given to any request if a communist country wishes to set up some type of photographic observation station in Australia and that it will not meet with quick rejection by the Australian Labor Party.

A point of concern as a result of the statement which the Government has made relates to another statement which I believe has fallen into absolute disrepute over the last few months. That is this Government’s pronouncement and promise to the people of Australia that it would be an open government. We have seen an example of open government in the Gair affair in this Senate when Mr Whitlam and the Leader of the Government in this place, Senator Murphy, held close to their chests the fact that Senator Gair and the Governor-General had apparently come to some agreement on 14 March this year. Open government! Certainly not for Senator Murphy; certainly not for the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam)- no question of advising the public.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator, confine your remarks to the statement, please.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Minister for Foreign -Affairs stated in answer to a question in this place that this offer by the Russians would need close and detailed study by his Department. I hope that the Minister will be willing to table the advice of his Department so that it may be made public. Let him advise us of the thoughts of the Department of Foreign Affairs on this matter. I congratulate the Government on its belated decision on this matter. It demonstrates very clearly that it is quite willing to engage in dalliance with the communists in this world.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– This is a statement which, because it is made virtually on the last day which this Parliament will be sitting, should not remain unnoticed. Its significance is enormous. It is one further example of the deception which this Government has practised on the people of Australia. It is only a week since the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) stood in this chamber and said with all the feigned innocence and indignation that he could muster that this Government gave careful consideration to all sorts of proposals which were put to it and that this proposal from the Russians for a joint installation in Australia would be given careful consideration. I quote again what Senator Willesee said in answer to the first question asked in this House on 2 April. The question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers), and Senator Willesee concluded by saying:

This is a scientific situation and one which requires a lot of study. I certainly shall not be recommending to the Cabinet that we reject anything without due and proper consideration.

He had earlier said:

I would not be prepared to reject anything out of hand that is put to me by any nation.

Later the same day he was asked a similar question about the same matter by Senator Hannan. He started his answer to that second question in these words:

The honourable senator starts off his question by asking whether, because of my answer to Senator Withers, there is some basis for the Press speculation that the Government has already decided or is about to make a decision. The answer is no.

What has happened in the intervening week? We are about to have an election and this Government is about to face its masters- and it is about to learn that the people of Australia want to belong to the free world and want to honour our alliance with the United States and those ideals, practices and objectives which we have in common with the people of the United States. We do not want to become part of either the Third World or the communist world. If the Labor

Party ideologues believe that by having power in this country they can masquerade as a reasonable type of government and still take us into the communist orbit, they will learn that they have been mistaken. This last incident was one of the chain of incidents which has occurred from the time the Labor Government took office, from the time there was recognition of the Russian and Chinese supported government of North Vietnam, from the time at which 3 Ministers criticised the United States Government and its President and therefore clearly aligned this Government with an attitude which was antiAmerican. We have had a constant series of incidents ranging from the recognition of East Germany to the support, under the guise that it was an even-handed stance, of certain activities in the Middle East, all of which if taken in isolation could be justified on objective grounds but when taken together represent a certain attitude. In the last 2 months we have seen, as it would appear, an out of hand rejection of the American proposal to maintain a base in the Indian Ocean which is surely designed to protect America’s strategic position and which would be of benefit to Australia also.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator, I think that you had better get back to the statement.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-That is the first of the 2 incidents. The second incident was this proposal by Russian scientists that there should be a joint installation in Australia. If one is to accept what was rumoured in the newspapers, or leaked to the newspapers, if we had gone ahead with this it would have meant the end of the ANZUS treaty and an end to the alliance with the United States as we have always known it. On the basis of that we ask: Why was the Government not prepared to reject the Russian proposal out of hand? We are not given any answer which would indicate that there was an a priori basis upon which this Government was proceeding to act. What has happened in the course of the week? We now find, fortunately, that the Government is not proceeding any further with the venture. But the reason is not that there is any belief or commitment along the lines that the Minister has now stated. The reason, quite basically, is that there is to be an election. It is another of the gimmicksa straightening out of the position- to put the best possible impression upon the Labor Government’s stance. All I say is that the people of Australia will not be deceived. This Government has shown its hand in so many instances that the deceptions it has practised will be brought home indelibly to it in the next few weeks.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– It is very difficult when one is dealing with people suffering from paranoia. As I understand it, Senator Greenwood says that I should have rejected this out of hand but that I have examined it too quickly, that somehow or other I have examined it too quickly but that I should have done it without any consideration at all. I have brought this statement in here because I always take the angle that while Parliament is sitting I should report to Parliament first, if it is at all possible. If I had wanted to play a political stunt, as I am accused by these paranoid people, I would have kept this for the next 48 hours until Parliament got up and then issued it on Easter Sunday night or at some such time or used it at the time.

What did I say about this thing from the very start? Firstly,, an article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald. Then, when I was at a Cabinet meeting in Melbourne on Monday last, I was approached by, I think, representatives of the entire media to appear on TV and radio and to give Press interviews. I said that this matter would be examined. I will not have the Press of Australia make up my mind for me or demand answers off the cuff from me. Neither will I say to a friendly power, much as our paranoid friends opposite may hate it because it has a communist government with which they and we have had friendly relations, that I reject something out of hand before I have had a look at it. The honourable senator is complaining that we did not look at it. We have had a week to look at it. The instruction to my Department was that I wanted some sort of report within a week and, if that was not sufficient time, that it was to go back and examine it further. However, we were able to examine it within one week. This Government cannot understand the attitude of the Opposition. It is like Senator Greenwood’s attitude to the Croats. He let that situation go on for years without doing anything about it. He knew perfectly well that there were bombs exploding in the street. But that was all right. He took the attitude; let us wait to do something about it. What the Opposition does not like about this Government is that it acts. It does something about it. Involved in the examination of this matter were people who know something about science, people trained in defence and in foreign affairs. When that sort of ability is applied to the problem one can get a lot done within a week. At the end of that week the Government in the Parliament announced that it was advising that country and this Parliament that our decision was not to do anything about it.

The Opposition then says that it was a short examination, ‘you should go on with it because of the election’. This shows the complete paranoia of the Opposition. As I said the other night, the Opposition takes this cold war angle: If there is a country which is left wing, socialist or communist we must have nothing to do with it; we must treat it as a pariah. It suggests that we should draw a line and say that we Australians on this side are pure and on the side of the angels, and everybody on the other side is completely bad.

Senator Little:

– What about South Africa? .

Senator WILLESEE:

-I know that Senator Little is a defender of Rhodesia and South Africa. I know of his cold war attitudes. All he wants to do is bomb out of the world countries with whose policies he does not agree. Let him go ahead. He should have mounting arms and nuclear power. The Opposition asks us to reject this out of hand and then criticises us when we examine it for only a week. It says: ‘That is not long enough ‘, but how does it know? When the 2 super powers of the world today, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, combine in space research I suppose honourable members opposite would say, if they were sitting in Congress, that President Nixon would be a communist as also would Dr Kissinger and everybody else there; therefore, they are not even to be talked about. What the Opposition grabbed at today was a time-wasting procedure. It does not know what it is about. All it wanted to do was jump on this matter in a state of paranoia. Look at these great parties of principle. The Democratic Labor Party was formed by people who left the Australian Labor Party because of great principle. They were to stand out on their own. Where do we find them now? Firstly, co-operating with the Australian Country Party and then running around, hat in hand, pleading with the Liberal Party: ‘Save us from destruction’. Where are their principles now?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 870

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report from the Industries Assistance Commission on photographic film and paper which was forwarded to me dated 2 1 March 1974.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 870

COMMITTEE ON COMPUTERISATION OF LEGAL DATA

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

– I present the report of the Committee on Computerisation of Legal Data. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a short statement on the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Committee was established by me in January 1973 to furnish advice in connection with the use of computers to improve the quality and availability of legal information. The Chairman of the Committee was Mrs Jean Mullin, Editor-in-Chief of the ‘Australian Digest’. The other members were: Professor J. M. Bennett, Professor of Physics (Electronic Computing), Sydney University; Mr J. D. Traill, Chairman, Computer Committee, Law Council of Australia; Mr T. P. Purcell, Executive Director, the Law Foundation of New South Wales; Mr F. J. Mahony, Deputy Secretary, Attorney-General’s Depanment: Mr B. C. Quayle, Second Parliamentary Counsel, Office of Parliamentary Counsel; Mr J. L. M. Carnsew, Director, Automatic Data Processing, Attorney-General’s Department.

The terms of reference of the Committee required it to report on the logistics, time-scale and finance necessary for the computerisation of legal data, especially in relation to the statute law of the Australian Parliament.

The use of computers has enabled great advances to be made in the storage and retrieval of many kinds of data. In establishing this Committee I was confident that computers could be made to play an important role in the implementation of the Government’s policy of steamlining legal processes and of making the law more readily available.

If our legal system is to be effective and respected it is essential that the legal information upon which the system depends should be readily available. Access to this information should be quick, accurate and comprehensive.

The Committee on Computerisation of Legal Data was particularly well qualified to conduct this important task.

The Committee conducted a full inquiry into the existing and proposed use of computers for legal purposes, both in Australia and overseas. In the light of this inquiry the Committee has proposed the establishment of a computer-based system for the storage and retrieval of legal information.

As a first step the Committee has proposed the establishment of an interim system in the Attorney-General’s Depanment in Canberra. This interim system is to be designed so as to be capable of extension to a full system, available to all interested persons throughout Australia, embracing all Australian (including State) primary legal materials, both legislation and case law and legal literature.

The Government has the report under consideration.

As only a few copies of the report are available at this time, I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the library for use by honourable senators.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 871

FIFTH SOUTH PACIFIC FORUM

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I table a statement concerning my attendance at the Fifth South Pacific Forum held at Rarotonga, Cook Islands on 20 to 22 March 1974.

page 871

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · South Australia · ALP

– I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Burma, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator BISHOP (South Australia-Minister for Repatriation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence)- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 871

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I present a report from the Joint Committee on Prices on import prices and effects of currency changes, and seek leave to have a brief statement incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This report on import prices (report No. 2 ), which has just been tabled, is the fifth report presented to the Parliament by the Joint Committee on Prices. It covers the commodities of tea, jute, unmanufactured tobacco, fish, textiles and flat glass.

The Committee has found that for imports of tea and jute landed costs of imports have responded to the upvaluations and the consumer has benefited. Tea prices are less by Se a lb as a result. Although there have been benefits for unmanufactured tobacco, these have been considered by that industry’s leaders to be insufficient to allow a reduction in the price of cigarettes. However, the benefits may have assisted the manufacturers in restraining price increases to date and hopefully should do so in the future.

Imports of fish and textiles are similar to a host of other products in as much as they constitute clear examples of how and from where inflation is being imported into Australia. In these cases the Committee finds that world shortages have pushed up prices but that upvaluation has lessened these price increases.

Flat glass is in a different category. Here the benefits of upvaluation have accrued to overseas suppliers because they have quoted prices in and received payment in Australian dollars. Currency changes, therefore, have had no effect. The

Committee traces this to the pervasive effect of restrictive agreements that have eliminated price competition between the local and imported products.

These agreements have been terminated. But there is the much broader principle that applies not only to flat glass but also to all products protected by the tarin”. Furthermore, there is the distinct possibility that the continuation of loyalty’ rebates could have the same effect of restricting imports as that of the abandoned agreements. Agreements such as those that existed in this industry and exist in others or practices such as loyalty rebates which still exist in the flat glass industry could restrict imports and thereby usurp the policy function of the Australian Government which has the Industries Assistance Commission to advise it.

There is no doubt, therefore, that these agreements and practices should be prohibited by legislation. The Trade Practices Act 1972 does not do this. The Commissioner of Trade Practices himself acknowledged this.

The Committee has therefore recommended that the Parliament should approve restrictive trade practices legislation that prohibits industry agreements and practices which restrict the amount of goods imported into Australia because this is the sole prerogative of the Australian Government and the Parliament.

I inform the Senate that this is the third report in which the Committee has commented on restrictive practices, lt did so in its first Import Prices Report (timber), in the Meatmeal Prices Report and now in this one. In this connection I take pride in informing the Senate that the Committee is the first arm of the Legislature that has asked the Commissioner of Trade Practices, who incidentally has issued 6 Annual Reports on his operations, to give evidence to it on the effectiveness of the existing legislation. Of course this evidence was limited to the restrictive agreements in the flat glass industry. The Commissioner’s evidence is at Appendix II of this report and the Committee recommends that the Parliament should take note of this evidence when deliberating on trade practices legislation.

A dissent has been made from the recommendation that there should be new improved trade practices legislation on the grounds that imports of flat glass do not require the implementation of restrictive trade practices legislation and that the Commissioner of Trade Practices believes that there was not the practical effect in the flat glass agreements. I leave it to honourable senators to read the report carefully, particularly the appendix containing the Commissioner’s evidence, in order to ascertain whether or not there is a meaning for or a justification of this point of view.

I commend the report to the Senate.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 871

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND WELFARE

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I present report No. 1 from the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare dealing with rehabilitation services for the disadvantaged (handicapped).

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 871

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ACT

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1973 I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Tennant Creek Hospital, Northern Territory.

page 872

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That unless otherwise ordered Government Business Orders of the Day take precedence over all other business on the notice paper this day and that Notice of Motion No. 1 be postponed until the next day of sitting.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

-I move:

Speaking to this motion, and I do so without leave, I would like briefly to say that this is a technical motion which may well be resolved by the developing circumstances. If by any chance those circumstances should not emerge as we anticipate, the motion would be necessary and desirable. In those circumstances I move for its postponement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 872

PETROLEUM AND MINERALS AUTHORITY BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 April (vide page 754), on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– The Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973 first came into the Senate on 13 December last after having been passed in the House of Representatives against the wishes of the Opposition on the previous day. The Government sought a quick decision in respect of this legislation when it first came into this chamber and on that occasion Senator Durack spoke to the measure. He deplored the haste with which this Bill has been brought in and he forcibly condemned the general concept of the Bill. On the motion of Senator Byrne the debate was adjourned. It came before the Senate again and was debated at length on 19 March. On 2 April it was rejected by the Senate. That is the history of this Bill. As I have said, it has been very widely debated and has been decisively defeated in this place. The Government has no mandate for these measures. It never mentioned them prior to the election. The measures constitute the most authoritarian and dictatorial demand for power, in an area of fundamental interest to the States and the well-being of the nation that I have ever noted.

The Bill aims to set up a Petroleum and Minerals Authority to take control from the States, where authority now resides, and transfer it to the central government. It is centralisation in a most undesirable form. Of course, it is quite in keeping with this Government’s mania for concentrating all power in Canberra. Further, it would lead to the transferring of all ownership from private investment and private enterprise to public ownership. This is absolutely in keeping with the avowed intention of socialisation of industry. It is anathema to the Liberal Party and contrary to the fundamental attitudes of that Party and to my own view as to where the interests of the whole community and the economy lie.

Before the election in December 1972 very little was said by the Labor Party about the plank of its platform providing for it to pursue a policy of nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. My word, that policy was slumbering in the background at the time, but it has been acted upon in a very real way in the last year. But I think that of all the legislation that has been brought before this place for moves into an area of public ownership by the central government this legislation pretty well takes the bun. The Government well knows that we will not accept this legislation. It is in pursuance of its desire to have the country believe that the Senate has been irresponsible in its reviewing of legislation and that it has been frustrating the House of Representatives where the Government has power. In actual fact the Senate has proven to be a most responsible chamber right from the time the present Government came to power.

We hear a lot of talk about the number of Bills which have been rejected by this place. There has been much exaggeration. The facts are that in 1 973 no fewer than 223 Bills were passed as at the end of the year out of a total of 256 Bills introduced into the Parliament. It has been claimed that this was the greatest number of Bills introduced to a Parliament in any given year. One can say that since the end of last year the Bills which have been rejected have been only repetitions of Bills brought forward previously, and to have only 10 Bills rejected does not constitute frustration. The Opposition would not be worthy of its place as Her Majesty’s Opposition were it not to have taken steps which it has taken in respect of legislation for which there was no direct mandate given and no mention made before the election of intention and so on. I believe that this place has shown an extraordinary degree of patience and tolerance in its reviewing role of legislation introduced by the Government.

Senator Murphy:

– You knocked over the Superior Court Bill, and that was spelt out in the policy speech. That is one and there is a stack of others.

Senator LAUCKE:

– It is typical of the Leader of the Government to say that is one of a stack of them. This has been his attitude all along on all occasions when there have been divisions in this place in respect of certain Bills. On every occasion when the vote could have been taken it has been taken for one purpose. It has been taken for a purpose of window dressing in respect to the number of times that the Government has been defeated on the floor of this place. That is an undeniable fact.

Senator Murphy:

– Well, you have a dreadful record.

Senator LAUCKE:

– It is a record of which I, as a member of this place, am proud. Out of the 256 Bills introduced only 10 were defeated. If those 10 Bills were categorised it would be seen that three of them were electoral Bills, two were constitution alteration Bills- legislation which in any event should have awaited consideration by the Constitutional Convention- and two were two health Bills. The conciliation and arbitration Bills were later passed with amendments. Consequently Bills relating to only 5 subjects were defeated. There have been more recent rejections but this is the general position.

Senator Murphy:

– One of your members is even holding up the Governor-General’s salary.

Senator LAUCKE:

– There is no holding up of any salary in respect of the Governor-General. It is worth while for the people of Australia to know what the functions of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority will be. They are to explore for minerals on the Australian continental land mass and elsewhere, to recover minerals from their natural site on the continental land mass or from any other place, to treat minerals for the purpose of extracting metals and other substances in Australia or elsewhere, to refine metals and other substances obtained as a result of the treatment of minerals in Australia or elsewhere, to crush, screen or otherwise treat or prepare for sale coal and construction materials in Australia or elsewhere, to buy and sell minerals, refined substances and manufactured materials and substances, whether in Australia or elsewhere, and to transport minerals, refined substances and manufactured materials and substances on the Australian continental land mass and between Australia and other countries. What a wide range of functions for a State authority to undertake.

When one looks at the particular powers of the Authority one finds them hair-raising. There is an ability to purchase land, lease land, to sell or otherwise dispose of land, to purchase or take on hire plant, machinery, equipment or other goods, to dispose of plant, machinery, equipment or other goods -

Senator O’Byrne:

– We know all this.

Senator LAUCKE:

– Sure, but I am emphasising the wide scope of interest and activity proposed for this Authority, activities which can best be left to private enterprise, as has been proven through the years. Australia at present is in a not so strong position. I am sure that at the end of 1967 we had a degree of advancement economically that was the envy of the whole world. It was not achieved through socialistic programs, but was achieved through the initiatives, the ingenuity and the drive which comes from encouragement of private enterprise. The Authority is able to enter into agreements on such terms and conditions as the Authority deems fit with any person or body for or in relation to the performance of work, the provision of services or the doing of other things. The Authority will be able to acquire, upon such terms as it deems fit, an interest in a mining undertaking that is being or is to be carried on in Australia or elsewhere and can acquire any undertaking other than a mining undertaking that is being or is to be carried out in Australia by another person or body and so on, but at the terms and conditions as the Authority deems fit.

What is the Authority? It is to be a body of 5 men consisting of a chairman who is to be appointed by the Governor-General, the secretary to the Department of Minerals and Energy, an executive member and two other members. These 5 men are to be entrusted with this fantastic area of responsibility which is one of the most important aspects of governmental or national interest, that is energy. In my opinion this Bill is horribly conceived and should again be rejected. I propose to move an amendment to the second reading of this Bill. I understand that it has been circulated. I move:

I refer again to the rejection by the Senate in a most responsible way of a very small number of Bills out of the number introduced to this place. The reintroduction of this Bill is only further window dressing by the Government to hoodwink the public in relation to the Government’s claim that this chamber has been a frustrating and impossible body of legislators who are not allowing the Government to govern. That is completely wrong. This is summed up in the amendment which I have moved. I trust that this chamber will again reject this legislation as I have here proposed.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wilkinson)- Is the amendment seconded?

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– Yes. I wish to speak very briefly in support of the amendment because Western Australia is a State which is probably more affected by legislation of this kind than any other State, although I acknowledge that Victoria, Queensland and the other States are affected to a greater or lesser extent. This is a typical example of legislation which was introduced not because of any electoral mandate but because of the dictatorial and socialist attitude of an incompetent and arrogant Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) who wishes to take over the whole of the minerals and petroleum industry in Australia. In support of his case he gives misleading and inaccurate information. For example, in an article by David Solomon in the ‘Canberra Times’ which was quoted by the spokesman for the Opposition in another place, Mr Fairbairn, it was stated that only 40 off-shore wells had been drilled in the previous 10 years.” This appeared under a heading of ‘off-shore boom’. The article stated that 54 wells were to be drilled in the coming year. This is big stuff. But what are the facts? The simple facts are that in that 10-year period 189 wells were drilled off-shore from mobile platforms and another 100 wells were drilled offshore from fixed platforms. So in the vicinity of 300 wells were drilled and not 40 as the Minister would have us believe in an attempt to mislead the people of Australia and to gain support for this legislation. This is an example of the actions of this incompetent Minister who will go to any lengths to mislead the people.

He misled the people as to the amount of foreign capital or foreign control involved in our mineral resources. The whole of his case has been built upon misleading and inaccurate information. But one of my main objections to this legislation is that it takes away from the States areas, which by right, are their responsibility. If the Senate has a major function it is that of protecting the powers of the States and not supporting legislation which diminishes those powers or takes them away altogether. If the lessons of the past are any example- I believe that they arethen the off-shore program of drilling and search for oil in Australia under the previous Administration was a very successful one. The record under this Government has been lamentable. It has destroyed confidence. The Government has driven away capital which is so urgently required. Of course this has been going to other countries where the guidelines and the rules are known. Here the guidelines and the rules are a day to day decision of a dictatorial and arrogant Minister. The reintroduction of this legislation after one week is the action of a frightened and frustrated Government. The Minister has shown his contempt for the States and for industry. Nothing illustrates the frustrations of State governments better than the comments of Ministers of the previous Government in Western Australia. I refer to the attack made upon the Federal Government by Mr Bickerton who for the first time was defeated in the Pilbara seat. I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) not to point a finger at me or I will point one back at him.

Senator Murphy:

– I am just reminding the honourable senator about the kangaroos.

Senator SIM:

– We can talk about kangaroos. I am very happy to talk about kangaroos but do not let us be misled at the moment. We are talking about something which is perhaps even more important. Mr Bickerton is the only Minister to lose his seat for 30-odd years in Western Australia. He put the blame fairly upon the policies and attitudes of the Federal Government in relation to investment which he regarded as being crazy. Mr May, a former Minister for Mines, supported a leader of the mining industry who, in the strongest possible terms, condemned the policy of this Government. Even Mr Tonkin had some very critical things to say about the policies of the Federal Government in relation to investment in Western Australia. He went on record as saying in words of one syllable that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was a liability when he went to Western Australia in support of the Tonkin Government. He said he warned the Prime Minister not to come.

Senator Murphy:

– Get to the point.

Senator SIM:

– If the Leader of the Government wants to challenge this statement I suggest that he have a talk to Mr Tonkin because he is on record as saying this. I support the amendment. I believe that it puts the facts clearly on record. The Government cannot claim to have an electoral mandate. When it suits the Government it makes great play of some matters but, when it does not suit, it conveniently forgets. It did not have an electoral mandate to reduce defence expenditure from 3.5 per cent to 2.8 per cent because the Prime Minister, in his policy speech, promised not to reduce expenditure below 3.5 per cent. Promptly the Government reduced the expenditure to 2.8 per cent. So I think we have to be very careful about accepting any Government claim that it has an electoral mandate. It certainly does not have an electoral mandate to socialise the oil and gas industry. Therefore I support the amendment and I defend the right of the Senate to throw out this legislation or, in this case, to defer it for another 6 months. I support the amendment on one major ground and that is in order to defend the rights of the States which, under our Constitution, to a very large degree have powers and responsibilities in this matter.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– If one looks closely at the amendment moved by the Opposition, one cannot take it seriously. The amendment reads:

Leave out all words after’That’, insert- the Bill be deferred till this day 6 months because-

1 ) this Bill was defeated in the Senate on 2 April 1974, which is only one week ago;

That is true. The amendment continues:

  1. this Bill is introduced not to allow for further consideration and debate, but simply for statistical purposes:

Let us look at that statement. This Bill was introduced, in the first instance, in the House of Representatives on 4 December 1973 and was transmitted to the Senate on 13 December 1973. The Opposition has had nigh on 4 months to give serious consideration to the major questions contained in this Bill. The amendment continues:

  1. The Government, introducing the same Bills on a number of occasions on the one subject matter, seeks to mislead the Australian people as to the actual number of matters opposed and defeated by the Opposition. The Senate is part of the legislative process of this nation and it should not be abused and used as a scoreboard by the Government for political purposes.

Senator Laucke, who moved the amendment, highlighted the major legislative program of the Government. I understand that it is a record which stands since Federation. More than 250 Bills have been introduced in both Houses. He pointed out that only a limited number of Bills had been rejected, deferred or dealt with similarly by the Senate. The critically important issue on which he did not make a point was that the major issues have been steadfastly rejected by the Opposition. Although it may be a fuzzy term, I repeat that we have a mandate from the Australian people on most of those Bills which are of critical importance to the Australian people.

I shall test the bona fides of the Opposition, because it is evident to me that the Opposition is now rehashing the debate in which it had an opportunity to engage previously. The Opposition has had 4 months to examine the Bill. Now it is suggesting that the Bill be stood over for 6 months. I propose to test the Opposition’s bona fides by moving:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 25

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 25

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: 31

NOES: 25

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 876

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

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

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

– It is proposed, if the Senate agrees, that we should deal with the Appropriation Bills as soon as they arrive in the Senate. I refer to Appropriation Bills Nos. 4 and 5 which are expected from the House of Representatives. I think that Senator Willesee, who is in charge of the Bills for the Opposition, has suggested that we deal with Appropriation Bill No. 3 at the same time.

Senator Withers:

– What time will that be?

Senator MURPHY:

-That will be as soon as they come into the Senate. In the meantime, perhaps we could proceed with the other matters on the notice paper. They are the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill, the Trade Practices Bill and the Customs Tariff Validation Bill. Perhaps it would be preferable to deal with a Bill upon which there would be a short debate rather than become involved in a longer debate. Therefore, Imove:

That Government business order of the day No. 3 -

Senator Webster:

– What about the GovernorGeneral Bill?

Senator MURPHY:

– I do not know whether the debate on that Bill would be so short. Is it in committee?

Senator Webster:

– We are ready to proceed.

Senator MURPHY:

-Perhaps we could deal with the Customs Tariff Validation Bill first.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) proposed:

That Government business, order of the day No. 3, Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1974, second reading, adjourned debate, be dealt with before Government business, order of the day No. 2.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I speak to the motion merely to indicate the view of the Opposition. We all know the sort of situation in which we live this day. Most probably, it is the last day of this Parliament.

Senator Murphy:

– Perhaps.

Senator WITHERS:

-Perhaps it is. We do not know. Nobody has been prepared to disclose what is really going to happen. What I wish to say is that I can give no undertaking from this side of the Senate that the Bills will be dealt with as fast as Senator Murphy would like them to be dealt with. Whilst Government senators or even honourable senators on my side may think that they are mere machinery Bills, some honourable senators in the tradition of the Senate may feel that if they want to make a contribution they are entitled to make it. That is not to say that that should shift to filibustering or obstructionism. I just put that caveat on. I say to the Government: Do not be surprised if some honourable senators on this side of the Senate feel that they have something to say. I would hope that they would not say it at length. But no undertaking can be given that the Customs Tariff Validation Bill will be passed by the time the Appropriation Bills are presented to the Senate.

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

– I want to say on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party that we do not want to delay these proceedings. I think that it is farcical to introduce the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill and the other Bills that it is proposed to introduce when the Senate is about to be dissolved for an election. Any Australian citizen who is listening in to the debate would simply say one thing: Why do not they put those issues aside and let the new Parliament determine them? That is the obvious thing to do. Therefore, I object to the farcical way in which the Government is delaying the Senate from undertaking the task which we are all here to undertake. Everybody knows what we are here for. We have our axes ready. Why does not the Government bring in the chickens?

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)- by leave- It is very easy to answer what Senator McManus has asked. The Government does not need to bring in the chickens because they are already here. They are sitting opposite. A number of them are about to lose their heads in the coming election. It seems that we will not be able to finish the business by 5 p.m. As I have indicated, there are certain measures which need to be put through. The Customs Tariff Validation

Bill is one of those measures which, in any event, has to be passed because in accordance with the usual practice, moneys have been collected in anticipation of such legislation. This is a timehonoured practice. There is the GovernorGeneral Bill which, if it is to be adopted, needs to be adopted before the commencement of the term of the Governor-General, because effect cannot be given to those provisions during his term of office.

Senator McManus:

– Is this the new GovernorGeneral or the present Governor-General, Sir Paul Hasluck?

Senator MURPHY:

– I refer to the incoming Governor-General. Changes cannot be made to affect a present incumbent. There are also the matters dealing with flood relief and the distribution of moneys to the public servants. I know that some members of the Opposition may not care about the conduct of government in an orderly fashion. But the Government has a responsibility and we propose to see, as far as we can, that that responsibility is discharged. I have indicated that as soon as the Bills are available we will endeavour to have them put before the Senate. Referring to the remarks of Senator McManus, I would say that I know that he wants to refuse to pass the Bills. The sooner that is said, the better. I do not know why it is necessary to have a repetition of speeches that have been made before when the Opposition has made up its mind that it will not pass this legislation.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-by leave- We are now having quite a deal of talk about legislation coming before the Senate and about the sitting hours for today. I consider that honourable senators came here this week with the intention of meeting during certain sitting hours. Those hours have been extended. If further legislation is to come before us and if legislation is to be debated properly, why cannot we come back in the week after Easter and finish it off? I do not think that the legislation should be put through the Senate like sugar cane tossed through a chaff cutter. I think that we should have proper deliberation, irrespective of whether the Bills have been before the Senate previously or whether they are new legislation. Certainly, we do not want to make a farce of the Senate. We want some time for this legislation to be passed through the Senate. We have not yet received the Supply Bills. I think that they are Bills to which some time should be devoted. Rather than jam everything in and extend the hours of sitting this week when everybody has made arrangements, I think that it would be much better if we came back the week after Easter.

Senator Negus:

- Mr President, may I have a little to say on this matter or do I have to ask for leave to speak?

The PRESIDENT:

– The Chair has before it a motion moved by Senator Murphy that the Customs Tariff Validation Bill, order of the day No. 3, be brought on. However, it has been assumed by the Senate that honourable senators are speaking by leave. So we will revert to that secondary situation. Is leave granted for Senator Negus to address the Chair? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator NEGUS:
Western Australia

-by leave- I felt that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) made it quite clear that the Appropriation Bills were not ready to come from the House of Representatives yet. Until the House of Representatives has passed the Bills, the Senate cannot move on them. Probably many honourable senators have booked their plane tickets to Perth and other places. They should cancel those reservations and return to their States tomorrow, if necessary. We are here to do a job. Until such time as the Bills are debated in the right manner, we should be prepared to remain here. If the honourable senators want to return tomorrow, let the Senate sit all night. But there is no necessity to rush through legislation. I feel that the nature of the vote on the Supply Bills, when they are presented to the Senate, will be so serious that we should not treat it lightly. We should be able to debate those Bills if we want to do so. Therefore, I suggest that we be prepared to sit longer and, if necessary, carry out Senator Wood’s suggestion that the Senate meet after Easter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to intrude for a moment to draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that when messages come from the House of Representatives, they are transmitted from Mr Speaker to the President. They are messages to the President. They are not messages to the Leader of the Government or to anybody else in this place until such time as the President has read them to the Senate.

page 878

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 April (vide page 8 12), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– This Bill provides for the validation until 31 August 1974 of duties which have been collected in pursuance of customs tariff proposals which have not yet been enacted. So, in effect, it provides a time scale so that the revenue can be accumulated against the day when these measures will finally become law. A great list of them is set out in the Bill, and I do not propose to refer to them, but I wish to make one or two brief observations in passing.

This Bill also validates the Government’s revised system of tariff preferences for imports from developing countries. It was the LiberalCountry Party Government- and I can remember the debate in the Senate some years ago when the initiative was taken by that Government- which attempted to help the lesser developed countries by allowing imports to come into Australia more freely in order to aid the developing and infant industries in those countries. We will need to deal later in more detail with a part of this question, that is, the 10 per cent preference which, in a mechanical style, could perhaps in some ways cause damage to Australian manufacturing industry. I will give an example. After 4 years of deliberation the Tariff Board, as it then was, recommended a duty of 35 per cent in respect of certain printed products where the main source of competition was identified by the Board itself as coming from developing countries. Yet the Government, in giving effect to the Roam ‘s report on 4 January last, provided for a tariff of only 25 per cent. So the Government has discounted, to that extent, the 10 per cent margin or leeway.

We in the Opposition would say in the broad that because of the present tariff policy of the Government it is very difficult for manufacturing industry to determine what its level of support or protection is. There is certainly developing in the Australian manufacturing industry in some areas very great concern about what might happen if a flood of imports came towards Australia. We believe that the warning should be given to the Government that there is a potential danger to quite a wide area of Australian manufacturing industry because the tariff situation is neither clear nor resolved. We in our Party have a clear view, which is that manufacturing industry is extremely important. It employs more than 25 per cent of the Australian work force. It produces about one-third of our gross national product. But it is suffering from a cost disability as against other countries because of the Australian cost structure which, of course, has accelerated markedly over the last 12 months. We can see trouble coming in the electronics industry, the white goods industry and the textile industry. While we approve of the Bill and agree to it, we say to the Government that we have very distinct reservations about the whole of its tariff structure and its support for manufacturing industry which, we believe, is at the point of being put in a position of very great potential danger. The same thing will apply to Australian living standards and to Australian employment if manufacturing indus- _ try is put at hazard.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 879

GOVERNOR-GENERAL BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 April (vide page 811), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-The debate upon this Bill was adjourned last night because the Bill was introduced into the Senate at 8 p.m. and I for one wished to have some little time to consider it. On consideration I think there are some important matters to be raised. I agree entirely with the desire of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) to discuss this Bill on a purely non-party basis, but that does not absolve the Senate from exercising its functions as a proper chamber of review. The second reading speech states that the Constitution provides that the salary of the GovernorGeneral should be $20,000, until the Parliament otherwise provides. The Constitution provided that the salary of a Governor-General should not be altered during his continuance in office. Acting in pursuance of that provision this Bill is expressed to operate only at the expiration of the office of the present Governor-General, and that is as it should be.

But then it is necessary to advert to the fact that the person who has been designated to succeed Sir Paul Hasluck is Sir John Kerr, the Chief Justice of New South Wales. I would be wanting in my duty if I did not refer to the fact that judges who accept executive office or the position of being publicly designated for executive office cease thereafter to enjoy that degree of independence which is absolutely inalienable from judicial office. I wish it to be clearly understood that I think that the involvement of the judiciary in executive office is a matter that needs to be carefully scrutinised on every occasion and a strict line of demarcation should be insisted upon. It seems to me to be quite impossible for a judge who has been designated as a Governor of a State or the Governor-General, thereafter to have that independence of the executive and of the government that is essential to the discharge of judicial office. Some confusion on that pointwhether here or elsewhere- betokens, I submit, the inadequacy of this Bill in certain respects.

The Bill confers a salary of $30,000 upon the Governor-General. With that I have no quarrel at all; I do not question it. But lest those who put forward the proposition for an increase be misunderstood, it ought to be understood quite clearly that whereas the Governor-General’s salary has remained unaltered at $20,000 since the Constitution, the appropriations that have been made to relieve him of expenditure which at that time he bore and to provide for his establishments have increased enormously. In 1925-26 the appropriations made for his establishments and office amounted to $38,150. In 1972-73 similar appropriations amounted to $708,047. It would be a complete piece of deception if we took the simple view that the GovernorGeneral’s salary has remained unaccompanied by parliamentary appropriations increasing as the ambit of expenditure grew, because an appropriation for his office and establishments in 1925-26 of $38,150 had grown to an appropriation last year, 1972-73, of $708,047. 1 have had a table compiled by the Papers Office in that respect, and in order not to delay the matter too long I ask for leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Senator WRIGHT:

-The next point is that the Bill deals not only with the salary of the Governor-General but also with the pension that is payable to the Governor-General or to his widow. It is pointed out that this is novel legislation. Hitherto no pension has been provided by law for the Governor-General or his widow, except as an act of grace in those instances in which the Government thought that a pension was appropriate. We are assured that those cases will be continued as ex gratia payments, adjusted from time to time. But to such a degree has the draftsman of this Bill confused the GovernorGeneralship with the judiciary that there is a link between the pension to be payable to the Governor-General and the Chief Justice’s salary. I point out that it is proposed to link the pension not with the Chief Justice’s pension but with the Chief Justice’s salary. The Bill provides in clause 4 that an allowance is payable to the GovernorGeneral during his life at the rate stated, which is 60 per cent of the rate of the salary payable to the Chief Justice of Australia.

When I turn to the Judicial Retiring Allowances Act I find that a judge of the High Court is not entitled automatically, when he ceases to be a judge, to a pension of 60 per cent of his salary for life. We passed that legislation in 1973. I hope to be corrected if I am wrong in thinking that this is the current legislation. To my knowledge, it has not been altered. In 1973 we provided that, where a judge who has attained the age of 60 years retires after serving as a judge for not less than 10 years, he is entitled to a pension at the rate equal to 60 per cent of the appropriate current judicial salary. In the case of a member of the judiciary who retires, it is provided that he receives his pension only if he has reached the age of 60 years and if he has served not less than 10 years in office. By the nature of things, having regard to our knowledge of judicial tenure, most judges who retire- unless it be for ill health- retire at a late age in life, usually over age 60. Provision is made for retirement before age 60 on the ground of ill health. I think the position is that there is an almost pro rata provision. But, whereas a judge holds office for life, usually for about 20 years, and terminates his office late in life, a Governor-General may take office at any time in his career without any previous special qualifications and retires usually after a brief period of service of 3 or 5 years.

We are confronted with a Bill which provides that a Governor-General who retires at the age of 45 years shall receive, whatever be the period of his service, a pension equal to 60 per cent of the Chief Justice’s salary for the rest of his life. I illustrate this by reference to some people whose names have been bandied about as candidates for the office- Mr Kenneth Myer, Mr Lance Barnard, Mr Bob Hawke -

Senator Murphy:

- Senator Wright?

Senator WRIGHT:

-I have not heard of that suggestion until now; and I laugh at it, as does the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The point is that the office of Governor-General is a temporary executive office where retirement is likely at any time of the career. It is a wholly false equation to compare it with that of a judicial personage who is likely to retire late in life. I point out that in the case of a judicial person we stipulate that there shall be 10 years of service and retirement later than age 60. It seems to me to be wholly inappropriate that wealthy persons who may be appointed should go out on a pension of 60 per cent of the Chief Justice’s salary after 3 or 5 years of executive service, or that political favourites appointed to an executive office should go out with this handsome pension which a Chief Justice earns by very different considerations.

Therefore, in the Committee stage I shall ask the Committee to consider a specific amendment making the pension payable to the GovernorGeneral and his successors dependent upon his attaining the age of 60 years and having served in the office of Governor-General for a certain period. I have copied the period of 10 years from the Judicial Retiring Allowances Act, but I indicate that I think 5 years would be more appropriate.

There is one other point I wish to mention. Senator Murphy was reading his speech rapidly last night, as soon as the Bill was introduced, when I said that I wanted to examine, the Bill to ensure that no more than 60 per cent of the Chief Justice ‘s salary was being provided for by way of pension. I was almost rather shortly rebuked for questioning the proposition. On looking at the Bill I find that the amount of the allowance in respect of any period shall be reduced by the amount of any pension or retiring allowance payable to the Governor-General ‘whether by virtue of a law or otherwise, in respect of that period out of moneys provided in whole or in part by Australia, a State or a Territory’. 1 interpret that to mean that, if a judicial personage is appointed and he has a judicial pension, that pension is offset against the 60 per cent pension for the Governor-General. So, too, if a parliamentarian is appointed and is entitled to a parliamentary pension, whether a Federal pension or a State pension, it is offset. I also understand that, if a public servant were entitled to a superannuation pension or retiring allowance, that would come within the meaning of that clause. I wish to have confirmation of that in Committee. But on that assumption I remind myself that senior public servants- I am told, though not authoritatively, that some State parliamentarians also- have converted their pensions into lump sums. I recall one instance in New South Wales where the sum exceeded $200,000. 1 want to make sure that the lump sum equivalent of a pension payable over a period to a retired personage of that sort, if he becomes Governor-General, shall also be offset against the pension.

These are matters which, with the greatest respect both on a point of principle and from the point of view of fairness and equity, I submit the Committee should take into account. We must beware in parliamentary appropriations of slipping into the assumption that high personages automatically are entitled to very high appropriations. If we allow a disparity between the influential and powerful in high office too great as compared with other people we will do the constitution great disservice.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I am glad that Senator Wright has focussed the attention of the Senate on this measure. I am well aware of and fully support the maintenance of the Standing Orders of the Senate. I am a very keen upholder and supporter of the high office of Governor-General, just as I am a supporter of the retention of the Australian flag, our present national anthem and our ties with the mother country, Great Britain. But I do not believe that we are doing a duty if we allow ourselves to be persuaded on this reference to the salary and allowances for a Governor-General in these terms: You must not show Party politics, you must not criticise or question. You just sit there and say “Yes, Sir” and let the Bill be passed’. We have a duty as a Parliament, as has this Senate as a house of review, to look at every piece of legislation that comes in and to see whether its provisions are fair to the top eschelon as compared with those in lower eschelons on the salary and income scale. We have a duty so to do because there is no doubt that when a measure like this becomes law, all of us- everyone in Australia- is entitled to have a look at it and to say: ‘If that office is entitled to those emoluments, retiring allowances and conditions, what about upping ours a bit according to our importance on the national Australian scale?’

Senator Wright’s analytical mind and forthrightness of character has got the Senate to this position today when we can in a sensible way raise the query: Is this measure designed with the right wording, amounts and effect? Once we put it on the statute book no government, I think, would bring in legislation to amend it, to make more harsh the provisions or to lower the emoluments. Therefore it would stand, as it were, as a pacesetter for this type of legislation. I believe that Senator Wright has done a job in bringing this to our notice. Look at what has transpired in the appointment of an ambassador designate. Look at the way it has come about- the fact that we do not know yet whether the man has resigned, whether he has been appointed, whether he is overpaid or whether he has committed a criminal offence by drawing emoluments from this Senate. These answers are not given to us. Under this Government anything could be done in the appointment to a high office. Nothing could be lower than what has happened with regard to Senator Gair. I do not criticise Senator Gair in this because I do not know what part he played except that he said yes. But if a Government will appoint a person to a position of trust and then carry on after the supposed appointment as this Government has behaved, anything goes. Therefore we ought to pay every attention to Senator Wright’s amendment which appears to me to be able to stop in the future something else that might be bad.

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

- Senator Wright’s first amendment would appear to have the effect of cancelling the entire retirement pension provisions because no

Governor-General on precedent, is likely to be in the position for a period in excess of 10 years. The normal period is 5 years. The words of the amendment ‘similar to qualifications in the Judges Pensions Act for the payment of a pension to a judge’ relate to a person over the age of 60 years and with 10 years service. This, however, relates to voluntary retirement. There are provisions for payment of lesser amounts if the retirement is due to disability. The effect of the amendment therefore would be not only to make the conditions impossible but to make them stricter than apply in relation to judges. There are provisions about the lump sum payments which can be dealt with in Committee.

Basically I think there is a fallacy in what the honourable senator is putting forward. He is saying that a Governor-General should be treated in some lesser way than judges. In reality if one wants independence in these spheres, the judges are more protected by the constitutional provisions than is a Governor-General. The judges are irremovable except in the procedures of which the honourable senator is aware; that is a redress through both Houses. As for the Governor-General, one would think that it is better to have provisions relating to a pension which would provide this measure of independence. I think it is not really appropriate that these proposals should come from here. Certainly, the initiative on the lump sum payments, one would think, ought to come from the government and be presented to the Parliament. The Government would not be prepared to accept either of the amendments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I circulated copies of 2 amendments to honourable senators last night so that they could have an opportunity of considering them in advance. These amendments refer to clause 4, which reads in part as follows:

  1. I ) Subject to sub-section (4), where, after the commencement of this Act, a person ceases to hold office as GovernorGeneral, an allowance is payable under this section to him during his life-time at such rate as is from time to time payable under sub-section (3).

    1. The amount of the allowance that, but for this subsection, would be payable to a person under this section in respect of any period shall be reduced by the amount of any pension or retiring allowance payable to that person, whether by virtue of a law or otherwise, in respect of that period out of moneys provided in whole or in part by Australia, a State or a Territory.

The first amendment states:

Page 2, clause 4, sub-clause ( 1 ), line 2, after ‘GovernorGeneral ‘, insert ‘ after he attains the age of 60 years, if he has held that office for a period of not less than 10 years’.

I ask leave of the Senate to alter my amendment by substituting ‘ 5 ‘ for ‘ 1 0 ‘.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator WRIGHT:

– I have advanced the view in the second reading stage that an executive officer appointed to the high position of Governor-General in all sorts of circumstances in life should not receive a life pension upon retirement, irrespective of age and irrespective of period of service. I pointed out that a judge receives a retiring allowance only if he retires after 60 years of age and has served for 10 years unless his retirement is caused by ill-health or invalidity in which case an adjusted pension but certainly not a full pension is payable. A man in the position of a judge is not entitled to a pension, ipso facto, for service of 3 years or 5 years, whereas a man such as a Governor-General, who has not spent his lifetime in acquiring a skill that fits him for the office, as most Governors-General have not, is so entitled. It is quite absurd that in the case of the judge we provide for a conditional pension but in the other case provide a pension without any conditions whatever. It should be noted that the pension payable in each case is non-contributory; that is to say, the occupant of the office bears out of his salary no contribution whatever towards the pension. In those circumstances I ask the Committee to accept the proposition that a Governor-General should qualify for this pension for the rest of his life only if he has reached the age of 60 years and has served for a period of 5 years. Senator Murphy made some remarks about judges being more protected in their office under provisions which I would know of. He refers, of course, to the provision that no judge shall be removed from office except in the case of misbehaviour on an address from each House of Parliament in the same session. Under the Judges Pensions Act, if a judge is removes from office for misbehaviour he gets no pension. We will not stay to discuss either that case or to contemplate that a Governor-General may be asked to retire for misbehaviour. I do not wish to occupy the Senate’s time by discussing a contingency of that sort. All I say is that the protection which the judges have for a life tenure is not relevant in any one iota to his entitlement to a pension by reference to the age or period which qualifies him for an allowance on retirement.

I submit that we will be doing the Constitution a great disservice if we introduce on different grounds and different conditions for a GovernorGeneral a pension which is expressed to be the equivalent of 60 per cent of the salary of the Chief Justice for the time being, unless we make it comparable in the conditions of entitlement to those to which the judges conform. Accordingly I move the amendments circulated in my name:

  1. 1 ) In clause 4, sub-clause ( 1 ), after ‘Governor-General ‘, insert ‘after he attains the age of 60 years, if he has held that office for a period of not less than 5 years’.
  2. In clause 4, sub-clause (4), at end of sub-clause add or, if such pension or allowance has been converted into a lump sum, by the amount of the actuarial equivalent on a periodic basis of such lump sum’.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (4.10)- I was not here during the second reading debate on this Bill but I listened to some of it in another place while examining some other papers. Speaking in the Committee stage with a certain degree of tolerance from the Chair, because perhaps I will advert to matters covered in the second reading stage, I find it an unhappy experience to be here in the Senate in a debate of this nature in relation to the position of Governor-General. I know from my own knowledge of the sheer tragedy of situations in the past, in fact since Federation, when inadequate provision has been made for Governors-General on retirement in this country. They have been men who have given magnificent service to their country. In the culmination of that service they have accepted the high office of GovernorGeneral only to find on their retirement that they are in a situation almost of poverty.

I am sorry that this debate is taking place. However, there is one thing I should say. In my view, when a person accepts the office of Governor-General of a nation and retires later- I was happy to see Senator Wright at least reduce the period in his amendment to 5 years, although at present I do not intend to support the amendmentit is almost axiomatic that, having been the Governor-General and having held the highest office in the land, he should not upon his retirement be returning to his profession, taking up a new profession or business, or having to do other things. It seems to me inevitable, natural, normal and appropriate for a man- it could be a woman in the world in which we live today- who accepts this highest office in the land and who serves the whole of the people of this nation to be able on his retirement to keep at that high level thereafter as one of the elder statesmen of the nation. It is assumed to be normal and natural that he will not be returning to some revenue producing activity. Therefore, it is appropriate that he should have thereafter a pension, whatever the figure is, for the remainder of his life. I think it is singularly unfortunate that we should be arguing, even at a fairly high level, or discussing this matter on this unfortunate occasion on this particular day. I appreciate that it cannot be done during the term of appointment of the present incumbent of the office of GovernorGeneral but I think that there would be more appropriate ways of finding an answer to the problem than having this debate in this chamber.

Progress reported.

page 883

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1973-74

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I wish to make 2 short announcements for the benefit of honourable senators. Firstly, I make the suggestion that this Bill be debated concurrently with Appropriation Bill (No. 3)- which is order of the day No. 7- and with Appropriation Bill (No. 5). Of course the votes would be taken separately as if the Bills were being debated separately. I think it would truncate debate and be for the convenience of honourable senators if the Bills are debated concurrently.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the Senate agreeable?

Senator Withers:

– I think we will wait. Senator Willesee is only indicating what he will do at the end.

Senator WILLESEE:

-The second thing I say is that it would be convenient to the Government, if it is the will of the Senate, to have these Bills disposed of without delay because of the things that must follow. I leave the matter in the Senate’s hands.

This Bill seeks appropriations totalling $100,480,000 for expenditure in the current financial year on administrative expenses and other services in addition to the appropriations made by the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1973-74. Although additional appropriations are being sought for the services specified in the Bill, it is expected that savings of about $ 104.2 m will be available in other appropriations under Appropriation Act (No. 1). Honourable senators will be aware that, as a matter of law, moneys appropriated by Parliament for specific purposes may be used only for those purposes and expected savings under existing appropriations cannot be utilised as an offset to reduce the total of new appropriations sought in this Bill to a net figure. To the extent that any annual appropriation is unexpended, it lapses at 30 June in accordance with section 36 of the Audit Act 1901-1973.

For the information of honourable senators, a separate document has been provided listing the estimated savings in existing annual appropriations. I emphasise that these are estimated savings- the final expenditure under those appropriations cannot yet be predicted with certainty. Nor is it intended to imply that there will be no savings under other appropriations. The information is provided by way of background to senators’ consideration of the additional amounts now being sought. Honourable senators will note that this Bill does not provide for salaries and allowances. This year the additional amount required for salaries and allowances- $ 168.575m- was sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3). The additional requirement for departmental administrative expenses is $29.4m. This includes $ 1 . 1 m for the Department of Housing and Construction for fees of private architects and other consultants; $2. 8m and $4.5m for the Department of Services and Property for elections and referendum and for rent, respectively; $700,000 for the Department of Social Security for postage and telephone services following the easing of the means test; and $700,000 for the Department of Transport for payments to the State railway system for services rendered in connection with interstate passenger and freight traffic.

Additional appropriations of $47.7m are required for other services of departments. These include $2.4m for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to provide for award wage employment of Aboriginals formerly employed under the training allowance scheme in the northern Territory; Department of Education, including $ 1.1m Tor secondary grants to Aboriginals and $1.3m for assistance to isolated children; $ 1 1 .5m for the Department of Foreign Affairs for payment under the National Wheat Agreement- Food Aid Convention; $5.1m for the Department of the Media for increased costs of the Australian Broadcasting Commission; $1.5m for the Department of Minerals and Energy for oil search subsidies; $600,000 for the Department of Primary Industry for emergency adjustment assistance to the apple, pear and canning fruit industry; $2. 2m for the Department of Repatriation for pensions to widows and other dependents of deceased ex-servicemen and for maintenance of patients in non-departmental institutions; and $6.5m for the Department of Services and Property for rent, property maintenance, furniture and fittings and running costs at overseas posts; and $900,000 for the Department of the Special Minister of State for expenditure on the international exposition to be held in Spokane, United States of America; this year.

Further appropriations totalling $23. 4m are sought for the Defence Services; $5. 7m of this amount is required for maintenance of defence production capacity in government factories and industry. Deliveries made earlier than expected of stores and equipment for the Navy and increased costs of fuel for Royal Australian Navy ships and the Air Force require the provision of $4.2m. A further $4.2m is required to meet increases in general administrative and operational expenses. Production development requires $230,000 and repairs and overhaul of aircraft and military weapons $1.8m. Payments on new aircraft for the Royal Australian Navy and Air Force previously not expected to be made in 1973-74 require $l.lm and maintenance of Air Force elements overseas $ lm. Other increased costs and miscellaneous activities require $3.1m. Estimated savings in other Defence appropriations amount to some $41. 3m and are due mainly to slippages, cancellations and rephasing of a variety of equipment projects. I commend the Bill to honourable senators..

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Willesee) proposed:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I intend to move an amendment to the motion. I intend moving the same amendment when we discuss Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 5). I move:

I know that there has been a lot of speculation around the Parliament, in the public area and in the media, as to what would happen when the Appropriation Bills were introduced. There has been continual talk of what we would do. As I recall it, when the parliamentary Liberal Party Leader, Mr Snedden, first made an announcement on this matter he said that the Liberal Party would do all in its power to make certain that this Government got no more money until it submitted itself to the people. It has been said that the course upon which the Senate is now embarking is unprecedented, unusual and all sorts of things. But those of us who live in the Senate, who understand why the Senate was created by the founding fathers and who know the powers which reside in the Senate, know that we are doing nothing unusual. Let me put it this way: We are doing nothing that is unconstitutional. It might be a good theory for those who say that it is improper for an upper House to send a lower House to the people and not go itself, but that situation does not operate in the present situation.

Last night at approximately midnight the Senate, full knowing that it was giving the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) an absolute and complete instrument on which to ask for a double dissolution, for the second time with a 3-months lapse defeated the health Bills. We knew that if we embarked upon the course of action which I have outlined, namely, the refusal of any more money by the Senate to the Government, and it were successful, the Government would take out either the House of Representatives with half the Senate or the House of Representatives with the whole Senate and we too would face the people. So I hope that the argument which has been canvassed that it is improper for an upper House to do this because it does not risk its neck is clearly shown to be not valid in the present situation. If we succeed in the operation on which we have set out, 60 honourable senators will face the electors as well as 125 members of the House of Representatives. I think this ought to be made clear from the outset. I hope that we will not have any more of these pseudo-constitutionalists writing odd sorts of articles.

Why do we take this course of action? The Opposition and the Opposition parties- I hope my friends and allies will not object to my including them in this statement- when the Electoral Bill first came before the Senate last year decided to vote against it. We knew full well that we were embarking upon a course which could lead to a double dissolution. This became even more pertinent and even more an issue when that Bill came back again during the Budget session. Again the Bill was defeated. So ever since that date there has been the capacity for the Government to take both Houses to the people. But in spite of the noise, flag waving, grandstanding and all the rest of it the Government has not been prepared to do that. As I said last night, this is part of a situation of whether the Prime Minister is prepared to jump or whether he must be pushed. The whole purpose of this exercise is to push him because we want an election. We are not afraid of a double dissolution. We have not been afraid of one since the Electoral Bill was introduced last year. We want one now for the good of the nation. One could talk at great length at to why this ought to be done.

I shall make some very brief comments as to why the Government must go back to the people and why we must also go back and give account of our stewardship since 2 December 1972. Of course the first thing is that this country no longer has good management. We all know that inflation has increased at an alarming rate from 4.5 per cent in 1972 to about 14 per cent today. The rate of inflation in Australia is one of the world ‘s worst for an industrial economy. The Government has done nothing to stop this wage price spiral and the reckless public spending instanced by the unprecedented growth of the Public Service. In one year 1 50 new branches and divisions of the Commonwealth Public Service cost the Australian taxpayer $150m in wages alone. What about the so-called taxation reforms? We accuse this Government of being incompetent, bad managers, cynical, devious and prepared to manipulate Parliament for mean political purposes. I shall just run through a list of broken promises. This is not the whole but a list of those promises which spring readily to mind. The Prime Minister, in his policy speech in 1972 stated:

The most pressing need in the tax field is to retard the trend by which inflation has forced lower and middle income earners into the high tax brackets.

The fact is that in 1973-74 taxes will increase by some $ 1,500m, which is an average of $200 per person. The tax on private companies was sharply increased in the first Budget despite a policy statement that tax on companies was already high enough’. This Government imposed a new tax relief scheme on elderly people. It placed them in a higher tax bracket. Mr Whitlam in his policy speech stated:

Our first step towards revising the tax burdens at the lower and middle levels will be to require the Treasury to produce and publish forthwith the ‘comprehensive review’ which Mr McMahon as Treasurer said in August 1969 would be urgently acted upon’.

I ask: Where is the review? I come to that delightful subject of interest rates. The Prime Minister said:

Labor will deliberately plan to reduce interest rates wherever practicable.

Interest rates have risen to an all time high. Mr Whitlam in his policy speech also promised ‘to delay no longer in the introduction of uniform building codes throughout Australia’, claiming that this would drastically reduce building costs. I ask: Where are those codes? The Prime Minister said that there would be a limited tax deductibility scheme on housing interest rates. We know what a dead flop that turned out to be. One of the great broken promises was in relation to defence policy. In the policy speech the Prime Minister stated:

A Labor Government will allocate not less than 3.5 per cent of Australia ‘s gross national product for defence in each annual Budget.

Defence expenditure in 1973-74 is estimated at 2.9 per cent. I now turn to education. The Government promised that no child would receive less from the Government for education than he was receiving from the then government. What happened to that promise? It was discarded in only 6 months. The Government promised 4 weeks annual leave for public servants. Then it tried to wriggle out of that promise. It tried to grant 4 weeks leave to public servants providing they were trade unionists. The list is almost interminable. One can go on and on and on. But those are the broken promises. What about the incompetence of the Government? In this chamber need one advert to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation bungle? We all know about that. It is part of the folk lore of the country. What will happen on 14 March? In the area of Aboriginal affairs- turtles and that whole operation- we now have the head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs telling the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts that on many occasions the first the Department knew of Mr Bryant’s decisions on funds was when the bills arrived. I think that somewhere there is an expression about the mire. I now turn to increasing industrial unrest. We remember the promise under Labor that there would be less industrial trouble. What a situation we are in in Australia. We cannot rely on letters arriving in the post. We cannot rely on planes being ready to fly, that there will be petrol for motor cars, that garbage will be collected, that mail will be delivered or even that beer will be brewed. One cannot even rely upon the fact that children will be taught at school. The only thing we can rely on is that the Public Service will continue to grow.

We see other wastage of money. There has been the waste of money in setting up numerous committees and commissions when the Government has no intention of acting on their reports. For example, the other day we saw the Henderson report. But what is the Government going to do? It will do nothing because it is both too expensive and too politically damaging to implement. What happened to the famous health scheme of Scotton and Deeble? It was shelved. It turned out to be a phoney. As to the contradictory statements between the Government and its Ministers I ask honourable senators to remember the famous Galston affair. On 15 September the Prime Minister said: ‘You are getting Galston’. On 19 September his deputy said: ‘No decision has yet been made on an airport at Galston’. Who does one believe? Then there is the great issue of federalism versus centralism which has raged over the last 1 5 months. We have seen this Government deliberately set out on a course of confrontation with the States rather than seek their co-operation. It is well known that this Government is a central government, that it wants to take all power to the central government and to roll over the States. For the first time in 70 years it has been able to create an atmosphere in which many people are starting to have doubts about the wisdom of Federation, and that is damaging to the nation.

If one talks about deceit and deception, where should one look to find instances of deceit and deception? Just look at the 4 constitutional Bills which were trotted up and which one assumes will be part of the next election. In not one of them does the title spell out the intent of the Bill. Democratic elections, simultaneous elections and the rest of these phoney questions are deliberately put out to deceive the elector when he goes to vote. Then we have the claim made by the Prime Minister, as I understood him, that the State Attorneys-General had agreed to the text of the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill and the contrary statement by the Attorney-General of Queensland in the Parliament of that State denying that an agreement was ever made. Who can one believe? There has been administrative bungling. Remember the divorce rules which came into this place- the hotch-potch, the bungling and the botch that nobody could understand. The country ought to be grateful to the Senate for throwing them out. There has been incompetence in framing legislation. I have adverted to the divorce rules. I refer now to the trade practices legislation. Remember when it was introduced. It was introduced as the Government’s piece de resistance. What happened? The Senate, in its wisdom, did not proceed immediately with it. Three months later it was re-introduced with over 100 amendments, and that was to the Government’s perfect Bill.

We come now to the Gair affair- the final bungle. I will give some quotations to show the extent to which this Government knew what it was all about. In the Senate on 4 April Senator Willesee said:

Mr Brennan is still the Ambassador in Ireland.

On the same day in the House of Representatives the Prime Minister said:

I quote the opinion of the Solicitor-General . . . that Mr Gair became Ambassador to Ireland on 14 March, the day when the Governor-General . . . appointed him . . .

At one stage during the debate in the Senate Senator McManus, I think, rightly interjected about the Governors-General- we have 2 Ambassadors to Ireland, do we also have 2 GovernorsGeneral? The Prime Minister, at his Press conference on 2 April, said:

He . . .

Meaning Senator Gair- has not, I understand, resigned from the Senate yet.

What did the Prime Minister mean by that? Surely he did not mean what he meant when on 4 April he said:

I was under no impression that his . . .

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND · DLP

– resignation from the Senate was required. I was under the impression that under the Constitution his seat had been vacated.

There has been deceit, deception and vacilleation. It is not for me to go on and on at length. The whole of the Opposition’s stance was made clear in the Senate’s Address-in-Reply to Her Majesty’s Speech. The incompetence, the cynicism, the corruption and the deceitfulness of this Government were canvassed at great length at that time.

The Government must go to the people. Because we believe that it must go to the people we are prepared to go with it. This is not an exercise in which an upper chamber is sending out a lower chamber and not risking its own neck. Let us all go. Since the Parliament first met last year we have had a situation in which we have been backing and filling, playing cat and mouse one with another, challenging, picking up challenges and refusing them. But nobody has been prepared to bite the bullet. This is the opportunity for the Government to bite the bullet. If it does not, there is no more money. It can take its pick. It is as simple as that. As far as we are concerned, the sooner the Prime Minister sees the GovernorGeneral and obtains his double dissolution and this matter is resolved by the people, the better because, as the Prime Minister and all of us agree, we cannot go on as we are. This matter must be resolved by the electors. They are the people who ought to resolve it. It ought not to be resolved by the Prime Minister abusing a chamber of this Parliament at a Press conference. That will solve nothing. Let us go back to those who sent us here. They are the people who will pass judgment on us. We are not afraid to have judgment passed on us.

Senator Milliner:

– The man protests too much.

Senator WITHERS:

-I suppose one of the tragedies is that the Queensland Labor Party will put Senator Milliner high on the ticket so he will be returned, which will not improve the standing of the Senate. We want to send this Government to the people. One would hope that if the Government were genuine in wanting to go to the people it would not oppose the amendment; it would gladly receive it; it would say that it welcomes it so that this can be the final instrument which pushes the Government, which ought to go and which for the sake of Australia must go, to an election so the people can throw it out.

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

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) has moved an amendment to the motion moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) in relation to the adjournment of the debate. This amendment is a very serious step in the procedures of the Senate. I think there is ample justification for the extreme course of action which is proposed by the Opposition in this chamber. The Senate has reached the stage at which it no longer has confidence in the Government because of the contradictory and misleading statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy). All honourable senators recall that 16 months ago this Government came to office, and when the Parliament first sat continual calls were made from the Government side that if Opposition senators did not measure up and support the legislation which was being brought before the Senate there would be a double dissolution. There were continual cat-calls across the Senate by Government senators putting this proposition. The Opposition accepted the challenge from the beginning. We carried out the normal functions of any Opposition in that we studied in detail the proposed legislation that was placed before us. We criticised it, we amended it, we deferred it and we sent it to Senate committees so they could examine it further.

Senator Devitt:

– What do you mean by ‘we ‘?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-The Opposition.

Senator Devitt:

– What Opposition? How much of the Opposition? The whole 5 parties, or just one or two?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– If after 16 months in government the honourable senator does not understand who is the Opposition, I will ignore him. We have had a criticism of the Prime Minister that he and his Government have reached the stage at which they are frustrated by a Senate which is deliberately trying to hold up Government legislation. What sort of Government do we have? Western Australia had a Labor Government which for 3 years worked with a hostile upper House. I think, from the election results, despite that Government’s defeat, it must have worked pretty well judging by the support it got in the last State election. It did not cry out that it was hindered and could not get its legislation through because of a hostile upper House. It got on with the job. That is what this Government should have been doing. This is only a small part of it. When we look at what the Government has done, we see nothing but broken promises. The last time I did a count of the broken promises, I think there were about 30 which the Government put before the people and which it has forgotten.

One only has to remember what was said by Mr Grassby, the Labor Party spokesman on primary industry prior to the 1972 election. He promised the people engaged in primary industry that a Labor government would make available loans at very low rates of interests. He said that such a proposal would cost only $18m to implement. What is the result? We have not heard from the Government one single thing about low interest rates. In fact, interest rates have been increased so much that an ordinary person who tries to buy a house these days has to pay from $20 to $30 a month more in interest charges alone- not in the capital cost of the house but just in interest charges- and a person who wants to buy a car on hire purchases has to pay $300 to $400 extra for that car. Yet we were told that we would have low interest rates.

Honourable senators should look at how the Government has plundered and abandoned rural industry. The primary producers in Western Australia showed what they thought of the Government by their vote at the election in that State a few Saturdays ago. The Government will see what the primary producers think of it when it goes before them again very shortly. Inflation in this country has run unchecked and has now reached a rate of 14 per cent. Yet when the Labor Party came to government the inflation rate was just over 4 per cent. Before the Labor Party came to government it said, when questioning the Government of those days about inflation, that it was the responisbility of government to overcome inflation. Today, when the present Government is questioned about the increased rate of inflation, it says: ‘It is a world problem. What are we to do about it? How can we act?’ The Government has no answer at all to this problem.

The strike situation in this country has been crippling industry and disrupting essential services, and all this has been done with the Government’s encouragement. That is a great thing, is it not? I have said already the interest rates applying at present are the highest that this country has ever known. Before coming to power the Labor Party said that as a government it would reduce interest rates for the people of this country. The housing situation is hopeless. The Labor Government said that it would house the people of this country, but we find today that a young couple trying to set up a home have to pay more and more to do so as the days go by. Why has this situation been brought about? It has been brought about because of the crippling rates of interest and the inflation in this country.

Let us have a look at defence. Today we heard the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Bishop), who represents in this chamber the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard), talking about what the Government has done for the defence of this country. He spoke about how the Government has increased the pay and allowances of servicemen. I ask the Minister whether there were not four or five Kerr reports. Did this Government accept the recommendations contained in the Kerr reports, or were those recommendations accepted by the previous Government? The Minister does not mention that. He talks about how the Minister for Defence went to America and saved $30m. Let me remind the Minister that all Ministers for Defence in the previous Government indicated, when answering questions, that when the final cost of the Fill project was arrived at- and it could not be arrived at until the aircraft came to Australia- there had to be an accounting between the Australian authorities and the American authorities, and it was believed that that accounting would be in our favour. This great saving that the Minister for Defence obtained on his trip to America is the result of the difference in the 2 accounting systems. Or is the Minister going to tell me that the Government has obtained a $30m saving in the cost of the aircraft and that we can expect a further refund because of the difference in the 2 accounting systems? I expect the Minister to tell us any day now how the Government achieved this saving.

Senator Bishop:

– You are going to hold up the pay and other necessary amounts for the Services today.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-We are not holding up any pay. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has moved an amendment to Senator Willesee ‘s motion. The Prime Minister has only to say ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ in relation to that amendment; there is no holding up of anything at all.

Senator Devitt:

– What do you reckon he will do?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Well, I do not know. I have mentioned some of the deficiencies that we have found in this Government’s handling of the economic situation in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned such shameless situations as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation affair which we debated in this chamber, the siege which took place at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and, lastly, the Gair affair. I do not want to mention those matters again, but I believe that all of the things that have been mentioned here give the Opposition every justification for taking the extreme measure that it is taking. My colleagues in the Country Party and I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

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

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party will vote against Supply. We disregard the contention of some speakers on the Government side that there is some constitutional reason, some traditional reason, why an Upper House should not vote against Supply. The principle upon which these complainants act comes from Great Britain, and it was based on the fact that the House of Lords was not an elective House and that therefore it should not thwart.the will of the elected House of the people. That tradition was brought to Australia because in most, if not all, cases the Upper Houses were Houses of property and again it was contended that the Houses of property should not thwart the will of the fully elected Houses.

The founders of our Constitution realised that that principle did not apply in the case of the Senate, which is just as much a House of democracy as is the House of Representatives. They included in the Constitution a provision which permits us to take the action we propose to take tonight. They would not have put that provision in the Constitution had they felt that it ought not to have been availed of. In this place I have listened to eloquent defences by the present Attorney-General and Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) of the right of the Senate to take action on money Bills. I pay tribute to him for that defence of the rights of the Senate, a defence of the rights of the Senate which did not please his leader in another place, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). The Prime Minister used that defence as the occasion for rebuking Senator Murphy because he said that the Constitution permitted us to do what we propose tonight.

The attitude of my Party is that an election must be held on the issue of whether all power shall go to Canberra. That is the issue of the election. It is whether all power shall go to Canberra and whether supreme power over State rights, family rights, workers rights and every other right in the community shall be dominated by Canberra and the bureaucracy. The Australian people are not fertile soil for ideas that their country shall be dominated by an executive Cabinet and also by a bureaucracy. If this is the issue of the election- I believe that it will be- I have no doubt as to its result. The necessity to take this action was triggered off because the Government embarked upon a course of bribery and corruption to obtain control of the Senate.

Senator McLaren:

– Who accepted it? The honourable senator’s ex-leader.

Senator McMANUS:

– The person who accepts is guilty but so is the person who offers. When I spoke to Senator Gair I said to him:

There can be no exception taken to your acceptance of the post if you take it after the Senate election when it will not affect the standing of the Parties’. He said to me: ‘Whitlam made it clear that the job was available only if I resigned at such a time that he would be able to have an election in Queensland for 6 senators’. I challenge any honourable senator opposite to deny that that was corrupt and was a bribe. The man who offered it is guilty.

I refer to the standard work on Senate practice in this country, J. R. Odgers’ ‘Australian Senate Practice’, fourth edition, which states:

As far back as 1695 the House of Commons resolved that The offer of money or other advantage to a member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament is a high crime and misdemeanour’.

Therefore, I say without hesitation that the Prime Minister of this country is guilty of high crime and misdemeanour. He is unfit to be Prime Minister and the country must be given the opportunity to remove him from office.

What are the means that have been adopted to gain control of the Senate? They are means which make it essential that we should take action here and now to stop what has been, as I have said before, a course of bribery and corruption for the purpose of obtaining parliamentary power. We all know of the offers of diplomatic posts and trips abroad that have been dangled in front of honourable senators who it was thought could be influenced. We know of the positions which have been dangled in front of honourable senators with a view to influencing their votes. In another direction, we know of the attempt to bring in a system under which the Commonwealth could make available to local governments sums of money for expenditure as the Commonwealth determined. That represented an obvious attempt to set up a system of bribery under which the people in those electorates who were prepared to vote for the Labor Party would receive the cream and those who did not vote for the Labor Party would not. 1 point to what has happened in the western suburbs of Melbourne. This is an area dominated by Dr J. F. Cairns, an area in which obviously Labor voters are to be found in larger numbers than elsewhere. An organisation has been set up and funds and other things have been provided for this organisation. A former member of Parliament who will be a candidate at the next election and a relative of the Minister have been placed in charge of this organisation which can make arrangements for large amounts of finance to be made available and patronage to be given in that area.

I want to say this: There were disadvantages for my Party to take the course that it will take. But it was necessary to take action before this system of bribery and corruption could achieve its purpose. One has only to look at the set-up and at the series of Electoral Bills which have already been introduced by this Government and which are to be submitted to the people following a victory in the election, if the Labor Party achieves that victory. It has been said that the Government will alter the preferential system of voting in a way which will aid the Labor Party by introducing a first past the post system or an optional preferential system. Therefore, the Labor Party proposes to alter the electoral system to ensure that it retains office. It will then propose a system under which the number of people, not the number of voters, in each electorate shall be the same. The Labor Party is aware that the figures show that in Labor Party held electorates the number of children is infinitely greater than in Liberal Party or non-Labor Party held electorates. Therefore, the Labor Party proposes to initiate an electoral system, if it wins this election, under which a vote cast in a Labor Party electorate will carry with it infinite advantages over a vote cast in a Liberal electorate. So we have a complete system of corruption designed to get control of the Senate as it now is and, in the offing, we have proposals to alter the electoral system to ensure that if the Labor Party cannot get its way by bribery, it will get its way by altering the electoral system in a way which is a gerrymander and an insult to democracy.

Finally, what are the members of the Labor Party proposing? They dislike small parties. They have made arrangements with the Australia Party that it will direct its preferences any way that the Labor Party asks for the purpose of destroying the Australian Democratic Labor Party. They are making arrangements, if they can, with other parties. What they have in design is this: They will make it very difficult for the small parties, for a start, by substantially increasing the deposit required by a candidate to stand for Parliament and by substantially increasing the percentage of the vote necessary for a candidate to retain his deposit. In other words, with this Government, electoral justice goes out the door. There is a bid for power, naked and unashamed in Canberra, bolstered up by a system of bribery, corruption and patronage and bolstered up by a deliberate design to alter the electoral system to benefit themselves.

I repeat: This election must be fought on one issue- the issue of all power to Canberra, the issue of the defence of the rights of the States, the defence of the rights of the family and the defence of all the other rights which are essential in any community such as ours. I regard this Government as an authoritarian Government which has been kept in check to date only by the power of the Senate. When Mr Whitlam spoke in Hobart he said that the big obstacle in the way of his plans for power was the DLP in the Senate. He said that in this election there would be a campaign by the Labor Party to destroy the DLP. He said at the Conference of his Party in Melbourne that the DLP was the obstacle to his plans and that it must be destroyed. He has made an agreement with the millionaire hobbyist who controls the Australia Party, so that whatever way the ALP asks that Party to direct its preferences, it will do what it is told. I say again: This Government is a Government of corruption and authoritarianism. I repeat the words, which I quoted only a few days ago, of Cromwell when he marched into Parliament. He pointed to the members and said: ‘You have been here too long for any good that you do. In the name of God, go’-

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

- Mr President, what is happening in this chamber today is what has been happening over the period of office of almost 18 months of this Government; the Opposition is putting in question and undermining not merely the Government but the system of government in Australia. The Australian Country Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Democratic Labor Party went to an election in 1972 and they were defeated. The Australian people accepted the program which was put before them by the Australian Labor Party. The Opposition parties would not accept the verdict of the people, and we have seen during the last 18 months that again and again they have endeavoured to frustrate the Government by defeating important parts of the Government’s legislation, because they simply will not accept the system of government that prevails. After 23 years- and they had their own way during that time- it was time that the people were entitled to have a new government carry out its policies which had been carefully formulated, widely publicised and accepted by the people.

Some honourable senators opposite think that they have some divine right to govern and that when they are not in government they have some divine right to prevent those who are in government from governing. There is no such right. When the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Whitlam) put to the people that we would have a national health insurance scheme and set out the details of that scheme, the people were entitled to have the Government enact the legislation to implement those promises. When we said that we would bring the petroleum and mineral resources of Australia under proper governmental control and regulation in the interests of the people, the people were entitled to have the Parliament implement the policies that were put to them by the Government, but those in the Opposition felt that they would deny that right. We turn to smaller matters, such as the Superior Court Bill which had been proposed in the first instance by those in the Opposition and which was a specific part of the Australian Labor Party’s policy at the election. We find that honourable senators opposite would not allow even that Bill to go into the Committee stage; they would not even give it a second reading in this chamber a week or so ago.

I turn to trade practices. Here is a subject matter which is the concern of everyone in Australia. These trade practices had been exposed early in the 1960’s by Sir Garfield Barwick, by royal commissions and by all sorts of investigations. It was agreed on all hands that those trade practices were pernicious, that they were a potent factor in the inflation which was occurring in the country and that legislative measures were necessary against them. One of the sorriest passages in our history is the way in which the great pressure groups were able to prevent the LiberalCountry Party Government from bringing in any effective legislation. Yet when our Party spelled out before the last election the kind of legislation that we would bring in- at the election we promised to bring it in and got the endorsement of the people and brought it in, what have we seen? We have the situation where in September of last year trade practices legislation was introduced and this Senate refused even to consider it. The legislation was introduced again into the House of Representatives, it was introduced into this chamber and again the Senate refused to consider it.

We brought the trade practices legislation in after saying that we would listen to every interest in the community. I personally offered the members of the Democratic Labor Party the assistance of departmental officers in confidence to give them any kind of assistance that they required over the whole of the vacation period. Throughout industry and commerce suggestions were made which did not touch the basic principles of the Bill. Every one of those suggestions was listened to and a large number of minor amendments were put forward. A lawyer could have gone through those amendments in two or three hours and understood them, as they did; they were able to discuss them in learned articles. We circulated the amendments and we came into this chamber and put the amendments to the Senate. What do we find now? After all this time an endeavour has been made- and honourable senators can see this on the front of the notice paper- not to have the legislation debated, but to have it put over until some time after April, meaning in the context of our program that it would not be dealt with in the first half of this year.

Whose interest was that serving? It was serving those who are perpetrating these rackets, those who were feeding the inflation by getting money unfairly from the people by all sorts of restrictive schemes and price-fixing arrangements. The consumers were being left unprotected. Why? It was because of the action of the Opposition parties. Every day that they were able to delay the introduction of effective laws meant that millions of dollars were going into the pockets of those who were operating these practices at the expense of the consumers. Why? It was because honourable senators opposite are only the puppets of those outside who are operating these rackets against the community.

We have heard what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place (Mr Snedden). He said it publicly. He has given an indication that the Opposition does not want what the Australian Labor Government has been doing. Members of the Opposition do not want welfare schemes. They do not want money being spent on health and education in a myriad of ways in order to overcome 23 years of neglect. They do not want full employment. They do not want the prosperity that exists in Australia. Their answer to what the Labor Party is doing is to say: Let us have a credit squeeze. Let us have a pool of unemployment’, or to put forward the absurd nonsense that there should be some voluntary price restraint for 3 months. We know what was done in this community before the Prices Justification Tribunal was set up. Right throughout the community the great corporations raised their prices in anticipation.

Honourable senators opposite serve the interests not merely of ordinary business but of the great corporations which dominate this community by their economic power. Therefore, when the Opposition is in power these great corporations hold the economic power in this community. Each member of the Opposition knows it. We have the first taste of it here. They are not concerned about the fact that refusing Supply will mean that social services will be cut back, that repatriation pensions will not be paid, that the money set aside for overseas aid will not be provided, that widows and other dependants will suffer and that public servants will not be paid. This is only a small taste of what the community will get if Snedden is able to have his way; but he will not get his way.

We have before us a measure for the provision of urgent Supply. In the House of Representatives Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and Appropriation Bill (No. 5) were opposed by the Opposition Parties. Appropriation Bill (No. 3), which has been here for some little time, was not opposed there, I understand; but it is opposed here now in the Senate. Instead of outright opposition to the Bills, which one could understand, we have this schoolboy trick on the part of the Leader of the Opposition of moving an amendment to the motion. Instead of saying directly, honestly and straightforwardly what the Opposition has in mind, Opposition members are trying, by some hypocritical device, to stand over the Prime Minister of the country and to say that they will not debate this measure now and they will do so at a later hour of the day only if the Prime Minister agrees to submit himself in some way. What kind of nonsense is this? We know what the Opposition did in the House of Representatives and we know what it intends to do here. In no way will the Opposition escape the consequences of a refusal to give Supply. So that the Opposition’s device will be exposed and the Opposition will not be able to rely on that device, I intend to take certain action. The position is that a number of Bills have been dealt with by the Senate after they have been passed twice by the House of Representatives, with the interval of 3 months which is referred to in section 57, and the Senate has rejected or failed to pass those Bills. Therefore, the Government is entitled to a double dissolution if His Excellency the Governor-General takes the view that there ought to be one.

There are other measures in respect of which manifestly the Opposition has obstructed the Government in carrying out the policies which it put forward in the last election campaign and undertook to implement. On top of that, the Opposition again and again has made threats, both inside and outside both Houses of the Parliament, about refusing supply. No government can be subjected to this kind of blackmail whereby an Opposition says, not on account of any principle but simply because it suits it at the particular time, that it is going to drive the Government to a dissolution and then try to escape the consequences itself. The Government, aware of this, has kept the position that if the Senate Opposition were foolish enough to undertake that action the Government would be able to drive it to a double dissolution. That stage has been reached and any endeavour by Opposition senators to avoid it, by having some kind of slick motion passed which will say that they are not really refusing Supply but are asking that it be deferred conditionally upon the Prime Minister agreeing to submit to a dissolution, will not be tolerated. In order to precipitate this position it is clear that the Opposition again, by this ridiculous and hypocritical device, is endeavouring to avoid voting on the measure. This absurd device relates to when the debate should be undertaken. One can understand why members of the Opposition have undertaken this course. They sit back there and think about how they can salvage their consciences and how they can vote on these measures in some way that will enable them to pretend that they did not really refuse Supply. They have come up with this absurd amendment.

Mr President, to put an end to this matter I will tell you that I intend to move ‘That the question be now put’. If that motion is defeated, the Government will treat that as a denial of Supply. If that motion is carried and this absurd amendment is carried, the Government will treat that also as a denial of Supply. In either event the Prime Minister of Australia, who is conversant with the absurd proposition which has been put here, will call forthwith upon His Excellency the Governor-General and tender him certain advice not only in regard to the denial of Supply but also in regard to certain other measures to which I have referred. Therefore, I move:

Senator Negus:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

-You cannot raise a point of order now.

Senator Negus:

– We are being denied the right to talk to this amendment.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator will resume his seat. Under the Standing Orders of the Senate there can be no debate on the motion ‘That the question be now put’.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 31

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– It should not be forgotten by this Senate or by the people of this country what the Senate is determined to do: That is, to invite the people of this country to express their judgment upon the performance of this Government in the 16 months that it has been in office. We do not shirk from taking that challenge and giving the people of Australia the opportunity to vote upon the question. No matter what sophistry, legalisms or deceptions the Attorney-General of this country (Senator Murphy) is prepared to practise, we shall not be dissuaded from the task which we have set ourselves. The Attorney-General said in the early pan of his speech that we were denying the verdict of the people which was given in December 1972. We in the Opposition rebut that allegation. But if it be thought that the allegation does have substance, let the people be asked to give their verdict again. That is the purpose of what we are doing. It ought to be recalled that when in the House of Representatives the Leader of the Opposition Mr Snedden, first spoke on this Bill, he said the Opposition would oppose it because if the Opposition were successful it would mean that the Government would have to go to the people and face an election. He said that if in the Senate the Appropriation Bill was denied, then after the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had indicated that he was prepared to face on election, we would pass the Bill forthwith to ensure that the moneys were granted by the Parliament. That is the position in which we are now situated.

After the course which the Opposition is following was made clear, the Prime Minister, in his accustomed manner, sought to have it both ways. He threatened a double dissolution. How many times had he threatened it in the past and never carried out his threat? Throughout last week newspaper headlines have been full of the Prime Minister’s assurances, promises and intentionsthat he would not wait for the Senate to reject Supply; he would go the Governor-General and ask for a double dissolution. We have facilitated the steps by which he could go to the GovernorGeneral. Yesterday, with full knowledge of what the decision meant, the Opposition Parties in this Senate rejected for the second time within 3 months the health Bills and thereby gave unchallengeable constitutional grounds for the Government to seek its double dissolution. Why did the Government wait until we had indicated our attitude on those Bills before it brought the Appropriation Bills into this Senate? The Appropriation Bills have been in the House of Representatives for well over a week. They could have come here at any stage within the last 7 days but they did not come here within that period for the obvious reason that the Government desired to have its grounds for a double dissolution clearly established.

The grounds are now clearly established. This Bill is before the Senate and the Opposition has clearly indicated by the terms of its amendment that when the Prime Minister announces that he has secured the double dissolution for which he is looking it will give consideration to these Appropriation Bills and will pass them. But the amendment is designed to ensure that there is an election. Why should anybody challenge the action of a democratically elected chamber if the result of its action is to ensure that the verdict of the ultimate judges, namely the electors, is thereby secured? That surely is what representative democracy is essentially concerned with. The right of the Senate to reject a Bill ought not to be questioned. The Constitution gives that right to the Senate. When the Constitution was established over 70 years ago, two of those who established it- the 2 persons to whom I refer, Sir John Quick and Sir Robert Garran, were intimately involved with the writing- said:

The Senate has co-ordinated power with the House of Representatives to pass all Bills or to reject all Bills. Its right of veto is as unqualified as its right of assent.

That view is a view which the Attorney-General of this Commonwealth, Senator Murphy- a leader in the Labor Party- asserted in this chamber when he was in Opposition. Indeed he tabled in this chamber a list of 168 measures in which he asserted the Labor Party had given expression to that principle. In Victoria in 1952 the Labor Party actually acted upon the principle and sent a government to the people. In 1965 it threatened to do the same thing, and it secured its objective by reason of the government complying with its wishes. When a democratically elected chamber does it, and when it will submit itself to the people to have its conduct judged, why should any democrat cavil at what is being done? Those who would deny to the Senate the right to act as we are now doing have some fear for themselves of the voice of the people. If our democracy is to be meaningful let us use as many opportunities as will present themselves to let the people have their say. This is the direct consequence of what we are doing.

Why, essentially, is the Opposition in this Senate taking the whole of the Parliament to the people? Why is every Opposition senator in this place prepared to put to the people the seat of every- senator and the seat of every person in the House of Representatives? I say simply it is because we in the Opposition parties believe that the people ought to be given the opportunity to make the choice whether they want the Liberal way or the Labor way. People have had a fair experience with the Liberal way because for 23 years Liberal-Country Party Governments in this country created a climate in which every individual was able to lead a meaningful life, an improving life, a life in which he was getting more than he might have got in any other country. He was living in a prosperous, affluent and free country, the like of which was the envy, I believe, of people in every country throughout the world. Whatever drawbacks might have been pointed at the Government in this country over those years, for 23 years it was sustained. I use that point merely to say that people have had some experience of what that Government was.

In 1972, under the charm and the attraction of a slogan which in itself promised no policy but simply said ‘It’s Time’, the people made a change. They were entitled to make their change. But we have seen 16 months of dismal performance and we on this side of the House believe that the people ought to have a choice as to whether they will continue on the line they have been shown. We in the Liberal Party believe that the path Australia is now moving along is a path fraught with peril. We cannot see what the end will be. Are we to have an inflation rate in this country of 14, 15 or 16 per cent each year and a Treasurer who says that that is tolerable? What will be the position if we are to have tax rates so that if one is kept abreast of inflation one has to have a 25 per cent increase in salary in order that one’s real purchasing power is maintained at the same value it was when the year began? That is the situation that we are in in this country. The Fabian Treasurer of the Labor Party believes that this is tolerable and that this country can sustain this position, but I believe that he is leading this country on the path to ultimate certain disaster.

We believe that the people of Australia ought to be able to hear what we have to say and ought to be able to make the decision whether they want to go along that path. We will do our utmost to ensure that we get Australia back to a level on which people ‘s purchasing power will be meaningful so that the person who receives a pension, a person who is on a fixed income and those who have not got the ability to act for themselves, as is always the case with a few people, will at least be protected in what they have and what they aspire to. We will look to see that people when they engage in activities, employment and business are able to reap and enjoy the benefits of their labour and efforts. They cannot at the moment see what their prospects are. We believe that in this country, which has the greatest rate of home ownership in the world, people should be able to buy their own homes and contemplate that they have the basic deposit, that they have the ability throughout life to pay off the asset and to be able to give something to their children when they die. If this is the type of conservative outdated ambition which is so often castigated and criticised by the Labor Party, I and the Liberal Party believe that this is what most people in this country feel they ought to be able to secure. It is the sort of objective which we have.

What we have seen over the past 16 months is uncontrolled inflation, excessive tax burdens, unacceptable interest rates- the highest interest rates we have ever had in this country- under a Labor Party Government, the so-called workers’ Government, which said that it would do its utmost deliberately to bring down interest rates. What do we have? We have interest rates at an unacceptable high level. We have critical shortages. I do not know how many people care to read the finer print in the newspapers, but only last Saturday in the ‘Australian’ I noticed on page 3 that washing machines and refrigerators are in short supply. There are so many items of ordinary every day use which are in short supply. We find this day in and day out. If we talk to our wives and our children we find that there are so many things that we want but cannot get. The last I heard was that even shoe laces were in short supply. All this is happening in the sort of society which the Labor Party has created.

Senator McAuliffe:

– You know that when you went out of office interest rates were the highest since Federation.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not care what Senator McAuliffe says about the position when we went out of office. All I can say is that if interest rates were the highest then- I do not know whether they were or not- they are certainly much higher now. I was talking about shortages. The article in the ‘Australian’ said:

Rising steel and labour costs will force prices of electrical goods such as washing machines, stoves and refrigerators up by as much as $50.

Manufacturers and retailers predict a 10 per cent price rise soon. This will come on top of rises ranging from 4 to 10 per cent on hundreds of electrical goods in the past 5 months.

The Prices Justification Tribunal is so busy approving price increases that it cannot keep abreast of all the applications that are being made. This is the situation which we are in at the moment. We have had the experience of spiralling housing costs, over-expansion of the public sector, unnecessarily rapid growth- enormous growth- in the Public Service and, alarmingly, we have a lack of defence preparedness. Is it any wonder that we in the Liberal Party feel that the people of Australia ought to be given the choice as to which government they prefer?

What has precipitated this action being taken at this stage? It is the final culminating act in a series of deceptions, misrepresentations and untruths which, I think, has plumbed the depths of political cynicism. We have a Prime Minister and a Government to whom principles, truth and morality are of secondary importance. We have seen at first hand in this chamber an AttorneyGeneral who conducts a raid on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and who to this day has not explained what it was that prompted the initial raid. We had him introducing divorce rules, briefing barristers, concealing facts and finally saying what has been abundantly clear when there have been inquiries about the reasons for these matters: ‘It is none of your business’. We have a Prime Minister of whom it may properly be said, as he said of his predecessor, that he is a person who has lowered the standing and standards of the Parliament, the probity, integrity and responsibility of Australian public life. I say to the Prime minister what he himself said of his predecessor. These are the words he used in the House of Representatives in February 1972. They apply to him in real measure:

The present Prime Minister believes that he can get away with anything because of his great office. He never saw Sir Robert Menzies contradicted or exposed and he thinks immunity goes with the office. He believes that citizens or colleagues will never contradict or expose him even if his misstatements damage their interests or their reputations or the country ‘s interest or reputation.

What have we received from the Prime Minister? My Leader, when he introduced this amendment, gave the list of broken promises as taken from the policy speech of the Prime Minister. But what are the statements which the Prime Minister has made- not casual slips of the tongue but quite deliberate statements of which truth is no part. I recall when the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia was here at a formal dinner our Prime Minister said: ‘I have to state as a cold fact that every known act of grave violence on political grounds perpetrated in Australia in recent years has come from the extremist right.’ This is a totally unsubstantiated statement and one which cannot be substantiated. We know, and during the time that I was Attorney-General I knew, of the damage which was done to properties through sources which, however unidentifiable they were, were clearly not of the extremist right. I speak of such damage as was done to the Honeywell Australian General Electric premises and hosts of others. When the Prime Minister is asked a question about the basis for his statements, and a question is asked on notice, he delays for 3 months and then refuses to answer the question. He stated in an address to a formal dinner of the Chamber of Manufactures: ‘The facts remain today that the true party of competition, of modernisation, of freer trade, even perhaps of free enterprise in its most genuine sense, is the Labor Party.’ Who does he think he can persuade? This is the same Prime Minister who today acknowledged in the Parliament quite proudly that his Party stands for the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange? He went on to say: ‘And also for the nationalisation of a host of industries ranging from banking to transport and any other anticompetitive business monopoly. ‘

Sitting suspended from S.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I had been instancing why it was that the Opposition parties felt that it was time for the people of Australia to be given the opportunity to express their verdict on the performance of this Government. I had said that my leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers), had instanced from the policy speech the promises which had been made and the promises which had been broken. I had been instancing some of the cold calculated statements made by the Prime Minister of this country which were demonstrably false. I had been using those examples because we have a Government, a Ministry, to which truth is relatively meaningless. If political advantage is sought it does not matter what the truth is. It does not matter what the facts are. One could illustrate that by a host of examples. A number of those examples have been given in recent times.

As I said, the highlight of this whole charade came with the appointment of Senator Gairprobably the most bitter political opponent which the Labor Party and Mr Whitlam have had- to the position of one of this country’s ambassadors. That was bad enough. But I think what sickened me most of all was the way in which, after the whole question was exposed and the infamy of the appointment revealed, there was an attempt at concealment, at lying in an endeavour to make the facts fit the legal situation, which indicated what little regard for probity and morality this Government has. It is not only that which is objectionable. It is the way in which the Senate’s position has been misrepresented over the months. I have here a record of the Press statement which the Prime Minister made on Monday of this week. It is the Press conference at Parliament House on 8 April 1974. The Prime Minister castigated the Senate. What did he say? I think it is useful to look at this statement because it indicates the way in which he is prepared to say virtually anything to gain some political advantage. I only hope that the people of Australia know that we have a Prime Minister who will stop at nothing in order to get his own political advantage made. For example, he said:

They . . .

Referring to the Opposition Parties- have prevented us introducing universal health insurance.

It is a fact that we have. We decided to vote against the Bills last November and we voted against them again yesterday. The reason we did so is that we believe the present health insurance which is based upon the principle of choice, the right to choose your own doctor and your own hospital and to insure so that you can meet costs, is a far better system than one in which compulsion and the one service of a government health scheme is the epitome. We then have the Prime Minister saying:

They have prevented us enacting industrial legislation designed to reduce industrial disputes.

What a farce that statement is. The legislation introduced last year which we in the Opposition opposed was legislation which said: ‘Let us do away with fines altogether. Let us give collective bargaining an open go. Let us allow the power of the unions to be able to determine what shall be the result in any industrial disputation. It does not matter what the inconvenience to the public might be.’ We in the Opposition voted against such a proposal. The Prime Minister went on to say:

They have held up our legislation on restrictive trade practices and monopolies and consumer protection.

What I have said about that matter I repeat. The present Attorney-General, as the Minister in charge of this legislation, has set back the course of effective, strengthened trade practices legislation by 3 years by the course he has followed. If he was genuine he would have accepted our proposals, which we initiated in government, and legislated for them as soon as the Labor Party came into power. We had introduced the Bills in the month before we went out of office and obviously we were committed to support them. The Attorney-General was not prepared to accept those measures. He waited virtually a year and then introduced his own proposals. If they are ever to be effective and ever to pass this Parliament it will be a year or two hence. I say that the Attorney-General and the present Government have been responsible for any defects they see in our existing legislation. Of course the Prime Minister instances a host of other matters.

These are questions of course in which we have a point of view and the Government has a point of view. I think people appreciate that this is what politics are involved with. All that I think should be said, because it is important to make the point and to make the point stick, is that the Opposition has said, on each of the occasions when it has voted against these matters which the Government has said have been important matters, that we are prepared to go to the people and to let the people judge whether we are right or the Government is right. These decisions which we have made as an opposition have not been callous decisions exercising a majority which we have here, simply for the sake of exercising that majority. We are as concerned as anyone else in Australia to have the best sort of Australia that we can. We feel that these are sufficiently important matters to give the people of Australia a chance to determine and to vote on. That is the issue which is before us now.

May I recapitulate to make the point abundantly clear. The Prime Minister, for over 12 months, has been threatening the Senate with a double dissolution. We, from the Opposition, have been saying: ‘If you want a double dissolution we are prepared to have one’. But the Prime Minister has refused time and time again when he has had the opportunity to ask for that double dissolution which would involve an election. The last time he did so was within the last week. The course which we have followed is a course which puts the ball directly in the Prime Minister’s court. He could ask for a double dissolution and we will welcome it. We believe that the people of Australia should have the opportunity of saying whether’ they want to go further down this perilous path along which the Labor Party is leading us or whether they want to look ahead to that light which is the ultimate achievement of those who will follow- the Liberal Party. I stand, as do all my colleagues, behind a Liberal Party which does believe in individual freedom, which does believe in the opportunity of every individual to make his own life in his own way so long as he does not offend or deny to others the rights which he claims to himself and who seeks to ensure that this will be a self-reliant nation in which individuals will be proud of. themselves and their achievements and proud of what the nation, as a nation, has achieved. This is what we, as Liberals, endeavoured to establish over some 23 years.

I believe that when the people are given the chance to say whether they will go ahead with a Liberal government of the character which I have outlined or go further downhill with an irresponsible, corrupt and authoritarian Government which this Government has displayed itself to be, I know what their decision will be. Tonight we are giving the people the opportunity to decide.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– When the die was cast this afternoon- as we all know it was- and it became clear that the country was confronted with a double dissolution, I entertained the vain hope that those who have been boring us so relentlessly throughout the life of this Parliament would at least do us the favour and the mercy of being brief.

Senator Marriott:

– I hope you will.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I propose to. But no, the professor of the art of tedious repetition, Senator Greenwood, has used the dying hours of this Parliament to perform his dreary act again ad nauseam. I think he should have the opportunity, before the Parliament rises, to deny a rumour which has become very persistent around this place. It is said that when the lights go out in the chamber at night he hides under his desk and when we have all left he turns them on again and talks all night to himself. I do not propose to go through the whole dreary catalogue of the alleged offences of this Government. However, I did find it interesting -

Senator Little:

– That is very true. The honourable senator admits that the offences are true. That is very generous of him.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I admit nothing. This is not a night for admissions.

Senator Little:

– The honourable senator just said it.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Senator, I said ‘alleged’. No admission is contained in that statement. That is a lawyer’s term. Nonetheless, no admission is contained when one adds the word ‘alleged’. It is a term of art. If the honourable senator listens closely he may find out something about this.

Senator Little:

– When I get someone worth listening to I will. .

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– All right. As I said, I do not propose to examine point by point the dreary catalogue of alleged offences which we have heard from Senator Greenwood tonight. However, I shall refer briefly to a matter about which he is quite- if I may use a word which has been alleged to be a favourite of mine- paranoid: The suggestion that Senator Murphy’s performances in relation to the Croats were in some way reprehensible and that this is to be counted against this Government when it is being judged by the people. I would like Senator Greenwood to contemplate this one point which has been made very frequently in the last few days. Senator Murphy made his historic disclosures on, I think, 14 March last year. I ask honourable senators to think: One of the consequences of those disclosures is that no bombs have gone off in the ensuing year.

Senator Webster:

– That is not true.

Senator Little:

– Aboriginals are down at departments with guns and everything. Where is the evidence?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The response which that remark evoked indicates how unpalatable it is to the Opposition.

Senator Webster:

– How untruthful it is.

Senator Poyser:

- Senator Greenwood could not find them.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There are too many geese in here. Senator James McClelland, I ask you to address the Chair and to take no notice of interjections.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-One is reminded of the cackling of the geese before the fall of Rome. These gentlemen opposite- the geese to whom you have referred, Mr Presidentrealise the folly of the course of events which they have set in train. Tonight they indicate that they are a very glum and gloomy lot. As 1 look around this chamber I am persuaded that the gentlemen on the opposite side realise that they will stay on the opposite side. They regret the rashness which let their stodgy, mediocre leader, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr Snedden), into being pushed into this precipitate action by the ambitious and much tougher leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony), who I am afraid will turn out to be the real leader in the campaign which we have ahead of us.

Senator Little:

– I am glad to know that the honourable senator is afraid of him.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not afraid at all.

Senator Little:

– The honourable senator just said he was.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I said nothing of the kind. What is obviously looming is the first city versus country election that we have had in this country. I think that is very unfortunate.

Senator Withers:

– Is that the way you are going to campaign?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-No, that is not the way we are going to campaign. It is the way you are going to campaign. It is very interesting to see the alleged charismatic Leader of the Country Party looming up with his little innocent boy smile, which is really much more like the smile on the face of the tiger if one looks at it closely. Behind him is what looks like a little lap dog. He happens to be the aspirant for the leadership of this country, the leader of honourable senators opposite, Mr Snedden. If we are to have any sort of foretaste of what is ahead of us I think that honourable senators opposite should feel very uncomfortable. It so happens that I was down near the door of Parliament House yesterday when the Leader of honourable senators opposite, this man, this little mediocrity who aspires to be the Prime Minister of Australia, was cornered near the front door of Parliament House.

Reluctantly he gave what passed for a Press conference.

Senator Withers:

– At least he comes in the front door.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Well, I wish all honourable senators had been there to hear the vapid generalities which passed for a policy from this man of destiny with whom honourable senators are saddled.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I want this competition to stop.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Let me get back to the Senate. We had from Senator Drake-Brockman, the Leader of the Australian Country Party in this place- incidentally, a man for whom I have a lot of affection and who I hope will be back with us- a remark to the effect that he had counted up the broken promises of this Government. He said that the last time he counted he got to something like thirty. Was it more than that Senator? I thought you said thirty.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– It was probably a lot more.

Senator Little:

– They are the only ones he counted.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-No. I think Senator Drake-Brockman is a very worthy representative of the interests which he represents. But those interests which he represents happen to be very narrow. Unfortunately they have dominated every coalition government in this country in the 23 years that Australia has been unfortunate enough to have a LiberalCountry Party coalition government.

Senator Little:

-I thought the DLP got the blame for everything. I am glad to know that the honourable senator has changed his mind.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-No. The Australian Democratic Labor Party has really played a very marginal role in the history of this country. It is a role which is about to disappear.

Senator Little:

– Even the Government was prepared to buy us in the finish.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-To buy? I think that the DLP would be wise not to stress that point at all. What are honourable senators doing? They are denigrating a man whom they put forward to this country as a worthy leader of a party, a man with the loftiest moral principles. But what are they telling us now? They are telling us that throughout that period they had been sold a pup, that this was not really the quality of this man.

Senator Little:

– We hold the opinion that the Government was sold a pup.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the interests of the DLP I think that we should draw a veil over the career of their former leader.

Senator Little:

– Keep it in the open.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think his future lies in another sphere. I am sure that we will hear of great triumphs and great diplomatic performances by him over in Ireland.

Senator Little:

– I have no doubt that he will be the Ambassador for your Government.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Little, you will come to order.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I do not normally need much protection but I think Senator Little should allow me just a few moments of silence. I know that he will not have many more opportunities to make a noise in this place.

Senator Devitt:

– I think he would be much better with his copies of ‘Playboy ‘.

Senator JAMES MCCLELLAND He would indeed. I shall refer to the catalogue of alleged shortcomings which we got from Senator DrakeBrockman when he was talking about the Government’s 30 broken promises. Surely the public of Australia will not be fooled into thinking that what has been frustrated in this place is to be classified as a broken promise? We came here with the Trade Practices Bill as we promised. We were not allowed to pass it. We come in with the Superior Court of Australia Bill. That also has been swept under the rug. As to the Bill for the implementation of human rights which have been accepted by the United Nations, even though it has not been discussed here that great upholder of law and order, Senator Greenwood, indicated in advance that it also would be opposed. So to suggest that we have broken our promise is the greatest travesty of the truth that one could imagine. To be accused of not keeping our promise when the Opposition in the Senate has dedicated all its endeavours to seeing that we are not able to pass the Bills which we have introduced into this Parliament is the greatest messing around with language that I can imagine. One of the oddest things of all about the debate is the suggestion that we are a devious government which trifles with the truth.

Senator Webster:

– This will be very hard to handle.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is very easy to handle. Senator Greenwood suggested that this Government is a devious one. But when it comes to dealing with a couple of Supply Bills this honest straightforward Opposition, this Opposition which eschews and deplores deviousness, is not even game to advocate straightforwardly and honestly in the chamber the refusal of Supply. It moves an amendment which is designed to dodge the awsome responsibility which it knows it has if it denies Supply. The amendment is an attempt to persuade the people of Australia that it did not deny Supply. I suggest that it will not fool anybody. I will not go through the tedious detail of the amendment, but if anybody imagines that it had any purpose other than to deny Supply I suggest that he does not understand the meaning of words.

Senator Wright:

– It was to force the Government to an election.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-To force the Government to an election, Senator Wright said. That is what happened, and that is what we welcome. There is nothing we want more. There will be no quibbling about this. When the chips are down the people of Australia will understand that we gladly accept the challange to go to the country, because this election is not about this piddling quibbling amendment. The election is about whether the people of Australia, who elected a government on 2 December 1972 to fulfil a certain program, wish to see that Government have the opportunity to fulfil its program. The idea that this has not been a frustrating Senate and an obstructing Senate is a totally untenable idea. The figures prove that almost 80 per cent of the motions which have come before the Senate have been resolved in favour of the Opposition.

Senator Marriott:

– Somebody has got the figures wrong or somebody is a liar.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-A government cannot stand for this, and we will not stand for this. We welcome the opportunity of allowing the people of Australia to express their will again as to whether they want this Government to have the opportunity to carry out the mandate that was given to it.

Senator Poyser:

– On a point of order, Mr President, I heard Senator Marriott call Senator James McClelland a liar. I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Marriott, did you?

Senator Marriott:

– If my interjection, in which I used the word ‘liar’, was taken to apply to Senator James McClelland, naturally I withdraw it, but it was not meant that way at all.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is very reassuring to find that devotion to the truth comes naturally to Senator Marriott. I accept his withdrawal in the spirit in which it was given. I would suggest to honourable senators opposite who gather any comfort from the present political situation that they should examine the conflicting statements which have been made by the junior and senior partners in their coalition in the last couple of days. Their proposition is that the great problem confronting the country is inflation. There can be no argument about that. We accept that proposition. It is only when we look at their proposals for the solution of this problem that the sheer vapidity and flaccidity of the Opposition becomes obvious. On the one hand, Mr Lynch who, I suppose, according to the Liberals, is the putative Treasurer suggests that there should be a $600m tax concession to people in certain brackets. If we can plough our way through the turgid prose of the putative Prime Minister, Mr Snedden, there is a sort of reluctant, half hearted and mixed up agreement with that proposition. But another man who considers that he will have impeccable credentials for the position of Treasurer, the alleged charismatic Leader of the Country Party, the junior or is it the senior partner in the coalition, says that he does not agree with this proposition.

So what we have been given so far by way of policy from the people who aspire to return to the Treasury benches on which they loafed for 23 years is a very conflicting picture. We have as a recipe for the solution of inflation from the would-be Prime Minister, firstly, the injection of another $600m into the purchasing power of the community. That is an odd recipe for a cure for demand inflation. We have a suggestion that more money should be spent on defence. Where is that to come from? That question was asked by one of the commentators in this morning’s Press. There is a variant on the old question: Where is the money coming from? The new variation of that is: Who is the money to be taken from? So we have totally conflicting versions of an answer to this problem coming from Mr Snedden, Mr Lynch and Mr Anthony. There is not much doubt that their Leader is so stodgy and so unappealing that a man who is thought to have more appeal- the representative of Gunns’ Gully. Mr Anthony- will be pushed forward as the real leader in this coalition. He will give us a return to pork barrel politics, a demand for the restoration of all the bounties which, I suggest, is in great conflict with the propositions which are put forward by the junior partner, the Liberal Party, to give relief from taxation and at the same time to spend more money on defence.

So the foretaste which we have had over the last couple of days, I suggest, is the real explanation of the glumness that we see on the faces of honourable senators opposite. I have no doubt that if they could have it all over again they would not have pitchforked themselves into a struggle which, on all the indications, will be fatal to them. That goes especially for the DLP. I have a certain grudging regard for some of the people opposite who have been here for some time, and I think it is quite clear that what we are witnessing, among other things, are the death throes of the DLP as a political identity in this country. I think it is welcomed that the DLP is about to disappear from the Australian political scene.

Senator Byrne:

– You only think that.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think it is very odd that DLP senators are sitting here digging their own graves and putting on this brave front.

Senator Byrne:

– We have been digging them for 16 years.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am afraid that the bell is finally tolling. If one good thing emerges from this election it will be the disappearance of a party which has been an excrescence on the body politic in this country for so many years. Although I feel supremely confident that as a result of this constitutional turmoil we will get a government which will have not only a majority in the House of Representatives but also in the Senate, we will also have a simplification and a cleansing of Australian politics by the disappearance of this Party which I believe has for so long been a blot on Australian politics.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

-Mr President, it gives me a good deal of pleasure to have the opportunity of addressing you and the happy smiling faces opposite who seem to be pretending that they are happy to be rushing down the Gadarene slopes to destruction. Senator James McCelland suggested that they were happy at this act of hara-kiri. He could have fooled me, as Leader of the National Liberal Party. He could have fooled many members of the parent party as well. I do not have time, in the brief moments at my disposal, to traverse the inaccuracies of my friend, Senator James McClelland. But I do point out to him, if he wants to get his knowledge of history straight, that it was actually the geese who saved Rome by acting as sentinels. They awoke the nation; they awoke Rome. As a result of the warning which they issued, the Roman nation was saved from the barbarians. I do not suggest that we are a lot of cackling geese; but that is the historical background to it, if the honourable senator really wants to know.

To get to the circumstances of this debate- a very serious decision is posed to the Senate, and it is one that should not be dealt with in a frivolous or flippant manner at all. We have the undoubted authority of Senator Murphy, who must be ranked as one of the great constitutional lawyers of our day and one of the most erudite gentlemen to act as Leader of the Government in this chamber; and in his opinion it is utterly right that an Opposition which has the numbers in this chamber to do so, should reject taxation measures or money Bills. No one will argue with the constitutional provisions, and I will come back to them later. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is, I understand, toying with the idea of having a double dissolution. This was mentioned a little earlier in this debate. He is very found of likening himself to Napoleon, for some reason which completely escapes me. I recall that, when it was announced that the date of the last Federal election would be 2 December, Mr Whitlam said that that suited him because that was the date on which Napoleon overcame a ramshackle coalition at Austerlitz. Of course, what Mr Whitlam had forgotten was that, despite Austerlitz, it was the -

Senator Murphy:

– Would you grant me the opportunity to intervene?

Senator HANNAN:

– May I finish on Austerlitz? I point out that this Senate has stood, like Nelson’s fleet, between the nation and dictatorship. Only the Senate has prevented a total dictatorship from existing in this country. I remind you, Mr President, that in fact it was the Russians who prepared the downfall of Napoleon in 1 8 1 2, and it could well be the Russians and their desire to set up a base in Australia in 1974 which will bring about the downfall of this modern Napoleon. We know that Napoleon was destroyed at Waterloo. The more I look at Senator Withers and the more I observe his material bearing, his distinct mien and his incisive orders, the more I think that he is looking more and more like the Duke of Wellington every day.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Hannan, Senator Murphy has just come to me and asked me to inquire of you whether you would be kind enough and gracious enough to allow him to make an announcement to the Senate. I am sure that all honourable senators will be interested to hear the announcement he wishes to make. If you ask for leave to continue you remarks later, I am sure that the Senate will grant it to you. But it is up to you.

Senator HANNAN:

– In those circumstances, provided I am given the opportunity to explain the position of the National Liberal Party, of course I agree. I therefore seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 902

DOUBLE DISSOLUTION OF THE PARLIAMENT

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- Mr President, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has attended upon His Excellency the Governor-General, and I wish to inform the Senate that His Excellency acceded to the Prime Minister’s request and granted an immediate simultaneous dissolution of both Houses of Parliament on condition that a definite assurance was given that the financial position was such that adequate provision could be made for carrying on the Public Service during the period of time covered by the elections. The Prime Minister proposed, with His Excellency’s permission, to inform Parliament of His Excellency’s decision and to at once ask Parliament to make pro-, vision for Supply to cover the election. The Prime Minister also told His Excellency that he did not propose to invite the Parliament to do business other than Supply and that as soon as this was granted we should recommend him to prorogue Parliament immediately and proceed at once to the elections. The Prime Minister also assured His Excellency that the electoral machinery was in such a condition as to permit elections to be held after the dissolution.

In the circumstances of a certain condition having been attached to the decisions that were communicated, I suggest that it is appropriate that the Senate deal with the business which is before it in the sense of messages that have been received by the Senate. Honourable senators will be aware that there is certain business which ought to be dealt with before the elections. There is the Governor-General Bill 1974 and the matters of Supply, and I understand that the messages have been received. There are certain other matters also. I think we should deal with the flood relief matter and the matter of the distribution of moneys from the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, which fit in with the message which I have just announced to the Senate. I ask that the Senate proceed in an orderly way to do what the Government has determined ought to be done in the light of the delay and denial by this chamber, as intimated by the vote taken earlier this evening, of the necessary Supply for the Government. Therefore, I suggest that we proceed immediately to deal with the matters which need to be dealt with. If honourable senators wish to pursue other matters or to explain their position, no doubt they will be able to do so by speaking to the motion for the adjournment of the Senate or elsewhere. What has occurred is something which does not happen very often in one’s lifetime. I ask that the Senate co-operate to enable us expeditiously to get to the point at which the Parliament, including this half of the Parliament, may proceed to a simultaneous election

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– by leave- I must say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, how delighted we are that something has happened. Whether the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) jumped or was pushed will be a matter for argument for years to come. The Opposition set upon this course publicly when our Leader, the future Prime Minister of Australia, made a statement last Thursday in the House of Representatives. It has taken some 6 or 7 days to drag these reluctant people opposite to the polls. We have wanted for a long time to go to the polls. We are delighted that we are about to do so.

Let me now talk about what ought to happen for the remainder of the night. I can understand Senator Murphy’s desire to do certain things, but I think he ought to be a little more frank and outgoing. As I understand it, the Leader of the House in another place (Mr Daly) just moved that the House of Representatives adjourn until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. Indeed, I just heard the 3 bells ring for the rising of the House of Representatives. If the House of Representatives is to sit tomorrow, why is not the Senate going to sit tomorrow? I understand that the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) has said that he needs to be assured in regard to the 3 Appropriation Bills and the 2 Supply Bills. I take it that the Bills to which he refers are the 3 Appropriation Bills at present before the Senate and the 2 Supply Bills which have now come into the Senate.

Senator Murphy:

– It is stated in the message that adequate provision is to be made for the carrying on of the Public Service during the time covered by the elections.

Senator WITHERS:

– Without wrapping it up in that sort of Vice-Regal jargon, if we talk in practicalities what we are talking about are the Appropriation Bills 3, 4 and 5 and, I imagine, the 2 Supply Bills which I understand may or may not be in the Senate as a result of the conveyance of messages.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Clerk informs me that they are in my custody.

Senator WITHERS:

-In addition to that, I can well understand that there are good reasons why 3 other Bills ought to be passed before the Parliament is dissolved. They include the Bill which affects the salary and retiring allowances of the Governor-General. I accede to that. Of course, the flood relief legislation must be passed. As far as I am concerned-I trust that 1 speak on behalf of most if not all of my colleagues- the Bill to distribute the superannuation payments to the Public Service should also be passed, because we are responsible in this direction. I can hear a wind whistling behind me. I suppose that I ought to thank the Senate for allowing me to make this statement because the Leader of the Opposition in another place (Mr Snedden) was denied a like opportunity. I think that this rather points up the difference where one party has too great a majority in one House of the Parliament. I think that the Leader of the Government in the Senate ought to tell us a little bit more. If tonight the Senate passes Appropriation Bills 3, 4 and 5, the 2 Supply Bills, the Governor-General Bill, the flood relief legislation and the Superannuation (Distribution of Surplus) Bill, does the Senate rise tonight and finish its work? I think that we are entitled to have some indication of when the writs will issue, when nominations will close and when the poll will be held. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to walk into another place and throw his weight around. But he is not going to have his will in this place. We ought to be given further and better particulars. The position is as simple as that. We want an election. We have been demanding it, and we have pushed the Government into it. The Governor-General has said that we can have it on terms. We are prepared to grant the terms, but the Government has to come clean with the whole information. I can give an assurance on behalf of the Opposition that if there is a full disclosure, if I may use that term in that sense-

Senator Webster:

– In the legal sense.

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes-in the legal sense, in the moral sense which is even more important and in the parliamentary sense. There should be full disclosure. We know that the Leader of the Government has said that the Parliament will be prorogued tomorrow. But the Senate this night must comply in regard to the passage of these 8 Bills before it rises. In my view, as far as the Opposition is concerned, it will fulfil those conditions only if and when the Government discloses the date of the issue of the writ, the date of the close of nominations and the date of the poll. Give us full disclosure and the Senate can rise tonight and the Government can have its 8 Bills.

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)- by leave- It is interesting to see the arrogance of power. First of all the Opposition refuses to acknowledge what the people have done. During the past 18 months it has tried more and more, and harder and harder, to tell the Government what it is to do and what it is not to do, thereby denying the mandate of the people. Today, when the Government asks for Supply, the Opposition has the impudence to put forward a proposition that it will not even debate the Supply Bills until such time as the Government has agreed to send the House of Representatives to a dissolution at the same time as the forthcoming Senate election.

Senator Greenwood:

– Why can you not tell the truth? This is what the whole question is about.

Senator MURPHY:

-There is only one forthcoming Senate election- an election for half the members of the Senate. The Opposition says that the members of the House of Representatives must go to an election at the same time as the forthcoming Senate election. That having misfired, and the Government having refused to submit to such dictation from the Opposition, the message of the Governor-General has been announced to this Senate. His decision is that on a certain condition there will be a simultaneous dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament. Not half of the Opposition senators will go; the lot of them will go to the next election.

Now, the arrogance of power demonstrated by the Opposition moves into another area. The Opposition is attempting to dictate another term. Before it will comply with the condition set by the Governor-General it demands to know of the Governor-General on what date, under what conditions, when and how the elections will be held. The Opposition parties have gone beyond dictating to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Australian Labor Party. They now think they can dictate to the Governor-General. (Honourable senators interjecting)-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! This is an important occasion in the life of the Australian people. Honourable senators sitting in their places should provide the opportunity for those people who are present in the galleries and who are listening to their radios to hear the proceedings that are taking place in the Senate. It is not possible for those people to participate in this debate. The purpose of having galleries and of broadcasting the proceedings of this chamber is to enable the people to be informed. Therefore, I ask all honourable senators to hear, in reasonable decorum, those matters which engage the attention of the electors because the electors’ attention is now involved.

Senator MURPHY:

-The demand that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) is that before Supply will be made available he should be told when the election will be held, when this will happen and when that will happen. This simply illustrates the arrogance of power. His attitude not only brings a downcast look to the faces of those honourable senators on the Opposition benches but I see that it also brings a downcast look into the eyes of several of the visitors opposite. Honourable senators could not see two more downcast men than those who are sitting in the President’s gallery- the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr Snedden) and a member of the Opposition from the House of Representatives. They have now been able to force a smile but they are looking very downcast.

The Government of Australia will proceed to put these measures before the Senate. It will ask the Opposition parties to deal with those matters. If they think that their arrogance, derived from their temporary numbers, will allow them to decline to meet the conditions that have been indicated, I dare them to do it. The measures will be put before the Opposition. We will see whether the Opposition is prepared to carry its arrogance, its obstruction and its denial of the rights of the Australian people any further. That is the answer that the Opposition gets from me. Mr President, I suggest that in the circumstances the appropriate course is to move to deal with the measures that need to be dealt with in order to bring this House to an election as speedily as possible. The Appropriation Bills are here, the Supply Bills are here, the Flood Relief Bill is here, and the GovernorGeneral Bill is here. Let us proceed to deal with them. I ask leave so to move.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I do not think that one can be so cavalier with honourable senators as that. If honourable senators wish to address themselves to the announcement and the statement that you have made, they are entitled to do so. Therefore, I must not deny the right to speak to any honourable senator who wishes to address himself to this matter, if he gets the leave of the Senate to do so. Were you trying to catch my eye, Senator McManus? Do you seek leave to make a statement?

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

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator McMANUS:

– The sole object of the Australian Democratic Labor Party is to complete the proceedings of this Parliament and place ourselves before the people. I have just heard the statement from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that the Prime Minister has obtained the consent of the Governor-General for an election. But when we ask the Leader of the Government when the election is to be held, he says: ‘I am not going to tell you ‘. I have never heard of such an extraordinary procedure in my life.

Senator O’Byrne:

– It has never happened before.

Senator McMANUS:

– You can say that again. The Prime Minister goes to the GovernorGeneral and says: ‘I want a double dissolution’, and the Governor-General says: ‘Yes’. Then the Prime Minister goes into smoke and he says: ‘I will now have to look into my crystal ball to find out when I am going to hold the election’. With great respect, this is not boys’ week. I say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who does not seem interested in my remarks, that this is the Government which came to power on the boast that it was going to give us open government, that nothing was going to be held back, that we were going to hear everything that happened. Then he comes in and says: ‘There is going to be an election. We are going to adjourn’. Then he said: ‘The Government is going to know when the election is, but the Opposition is not allowed to know it’. Surely we have not reached the stage in a democracy where the Government announces: ‘There is going to be an election, but we are not going to tell the Opposition because we want to book all the halls and make all the arrangements first. They are not going to know anything, so that we will get that advantage’. I want to say to my friends in the Government, who may be my ex-friends very shortly -

Senator McAuliffe:

– We do not think you are coming back.

Senator McMANUS:

– My friend Senator McAuliffe says that I will not be coming back. I know that you are a good betting man, but I suggest that you should talk to some of your friends in Victoria and make up your mind not to have a bet. You should talk to Senator Billy Brown.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator McManus will address the chair.

Senator McMANUS:

– I would merely ask Senator McAuliffe to talk to Senator Billy Brown before he lays any bets on whether I will be back. The other thing that we are told on behalf of the Government is that the Governor-General said that he would grant a double dissolution on condition that the only business dealt with was the business of Supply. The Prime Minister said that. The Leader of the Government has said that we will deal with Supply and a couple of other Bills, too. What is the position in regard to the commission that the Prime Minister has from the Governor-General? He has a commission to have an election on condition that he deals with nothing else but Supply. But the Leader of the Government says, in defiance of the GovernorGeneral’s statement: ‘I propose to deal with other business ‘.

All I want to say is this: My Party is here rearing to go. Bring on the Supply Bills and we will pass them and that will be it. But do not run around saying that the Government is going to have an election and its supporters will know the date but the Opposition will not. Do not tell us that the Government proposes to put through extra business which the Governor-General has said cannot be dealt with. All he said was that the Government can have an election, but it must be on the condition that no other business is dealt with by the Parliament. But the Leader of the Government says: ‘Forget the GovernorGeneral, I am going to put through other business.’ I have a lot of sympathy for the GovernorGeneral. He deserves sympathy because of the people he has to deal with at the moment. The other day the Government put the GovernorGeneral in the position where he had signed a document appointing a man as an ambassador and he had to sit back while that man came into the Senate and voted on 9 occasions. The Governor-General had to sit back and bear it. I have great sympathy for Sir Paul Hasluck. He must look at this Government on occasions and say: ‘My God, what am I associated with?’

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

– by leave- The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) talked about the arrogance of power. We on this side of the Senate have seen the arrogance of power for the last 18 months. We have seen the Government come into this chamber and state that it has a mandate from the people to do this and to do whatever it wants to do without any opposition from this side of the chamber. All I want to say to the Leader of the Government is that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had a mandate to form a government, and that is all he had. The Australian Country Party is willing to support the Government and grant it Supply. Let us get on and do that.

page 905

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I am involved in the problem of the business of the Senate. Has any agreement been reached between the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition?

Senator Withers:

– I want to ask leave to withdraw an amendment which I proposed to the motion moved by Senator Willesee that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. I ask leave to withdraw it. In view of what Senator Murphy has said here tonight that motion is no longer relevant.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted to Senator Withers to withdraw his proposed amendment to the motion moved by Senator Willesee?

Senator Murphy:

– Yes. I think this is the sensible course. It is quite clear that the matter was driven to issue. The Senate, if the amendment had been carried, would not have debated Supply at all, so the Government treated this as a denial of Supply

Senator Byrne:

– Would you address us, Senator?

Senator Murphy:

– I am addressing the President. The Government treated this amendment, this condition which was proposed to be put, as a denial of Supply. It has been so regarded and now the technicalities are over. There is no point in pursuing the barren amendment and I do not object to this course being taken.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted. Now, I take it with agreement, I put the question: That Appropriation Bill (No. 4) be read a second time.

Senator Withers:

– No.

Senator Wright:

– I wish to speak on the question of the business before the Senate. If I need leave, I ask for leave to make an observation.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Murphy:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator Wright:

– I want to speak to the motion. If I am not granted leave, I shall exercise every right I have on every Bill that comes before us to address the Senate until morning. I have a right to be heard. I ask for leave to exercise that right.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I am not attempting in any way to pre-empt the decision of the Senate as to how it proceeds with the business as a result of an agreement between the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition. If the Leaders indicate to me how they wish to proceed, I will be obedient to the Senate.

Senator Murphy:

– I propose that we proceed to deal with the appropriation matters. My understanding is that Appropriation Bill (No. 3), Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and Appropriation Bill (No. 5) ought to be passed in these circumstances; Supply ought to be made available. The flood relief matter should be dealt with, and so also should the matter relating to the distribution of superannuation money. The Government has indicated its views as to what ought to be done. Now that a decision has been made to have a double dissolution, it is necessary that proper arrangements be made for the payment of persons. Whatever might have been the motives which forced us to a denial or postponement of the Appropriation Bills, that ought no longer to be persisted with. I suggest, with great respect, that in the exigencies with which we are faced these measures should be given a speedy passage, as also should the other measures.

Senator Withers:

- Mr President, let me use the device of rising on a point of order. The position is that before dinner this evening, at about 4 p.m., Senator Willesee made a second reading speech on Appropriation Bill (No. 4), at the conclusion of which I moved that the debate be adjourned. That motion was carried. Senator Willesee thereupon moved that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day, to which I then moved an amendment. By leave of the Senate, I have withdrawn that amendment. I submit, Mr President, that the matter before the chamber at the moment is the motion by Senator Willesee that the resumption of the debate on the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 4) be an order of the day ibr a later hour this day. Therefore, Senator Wright is entitled to speak to that motion. He does not require leave. He requires nothing.

Until that motion is disposed of, that is the business before the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I so order. The amendment moved by Senator Withers having been withdrawn by leave, we are back to the motion moved by Senator Willesee relating to Appropriation Bill (No. 4).

Senator Hannan:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. You will recall that I ceded to the Leader of the Government in the Senate on the understanding that I would be able to state my position. I do not wish to delay the Senate unnecessarily, but since I yielded on those terms they should be complied with.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall protect your interests. I call Senator Wright on the motion in relation to the resumption of the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4).

Senator WRIGHT:

-I wish to try to draw the state of the Senate’s business into focus.

Senator Withers:

– Would you yield to Senator Hannan?

Senator WRIGHT:

– If it is in conformity with your wishes, Mr President, I certainly shall do so.

The PRESIDENT:

– I said that I would protect Senator Hannan ‘s interests. I think that the important thing, which concerns not only individual senators but the whole of the Senate, is to try to get the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) into order. Senator Hannan, before you proceed to finish your remarks, perhaps you would indicate to the Senate how long you will take.

Senator Hannan:

– Yes. I shall take a very few minutes, somewhere between 5 and 8 minutes.

page 906

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1973-74

Debate resumed (vide page 902).

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

-Before the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) made his dramatic announcement I was dealing with some aspects of the present Government’s leadership which I thought should have been examined. I want to say that the imbroglio- the affair of Senator Gair- presumably was the last straw that broke the camel’s back.

Senator Murphy:

– May I, on a point of order, intercede and appeal to the honourable senator as well as to others that the issue has been drawn and met. The Opposition parties have brought the Government to the point where we have asked for a double dissolution, and this has been granted. It is no longer the time to flog dead horses and argue about the rights or wrongs of the Government or the Opposition or anything else. I implore the honourable senator as a man of great understanding, and I implore the President, that it is time for us to deal expeditiously with the business necessary to go to a double dissolution and not any longer to engage in these polemics, which might have been appropriate before the announcement but which are no longer appropriate. Let us get through the business and let us have the election. It is not seemly to protract these proceedings in the light of the announcement which I made by a discussion of the defaults of one side or the other.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I interceded on behalf of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to ask Senator Hannan if he would be willing to stand down to enable the Government Leader in the Senate to make an announcement on a matter of great import to all honourable senators. I suggested to the honourable senator that he should ask for leave to continue his remarks. The honourable senator said that he would be willing to seek leave if the Leader of the Government would indicate that he would allow him to conclude his remarks. That undertaking was given by Senator Murphy, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Now Senator Hannan has priority at this stage. I have asked Senator Hannan if he would indicate to honourable senators how much longer he proposes to take. 1 ask Senator Hannan to conclude his remarks as quickly as he can.

Senator HANNAN:

– Thank you, Mr President. In deference to you I will abbreviate my remarks very considerably. A great deal of nonsense has been published in the daily Press as to the proposals and intentions of various senators on this side of the chamber. All sorts of allegations were made about pressure and matters of that nature. 1 think that, even though the matter is perhaps somewhat academic, the people of this country are entitled to know how their representatives in this chamber would have voted.

Because of the shortage of time I do not have the opportunity of going through all the matters which brought me to a decision that because this was such a grave emergency I was prepared to vote that supply and appropriation be deferred until an election took place. I will not canvass the matter at any length at all. I will pin it on one single, solitary item of national importance. I understand that in taking this point of view other qua-independent or quasi-independent senators also have this point of view. I do not know the view of Senator Negus, but I know that Senator Townley shared my point of view.

Senator Devitt:

– Why did he not get up and say so?

Senator HANNAN:

– Because honourable senators opposite will not give him the time to do so. That is why. Ignoring, the Watergate aspects of the Gair appointment, I want to say that my decision is arrived at on one single, solitary point of policy, and that is this: In 1951 Sir Robert Menzies initiated the ANZUS pact which to me is the most significant and important document in Australia’s archives. On 2 occasions I have asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) for an assurance that the present Russian approach for a base in this country would be rejected out of hand. On 2 occasions the Minister said it would be investigated. He did not say whether it would be rejected or not. I understand that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) also has failed to give such an undertaking. In all the circumstances I feel that any government which is prepared to put the ANZUS pact at risk is not worthy of support and the situation warrants the use of the emergency powers which the Constitution gives the Senate to defer Supply, as we had intended, if necessary. Thank you, Mr President, for your courtesy.

Senator Willesee:

– I ask for leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is your personal explanation?

Senator Willesee:

– I have been grossly misrepresented by Senator Hannan.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Willisee asks for leave to make a personal explanation. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Willesee:

– Very briefly, Senator Hannan is obviously under a misapprehension. He said that no assurance had been given by either the Prime Minister or me that the request by the United Soviet Socialist Republic that we share an establishment in Australia had been rejected. I made the statement this afternoonthat the Government, after a week’s consideration, had decided to reject it. In fact, quite a de- . bate took place on it. If Senator Hannan did not know, I forgive him for that. If he did know, of course, then he made his momentous statement on a false premise.

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish merely to inform the Senate that the situation now is that as a result of the withdrawal by leave of Senator Wither ‘s amendment we are back to the original situation, namely that the question before the Senate is that the second reading of Appropriation Bill No. 4 be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day. I now see Senator Wright.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Addressing myself to that question, in view of the events that have intervened, the first thing is to notice the statement of Senator Murphy. It is of such importance in its terms that I suggest that a request should be made that it be circulated for consideration of every honourable senator. In the meantime I shall address myself to it on the basis of my recollection and understanding of it as it was heard. It was to the effect that the Governor-General had acceded to the recommendation for an immediate simultaneous dissolution of Parliament on the undertaking of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that Supply and nothing else would be transacted in ParliamentSupply until the conclusion of the elections. I am not so concerned with the matter that Senator McManus emphasised- that is to say, that one of the stipulations of His Excellency’s decision was that nothing else but Supply should be considered. But I am concerned with the stipulation that Supply should be considered. My interpretation of that as advised at present is that it does not include Appropriation Bills (No. 3), (No. 4) and (No. 5) but that it does include Supply not until 30 June but for a proper period to encompass an election.

It is a piece of impertinence, presumption unparallelled and impulsiveness quite characteristic of what has led Senator Murphy to destroy the Government’s business in the short time it has been in office that he would suggest that he should not tell the Senate his program for the elections as a mere matter of courtesy, as an obvious right and entitlement of the Senate before it is asked to consider the Bill for Supply for the period which the Governor-General has stipulated, namely to the conclusion of the elections. I regard Senator Murphy’s attitude in denying us the information as to the program before we resume debate upon the Appropriation Bills and Supply as a denial of the fundamental rights of this chamber. How can we consider the propriety of Supply unless we know the period that the Government, after being advised administratively, says will be required to complete the election? It is for that period, to complete the election, that the Supply is appropriatenothing more and nothing less. Therefore I wish to indicate that before I shall vote for the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) to come on as an order of the day for this day or any other day I shall want to see with great particularity the statement that has emanated from Senator Murphy purporting to be the conditions of the Govenor-General. On my present understanding of them, I insist that the Senate is entitled to know and is obliged to know the period of the program of the election before it can sensibly consider the Supply that is appropriate to be voted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Wright:

– Through you, Mr President, I ask that the Leader of the Government (Senator Murphy), who made an oral statement of great importance earlier in the evening, should supply us with a copy of that statement in writing.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Murphy, you read your statement. It is a public document; it is a Senate document. I will arrange for it to be duplicated and for copies to be distributed to all honourable senators.

Senator Murphy:

– Yes, I am happy with that.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask Black Rod to have it duplicated at once and distributed to honourable senators.

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-We now have before us Appropriation Bill (No. 4) which is a Bill for the appropriation of $ 100.4m for expenditure in the current financial year on administrative expenses and other services in addition to the appropriation made by Appropriation Act (No. 1). The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee), who introduced the Bill, said that although in this Bill he was asking for an appropriation of $ 100.4m he had to credit, by way of offset against that, $104m which would not be taken into account because under Treasury proceedings that credit offset would not lapse until 30 June. But if we are considering the question of Supply, we need a new Bill- not for a new appropriation of $ 100.4m but for the net amount that will finance the administrative purpose of the Government.

I am not interested in that or any of the other details now because this is a dead Parliament. We are now authorised constitutionally to deal only with those matters which the third arm of the Parliament, the Governor-General, requires the Parliament to deal with as a condition of his executive act to dissolve Parliament. I am waiting to know whether I am wrong in any respect in asserting that His Excellency has made it a condition that we shall deal with supply for such finances as are required to carry on the services of government until the completion of the election. It that is so, and I think that every member of the Senate has that understanding, it is essential that we be advised of the program of the election and of the period proposed to be occupied by that election as well as details of the writs, the nomination, the poll and the return of the poll.

It seems to be completely presumptuous that the Government will not volunteer that information. It is presumptuous in the extreme that the Government withholds it. I urge that the whole of this Senate recognise the fairness of the requirement that, before we pass money for appropriation in compliance with His Excellency’s condition we know the program of the election and the period over which we are required to finance the administrative services. I would not recall other circumstances like this because I believe it is unprecedented for the GovernorGeneral to indicate that he will issue a dissolution of Parliament while both Houses are actually sitting. In those circumstances the impact that that makes upon the parliamentary proceedings should properly be considered after we take time to consider the proprieties of the situation. I am here only to advance a proposition that before I vote for any money Bill I wish to be satisfied that I am acting in accordance with the authority of the Governor-General and know the period to be occupied by the election. That seems to me to be so obvious that I would expect that we will have that information before the Bill is passed.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– I rise briefly to support entirely what has been said by Senator Wright.

Senator Keeffe:

– Why don’t you sit down and save time then.

Senator LILLICO:

- Senator Keeffe was sure to say something like that. As this chamber is just as much involved with the coming election as another place, surely it is a reasonable proposition that we should know all the factors concerning it, such as the issue of writs and everything else that Senator Wright enumerated. Furthermore, it was only a day or two ago that it was stated in the Press that there was division in the Ministry over whether or not the election should be held a week sooner than 1 8 May. There are factors which I think we should know. This seems to me to be a paltry attitude for the Government to take. In effect Senate Murphy says: ‘We are going to sit on this knowledge and we are not going to divulge it to you people who are just as much involved in it as the other place.’

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question now is that the Bill be read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses I and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Issue and Application of $100,480,000).

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I listened to what Senator Wright had to say during the course of the debate on the second reading of this Bill and I noticed the nature of the request which he made. Senator Wright is a senator of this chamber, and we in the Opposition have objected many times in the life of this Government to the churlish abrasive way in which requests from Opposition senators have been brushed aside without any explanation by Ministers of this Government. Senator Wright made a request and indicated the nature of his request. What we were greeted with from the Government side was the motion for the gag. We did not oppose the gag because we all have a common interest in seeing these Bills through tonight. But I urge upon the Minister that Senator Wright and any other senator is entitled to have some response to the questions which have been asked. I rise on this occasion simply to indicate that there is a basic right in this Senate which I think transcends other considerations, and that is that the ordinary courtesies of questions being asked and responses being made by Ministers of the Crown should be acknowledged. In a sense, this is what the election is all about. I do hope that on this occasion tonight we can have an answer.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Honourable senators will notice that clause 3 is the operative clause of the Bill. I move:

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

- Senator Wright’s motion is obviously flaunting the Government’s direction from the GovernorGeneral. The Governor-General has instructed the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to ensure that the business of the country can be carried on, that there is a supply of money to carry out the ordinary works and services of this country. The Governor-General instructed the Prime Minister to come back to the Parliament and carry out that instruction. When Senator Wright starts these delaying tactics, of which we have seen so much over the last few days, obviously he is defying what the Governor-General has said. I remind Senator Wright that it is one thing to use such tactics in the context of the normal operations of this Parliament. He may think he is quite smart and clever. But now we are in a situation where we are trying to carry out the instructions of the Governor-General by getting these Bills through before every member of this Parliament submits himself and herself to his or her masters. Senator Wright is obviously trying to delay, frustrate and defy what the GovernorGeneral has said.

The other point was that Senator Wright was demanding to know the schedule, the issue of writs and the rest of it for the election. I have not replied to that question up until now because I have been trying to obtain some information for Senator Wright. As I understand the position, until this Parliament carries out the directions of the Governor-General and the final act is carried out and we go to a double dissolution, those dates cannot be fixed. If I find anything different from that I shall inform Senator Wright. The way we are going at the moment it looks as if there will be some sort of defiance of the Governor-General ‘s decision. If we do not pass these Supply Bills we cannot have a double dissolution. As I understand it, Opposition members have been wanting a double dissolution and this is what we would like to give them. If they are to continue frustrating and delaying, it does not seem that they are very genuine in the first place.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– A lot of things were said in the heat of the moment some time ago by myself and others when we were talking about full disclosures and other things. Since that period I have had the opportunity to have a look at the precedent which was set in 195 1. 1 understand from Senator Murphy’s statement, and as far as I recall, we are basically in the same situation as we were in 1951. At that time the dates were not disclosed on the night that the then Prime Minister announced the various procedures for each House of the Parliament. Therefore the official Opposition will not oppose the Bills this night to grant Supply. We wish to bring about the condition which the GovernorGeneral has laid down as precedent to granting a double dissolution.

If we did not grant Supply the situation would be rather farcical. We embarked on a course some 12 months ago- I am not trying to be provocative- to bring about a House of Representatives election. That has now been achieved. As I said earlier, we ought to carry out the necessary procedures which will allow the Governor-General to grant a double dissolution. Not to do so would be somewhat dishonest on our part. Therefore, as I see the situation, the sooner we get to the people and have an election the better. We can quarrel about dates and all sorts of things, but we know that there are certain cut off points and certain periods which must be allowed for the return of writs and so on. Whether the Government decides to hold an election the week before 18 May, on 18 May or on 25 May will not mean very much in the long term. Even if we knew the answer, we could not affect the dates. We could have no effect on the advice tendered as to what the dates will be. We would have knowledge but we could not bring about a change of dates. I think it is as simple as that. It is now just after 9.30 p.m. I believe that the 3 Appropriation Bills, the 2 Supply Bills and the 3 or 4 other Bills which are before the chamber ought to be concluded so that at least I can get up, go home and start electioneering, because that is what I want to do more than anything else.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Addressing myself to what Senator Willesee said, it is ironical to think that he should attribute to me any attempt to be smart. I am simply here to try to fulfill what the proceedings of the Parliament this evening have initiated- a dissolution of Parliament on the terms authorised by the constitutional authority which has authority to decree a dissolution. I have asked for a copy of the terms and I have been promised one. I am only concerned that I protect the position first of myself and secondly of my Party with regard to this election. Having given support to the proposition that we take parliamentary action to enforce a dissolution, it is a short-sighted view in the extreme, in my book, to say that we take the dissolution on any terms however brief may be the periods for the election. By manipulating the dates, all sorts of casualties might be incurred in the nominations and the endorsements. For instance, the member for Huon, Mr Michael Hodgman, a member of the Legislative Council of Tasmania, last night resigned his seat so that he could stand for the Federal seat of Denison. We know that unless his resignation precedes his nomination by 14 days the Government will exclude him from the poll. I speak tonight to protect his position. I will not be dissuaded by any intervention whatever so long as I have parliamentary authority to proceed to ensure that the program of the election will not exclude him from the poll.

I believe that the very purpose of this secrecy and smother-up is calculated to exclude State members who are in that position and who have to resign 14 days before the date of nomination in order to be considered at the poll. I am sure that no Governor-General in this country would ask us to approve the appropriation of finance until the completion of a poll knowing that this chicanery was under consideration and would not believe that we did not have the fortitude to defend the rights of all candidates to include themselves in the poll. Therefore I think there has been some miscalculation on the part of those who have said that our only duty is to get through our business tonight so that we can go to the poll. If by taking that precipitate course- that ill-advised and ill-considered course- we exclude one of our candidates from the poll we will be the very last syllable in stupidity. I hope that everybody on this side of the chamber will make sure that this debate is carried on so as to ensure that that chicanery shall not succeed.

Senator Little:

– You would not expect us to worry about your candidate. This is bigger than one man. He can nominate. If the time is not there, that is just too bad.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster)Order! Senator Little will cease interjecting. I ask Senator Wright please to address the Chair.

Senator WRIGHT:

– My motion is that clause 3 be postponed. There are those in this chamber who do not wish to come back to such logicalities. But, Mr Chairman, you will notice that clause 3 of the Bill reads:

The Treasurer many issue out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and apply for the services specified in the Schedule in respect of the financial year ending on 30 June 1 974, the sum of $ 1 00,480,000.

That is the operative clause to appropriate the amounts set out in the Schedule aggregated under no fewer than 64 departments and many divisions. I trust that the Committee will not proceed with this stupid situation by passing this clause without first examining the Schedule. We know that all this facade of appropriations not being altered has been built up to prevent the Public Service and the Ministry from scrutiny in respect of the estimates that they put forward. But at least the theory still is that the Schedule is to be scrutinised by the Parliament. Therefore, it seems to me that nobody of any sense whatever would resist the motion to postpone clause 3 until the Committee has considered the Schedule.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

-I want to be very brief on this matter. I see the point that Senator Wright is making. I believe that we can appeal to the spirit of fairness of Senator Willesee who is in charge of the chamber. The facts are that around about Wednesday, 3 April, it became known that there would be a double dissolution of Parliament. One or more members of State Parliaments in Australia evinced interest and were endorsed to stand for election. Naturally they did not want to take action to get away from the House of Parliament of which they were members until it was sure that the election, which was due to be held in 1975, would be held in April or May 1974. Therefore, 14 days will need to elapse from last night in the case of Mr Michael Hodgman. I understand it is traditional that a Prime Minister does not announce the dates concerning an election until he has to do so. That is one of the tricks he keeps up his sleeve. In my experience of politics I would not expect that Mr Whitlam would be able to give those figures tonight He knew about the double dissolution only at 8.30 p.m.

I believe that the Australian Government and the Party of which it is made up would be forever ashamed if they purposely called on the date for an election to stop a person who had given a prior indication of his intention to stand and who had been endorsed by a major political party from legally nominating. I believe that tonight all we want from Senator Willesee, whose word I trust, is an assurance that there will be more than 14 days from tonight before nominations for the Federal election of 1974 close. I think Senator Wright will agree with me that if we get that assurance tonight we can go on and put the measure through. I make no threat but I say that if any action were taken by this Government to stop Michael Hodgman from being a candidate for Denison by any underhand move the Government would more certainly lose the seat of Denison than it will now. Dumb Dora would win the seat from the Government if there were any dirt. I do not expect there to be any dirt. I think that Senator Willesee has paid attention to some of my remarks. I think he could give us a reply which would satisfy the situation.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

-The Australian Democratic Labor Party does. not associate itself with this proposition. This election is being carried out in a state of great emergency because the Opposition in this place willed it to be so. Are we to mess around with the dates that will be fixed for the election to suit the convenience of everybody who has political ambitions and who has seen fit to resign from a

State Parliament before the decision was even arrived at here? Senator Negus did not desire an election and he desired to speak on Supply tonight but he was denied that request. Is everybody to wait perhaps an extra week because somebody somewhere in some party demands the right that it all should be held up because he is caught in a position like many other people are? If he had designs to nominate for Parliament and died, would the whole election be cancelled? It is prepostrous that honourable senators here on the Opposition benches who have brought about an election- whatever party we belong to- should now demand a postponement or something because of decisions of parties or individuals to resign to contest an election which may or may not have taken place. What if a person ‘s judgment had been wrong and there had been no double dissolution of this Parliament? Would we have had to have an election so that he could nominate? This is prepostrous. We do not propose to go along with the suggestion that has been made. We want to see the decision in which we played a part carried in the only way it can be carried and that is by passing this legislation.

I have had many differences with the Government. 1 appreciate that this is a snap decision. The Government may not know all the things that we want to ask. I believe that it will be sufficiently honourable about this- although I have had great reason to question its honour in the last fortnight- that when it has the information it will follow the usual precedents established in this Parliament, will not seek to gain an unfair advantage but will let us know. I would not support the idea that it should run around Australia and find out what everybody has done. There may be somebody who may not resign from the State Parliament until tomorrow. Must we hold up the matter for them? Maybe he will not want to resign until the last minute. Will we have to hold it up again? We cannot accept that as a precept in making a decision on a question of this magnitude. We will support the proposition as it is.

Senator NEGUS:
Western Australia

– I am a little disappointed that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) was not carried because I had quite a bit to say about it. I feel- I must say this-that the Opposition, in my opinion, carried out a hijack worth something like $330m not only on the Government but on the people of Australia. It had no right to do so. It exceeded its power. I have been a senator for some time, and I say that the admission by the Leader of the Opposition only a few minutes ago that over 12 months ago the Opposition set out to get rid of the Government in the House of Representatives is an admission that the Opposition cannot take a licking. It was beaten fairly and squarely by the vote of the people of Australia who put the present Government into power. The Opposition set out to put the Government out of power before that Government even had a chance to show its paces. The Opposition could not take a licking.

Senator Jessop:

– You sound like Colonel Sanders.

Senator NEGUS:

– You keep your mind where it should be. For the benefit of the people who are listening to the broadcast, it is quite obvious to me that party politics have entered into the Senate in a disgusting fashion. It is disgusting that decisions are made in this chamber on party lines. Honourable senators opposite are not game to cross the floor. In the very clear words of a man whom I consider to be the best Prime Minister that this country ever had, Sir Robert Menzies, who started off the Liberal Party, the Senate, if it did what it is doing now, would be doing a very improper thing. Sir Robert said that it would be very rarely that a Liberal senator, a Country Party senator or a Labor senator would feel himself free to vote against giving effect to a measure propounded by his own Party in the House of Representatives. No matter what is said by any leader of any Party, although he told his members that they could vote freely, they would not be game to vote freely because they would run the risk of not being re-endorsed.

Senator Young:

– That is not so. Check the Hansards. We have voted freely.

Senator NEGUS:

– I am referring to what Sir Robert Menzies said, and you do not query him, do you? He said that it would be a falsification of democracy on a matter of Government policy approved by the House of Representatives, possibly by a large majority, if the Senate, representing the States and not the people, could reverse the decision on a Bill passed in the House of Representatives. That is precisely what the Senate has done tonight. Fancy the Leader of the Opposition having the hide to say that until the Government says that there will be a double dissolution we will not pass the Appropriation Bills. What a hide to say that in a House of the Australian Parliament.

For the information of the Leader of the Opposition and for the information of the people listening, the Appropriation Bills provide money for salaries and wages and for other necessities including money for the States. When they are passed the money goes into Consolidated Revenue. If there is a double dissolution, Consolidated Revenue is controlled only by the Governor-General. I would not say that anyone would query the Governor-General ‘s motives in paying out any of that money. Fancy the Opposition saying that it would not pass the Supply Bills unless the Government told us when there was to be a double dissolution. On its own admission it started from the jump, right from the last election, to see that this Government was put out of power. When I was in the motor racing game, if a man beat me and I could not take a licking I would have been a very bad sport. Since the present Government has been in power the Opposition in this House has not set out to debate reasonable amendments on behalf of the people. Members of the Opposition have forgotten that they were elected by the people. They have only been talking for and on behalf of their political party, which I think is a disgraceful situation.

I appeal to the people of Australia to remember this night and never forget it. I sincerely trust that they will fill this House with Independents, because they are the only ones who are capable and game to vote on behalf of the people the way they truly feel. I ask this chamber to get down to tin tacks and remember that tonight, if honourable senators think they have time in an hour and ten minutes- and I do not think they have, because I think it will take a week or perhaps a fortnight to do this properly- we have to pass Bills appropriating something over $339m.

Senator Little:

– Is that all? I thought it was $ 1,000m.

Senator NEGUS:

-It might be even $ 1 ,000m. I do not care if it takes 6 months to pass the Bills, as long as we do the job properly. I do not care who has to resign from any parliament or who is to stand for election to the Federal Parliament and who is not to stand. The dates of an election do not concern us. We have to pass the Appropriation Bills in the right way. I sincerely trust that the people of Australia will remember this night as a night on which certain events have been brought on by an Opposition which could not take a licking.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster)Order! The Senate is debating the question that clause 3 be postponed. 1 have allowed those debating to run very wide of that proposition. I would ask honourable senators to assist me by speaking to the question that clause 3 be postponed.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I was about to make some comment like that.

Senator Rae:

- Mr Chairman, this will be the second speaker in succession from the other side of the House.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister is on his feet.

Senator Wood:

- Mr Chairman, you have called 2 speakers in succession from the one side. In view of the fact that Senator Negus, who has now ducked out of the House, made certain statements that were not true I want the opportunity to say something.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The last speaker was an Independent senator. I call the Minister.

Senator WILLESEE:

- Mr Chairman, you quite rightly point out that we have before us the Appropriation Bill and an amendment moved by Senator Wright. The amendment is a simple one, namely, that we postpone clause 3 until we have considered the Schedule, following which we come back to clause 3. I do not have any great objection to that. I do not quite see why it has been moved. Mr Chairman, I seek your guidance. I would be out of order if I referred to electoral matters and the position of a man who has been mentioned in debate. I am able to give information about that gentleman but I realise that to do so would be out of order. When we pass the Bill I can make a statement giving information about the reason for the fixing of dates and the position of Mr Hodgman. I indicate that I will make a statement on that at the appropriate time.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I refer, firstly, to a point raised by Senator Wright and replied to by Senator Little. Senator Wright claimed that everybody should be given an opportunity to nominate for this election. It was a surprise to me to hear Senator Little say that this one and that one cannot be considered.

Senator Little:

– You would never close nominations if you did.

Senator WOOD:

– The point I am trying to make is that the aim of this country should be to give everybody the opportunity to nominate for this election. If a man who is a member of a State parliament wishes to nominate and he is required to resign from that Parliament a certain number of days before he submits his nomination, I think that is a special consideration. In an emergency election such as this, one probably is not given enough notice of the election. Whilst the possibility of a double dissolution or the dissolution of the House of Representatives was being talked about, there was no guarantee of an election. I think that that aspect ought to be taken into consideration.

A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the Senate’s lack of power. I think Senator McManus demonstrated very ably this afternoon the reason why the Senate has the power that it has. When the Constitution was written and the Senate was created, it was given power to do certain things. The fact that that power has not been exercised does not mean that that power should not be exercised. If a special circumstance arises, there is no reason why that power should not be used if this chamber feels that it should be used. Those who are elected to the Senate are elected by the voters in the same way as are the members of the other chamber. The Constitution is really wrapped around the Senate in that, if the creation of the Senate had not been agreed to in order to satisfy the various States, there would not have been an Australian Parliament. The establishment of the Senate enabled the Australian Parliament to be created.

Senator Negus, in the heat of the moment, let himself go in a very strong fashion. He said that senators on this side of the chamber were not game to vote against the decisions of their party. Senator Negus said that he has been here for a fairly long time. He has been here for almost 3 years. I am now entering my twenty-fifth year in the Parliament. In the time that I have been here I have seen another double dissolution. I have seen quite a lot of water flow through this chamber politically. In reply to the claim of Senator Negus that senators on this side of the chamber are not prepared to vote against the decisions taken by their party, let me say that during the time I have been here I have voted according to my conscience. When we were in government I had many arguments with my own Party. Senator Wright, who sits in front of me, was in a similar position.

Senator Negus:

– You were ostracised for it.

Senator WOOD:

– That does not matter to me. As far as I am concerned, the Liberal Party at home has always been true to the core. When my name has been submitted for re-endorsement I have always been re-endorsed overwhelmingly. So has Senator Wright. One of the cardinal differences between the senators on this side of the chamber and those on the other side is that we are free to vote according to our conscience; and I will never sell that right. Throughout my 24 years in this place- I am now into my twentyfifth year- I have always exercised my right to vote in accordance with my conscience. I want to make this clear, because when statements such as that made by Senate Negus are made I think it is necessary to clear the air. Although some people may not be prepared to vote against the decisions taken by their party, I am not one of them, and I know that Senator Wright is not one of them. The Opposition Whip, Senator Young, can confirm that on a number of occasions Liberal Party senators have deviated from the party line. I have no doubt that that comment applies also to our partner, the Australian Country Party. Although Senator Negus probably made those remarks in the heat of the moment, I want to make it clear that what he claimed is not the case.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:
VICTORIA

Order! The debate on this matter has roamed rather wide. The Committee is considering clause 3 of the Bill. The question before the Committee is: ‘That consideration of clause 3 be postponed’. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’; to the contrary ‘ no ‘. I think the ‘ ayes ‘ have it.

Senator Withers:

– The ‘noes’ have it. Put the question again, Mr Chairman.

Senator Willesee:

– As I understood Senator Wright, Mr Chairman, it was to be postponed until after consideration of the Schedule.

Senator Wright:

-That is right.

Senator Willesee:

– I thought Senator Wright moved that consideration of clause 3 be postponed until after consideration of the Schedule, which is on the next page of the Bill. I do not see anything wrong with that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I will put the question again because 1 think we could perhaps deal with this matter. It has been stated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he has a statement to make on this matter which may be of assistance to the debate. I will put the question again.

Senator Wright:

– Will he make it when this clause has been passed?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has indicated that he will make it immediately the Schedule is passed. The Minister has said that it has reference to your comments, Senator Wright. I will put the question in relation to clause 3 again. The question is: That consideration of clause 3 be postponed. Those of that opinion say ‘ aye ‘; to the contrary ‘ no ‘.

Senator Willesee:

– No. If it is not to be until after consideration of the Schedule, no.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think the ‘ayes’ have it.

Senator Willesee:

– The ‘noes’ have it.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The Committee will divide.

Senator Withers:

– Nobody called for a division, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– More than 2 honourable senators called ‘no’. The Committee will postpone consideration of clause 3 until after consideration of clause 4 and the Schedule.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– With great respect, Mr Chairman, I do not think you heard it right.

Senator Willesee:

– I think that there is a little confusion. I have no objection to the postponing of it until after consideration of the Schedule, which is on the next page and which itemises the various items. I do not think that it would be possible to refer this matter to a committee, as we generally do in normal times. As I understood Senator Wright- I do not quite know what his purpose is- I do not see any great problem in it being postponed until after the consideration of the Schedule, which is on page 2 of the Bill. It is being called a postponment of the whole item. I do not know what that means. It might be forever.

Senator Rae:

– Is the Minister referring to the Schedule abstract?

Senator Willesee:

– Yes. So if it is to be in the words, and Senator Wright agrees with me, that it will be postponed until after the consideration of the Schedule I do not see any problem with it, but if it is to be just an airy-fairy postponement I think that there is a problem.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The question is: That consideration of clause 3 be postponed until after the consideration of the Schedule on page 2 of the Bill. I will put that question again. We are dealing with clause 3. The question is that consideration of clause 3 be postponed.

Senator Wright:

– Until after the consideration of the Schedule.

The CHAIRMAN:

-It goes automatically, Senator Wright. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’; to the contrary ‘ no ‘. I think the ‘ ayes ‘ have it.

Clause 4 (Appropriation).

Senator Wright:

– Clause 4 follows clause 3 and I suggest that it also should be postponed until after consideration of the Schedule.

The CHAIRMAN:

-I will put the question. The question is: That consideration of clause 4 be postponed. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’; to the contrary ‘ no ‘. I think the ‘ ayes ‘ have it.

The Schedule.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I refer honourable senators to the Schedule on page 2 of the Bill. We will take the Schedule as a whole. The question is: That the Schedule be now passed without request.

Senator Wright:

– I indicate that I would wish to move that progress be reported to enable the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make the statement to which he has referred. I am sure that that would abbreviate any proceedings that would require a detailed examination of the Schedule. I suggest- as is often done- that the Minister might intervene in this business and that progress be reported to enable him to make the statement.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Instead of a motion having to be moved it would be possible for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to seek leave to make a statement. It may be acceptable to him to make that statement now. Would that be acceptable, Mr Minister?

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I seek leave to make a statement.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator WILLESEE:

-The reason why I did not make this statement before is that it would have been completely out of order to do so as it has nothing to do with the Bill before the House. I try to keep some things in order. When we were talking yesterday about the question of dates I said that it was impossible to give the dates as we did not know when the election would be, but I promised Senator Wright that I would do my best to have this information supplied to the public and everybody concerned as soon as possible. That has been done. We are now getting a little closer to the situation and it is still not a final act. By the way in which we are going on we are not carrying out very expeditiously what the Governor-General has suggested. I have asked for a note on the 2 questions. They are the questions of the date of the elections and whether or not this would be of some detriment to a Mr Hodgman. The Prime Minister has advised that the reason he has not announced the date of the elections is that he must consult the Chief Electoral Officer before advising the GovernorGeneral of the possible dates and also that there are formalities which need to be worked out. For example, there are pending State elections such as the election for the Legislative Council in Tasmania which require careful examination as to possible dates. Also, because each State has an

Act providing for the election of senators and because many of these Acts have different requirements, the Prime Minister has had to consult the Chief Electoral Officer about the dates for the issue of writs and the closure of nominations to see that the dates chosen meet the requirements of each State.

The other question, that involving Mr Hodgman, caused some interest and some accusations were made in relation to it. I am advised that because of the provisions which need to be met in respect of the South Australian Senate Elections and probably the Electoral Acts of other States, there will be a timetable which will enable Mr Hodgman to nominate for the seat of Denison should he wish to do so and provided he acts promptly upon the calling of nominations.

Schedule agreed to.

Postponed clause 3 agreed to.

Postponed clause 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is that this Bill be reported.

Senator Negus:

- Mr Chairman, I do not know whether 1 am correct in bringing this matter to your attention. Under the Constitution, the Senate has no right to amend an Appropriation Bill. We can make requests to the House of Representatives, but the Senate cannot amend the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Negus, the Bill with which we are dealing is open only to requests by the Senate. That is the manner in which I have been putting the questions on the various clauses. With your approval, that is the way in which the Bill will now be reported.

Senator Negus:

– In other words, we are requesting the House of Representatives that it cut out clause 3.

The CHAIRMAN:

– No. Senator Negus, for your benefit I will put the question again. I now put the question:

That this Bill be reported without requests.

Question resolved in the affirmative; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 916

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 5) 1973-74

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

This Bill contains a lot of figures. Copies of the second reading speech have been distributed to honourable senators. I suggest that it may be proper, in the circumstances, to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill seeks appropriations totalling $70,362,000 for expenditure in the current financial year on items of capital works and services, payments to or for the States and certain other services, additional to those made in the Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1973-74. Although additional appropriations are being sought for the services specified in the Bill, it is expected that savings of about $68. 1 m will be available in other appropriations. As I explained in relation to Appropriation Bill (No. 4), it is not possible to utilise such savings to offset additional expenditure under other appropriations. When introducing Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1973-74 I informed the Senate that savings expected in amounts appropriated by Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1973-74 has been listed in an information paper for the benefit of senators. The information paper likewise contains details of savings expected in amounts appropriated by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1973-74.

Of the $45. 4m now sought for capital works and services, the major requirements are $2m for emergency classroom accommodation for the Department of Immigration, $l.lm for the purchase of residential properties at overseas posts, $33m for the Postmaster-General’s Department to meet the cost of new wage rates and improved conditions of service together with increases in the prices of materials, $7.2m for the Department of Services and Property, of which $ 1.7m is for acquisitions of freehold properties in the Australian Capital Territory and $4.1m for acquisition of properties for overseas posts.

Additional appropriations of $ 14.3 m are sought for payments to or for the States. These include $9m for pre-school and child care centres, $1.7m for health services, of which $0.5m is for blood transfusion services and $0.7m for the school dental scheme, $lm for grants to the apple and pear and canning fruit industries, and $ 1 . 1 m for assistance in relation to natural disasters in previous years. It is proposed that assistance to Queensland and New South Wales in respect of recent floods in those states will be appropriated under special legislation. Further appropriations of $ 10.5m are sought for other services of departments, including $6m to enable the National Capital Development Commission to meet contractual obligations under rise and fall clauses in current construction contracts. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 917

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1973-74

First Reading

Debate resumed from 20 March (vide page 464), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of this Bill is to seek the appropriation of sums totalling $168,575,000 for salaries and payments’ in the nature of salary, including the appropriation to specific divisions of a block sum of $32. 5m appropriated in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1973-74. Honourable senators will be aware that it is normal practice to seek appropriations for salaries and payments in the nature of salaries in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) which are based on rates current at the time. That normal practice was followed with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1973-74. Since that Bill was introduced, rates of salary, pay and allowances, of both members of the defence force and civilian employees, have been extensively affected by a variety of new awards, determinations and related decisions. The major part of the additional appropriations in the present Bill- in fact, approximately $ 100m- is required to meet these changes. The need to introduce the Bill at this stage, prior to the time the Additional Estimates are normally introduced, arises essentially because of them.

Of the total appropriations sought, $4 1.3m is for pay and allowances payable to members of the defence force and $ 127.2m for salary and payments in the nature of salary for civilian employees of the Australian Government. The additional funds for defence Services are to meet increased rates of pay, re-engagement bonuses and other allowances for members of the force. The amount of $ 127.2m for civilian employees includes the amount of $32. 5m provided as a bulk provision in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1973-74 for the payment of salary increases to officers of the Second Division and the Third Division. The amount was appropriated on the condition that particulars of the allocation of it would afterwards be submitted to the Parliament. The Bill provides for specific appropriation, department by department, of that bulk sum already appropriated. It also includes some $58.7m required to meet salaries and payments in the nature of salary for civilian employees as a result of awards and determinations made since Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1973-74 was introduced.

The remaining amount of $36m covers other increased requirements for salaries and payments in the nature of salary arising from increases in staffs and additional overtime. Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1973-74, in accordance with normal practice, made no provision for increases in staff of civil departments beyond establishments already formally approved at that time. Funds to cover increases which have since been approved are required by a number of departments. In several cases, the increases have resulted from transfers of functions subsequent to the introduction of the Budget- for example, the transfer to the Department of the Special Minister of State of payment of personal staffs of Ministers and transfers to the Office of the Australian Development Assistance Agency of staff positions from the former Department of External Territories and from the Aid Branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs. In the case of the Department of Education, teachers in Australian Capital Territory schools have been employed by it since 1 January 1974 whereas they were formerly employed, on a reimbursement basis, by the New South Wales Department of Education. Savings in a number of existing appropriations resulting from such changes total approximately $llm. Bringing the foregoing items together, and allowing for the savings to which I referred, they add up to a net additional requirement of $125m. While it has been possible to meet the increased requirements so far from existing appropriations, these now need early supplementation if a number of departments are to have sufficient funds to continue to meet salary costs.

The present Bill also includes a provision similar to that contained in section 4 of the Supply Act (No. 1) 1973-74, the purpose of which was to enable the Treasurer to determine and issue funds to enable salary increases arising out of awards, determinations and like approvals to be paid from the due dates, even though specific provision had not been made in the appropriations. Because of the substantial amounts involved, it has become increasingly difficult to fund such increases from the Treasurer’s Advance. One commitment that will need to be funded from this provision is the recent 17.5 per cent recreation leave loading. The Treasurer will report to Parliament after the close of the year particulars of amounts issued under clause 5, in a manner similar to that in which the Parliament is advised of the final charges to the Advance to the Treasurer appropriation. Finally, I emphasise that this Bill seeks appropriation of additional funds for salaries and payments in the nature of salary only. As is invariably the case, additional appropriations will also have to be sought for administrative expenses, other services, payments to or for the States and items of a capital nature. Additional appropriations for these purposes will be sought in further Bills which we expect to introduce early in April, which is when the Additional Estimates are normally introduced. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 918

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to make interim provision for the appropriation of moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government for the first 5 months of the financial year 1974-75. The total amount sought in this Bill is $1,804,284,000 for the following services: (a) Civil Departmental Services, $1,156,869,000; (b) Defence Services, $587,415,000; (c) Advance to the Treasurer, $60m. Estimates for salaries and payments in the nature of salary are based on current rates of pay and existing staff numbers. As with the Supply Act (No. 1 ) 1973-74 and Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1973-74, the Bill provides for a special appropriation clause to cover such increases in salaries and wages which may become payable after 1 April 1 974.

The amounts sought for administrative expenses and other services are basically fivetwelfths of the estimates for similar services in 1973-74. An amount of $60m is proposed to enable the Treasurer to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year and to make moneys available to meet expenditure on ordinary annual services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to the Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 918

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1974-75

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

This Bill seeks an interim provision of $5 13m for expenditure during the first 5 months of 1974-75 on Capital Works and Services, Payments To or For the States and. Other Services. Amounts totalling $377.506m for Capital Works and Services are to meet continuing commitments on buildings and works, plant and equipment. They include $45m for expenditure under the National Capital Development Commission Act, $42. 5m for Defence Service homes and $100m for expenditure under the Post and Telegraph Act.

The Bill also seeks a total of $74.894m for Payments To or For the States, based on the existing arrangements for those approved payments which are made from annual appropriations. An amount of $60m is proposed to enable the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year and to make moneys available for expenditure on services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to the Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 919

QUEENSLAND FLOOD RELIEF BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment of up to $66m to assist the State of Queensland in financing the cost of measures designed to alleviate the effects of the disastrous floods which occurred in that State between January and March of this year. This figure is based on the latest estimates of costs supplied by the State; it represents a reduction of some $ 14m on earlier estimates. In terms of hardship and damage, the floods were one of the largest, if not the largest, disasters that has occurred in this country.

It may be of assistance to honourable senators if I outline here the response of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to a question put to him in another place on 5 March. The Treasurer said that the assistance which the Australian Government was providing to assist those who had suffered as a result of the flooding and to restore damage to public assets was on a far more extensive and liberal scale than on any previous occasion. He referred to the praiseworthy work of the defence forces in helping with evacuations, providing emergency supplies and in other ways assisting to minimise or alleviate hardship. He referred also to the special services which were being provided by the Department of Social Security, the offer of temporary accommodation help by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson), the assistance from other departments and the donations totalling $600,000 that the Australian Government had made to public relief funds. The Treasurer mentioned, in addition, that private donations of $2 or more to these and other public funds are allowable deductions for income tax purposes resulting in a significant pan of such donations falling on the Australian Government Budget. However, by far the largest call on government funds will be made by measures which the Queensland Government has implemented with the agreement of the Australian Government, and which the State is administering.

At the onset of the floods, the Australian Government offered to provide financial assistance to the Queensland Government to enable appropriate relief and restoration measures to be undertaken by it. The measures which have been agreed between the government include grants for immediate relief and emergency house repairs, grants and loans for major repairs or rebuilding of private homes, loans to floodaffected primary producers and business firms, and expenditure on the restoration of public assets destroyed or damaged in the floods.

The Bill provides that the conditions of the Financial Assistance which the Australian Government is providing are to be as the Treasurer determines. The Australian Government’s financial assistance to the State will be provided by way of grants where the expenditure by the State on the agreed relief and rehabilitation measures takes the form of grants, and by way of interest-free loans where the expenditure takes the form of loans. With the indulgence of the Senate, I shall have details of the various categories of assistance, showing estimated expenditures on each, incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

DETAILS OF ASSISTANCE TO QUEENSLAND

Under the agreed arrangements Australian Government assistance will be provided for the following categories of estimated expenditure:

. Personal Hardship and Distress:

Grants of up to $2,200 for a single person and $3,000 for a family for the relief of personal hardship and distress including emergency repairs to houses to make them habitable and secure.

Estimated cost $5.25 m.

Private housing:

Grants of up to $ 1 5,000 for major repairs or rebuilding of owner-occupied dwellings or the purchase of a substitute residence. The grant may include an amount of up to $4,000 for costs of removing a dwelling to a new approved location.

Loans to applicants who qualify for a grant of up to $10,000 from the Queensland Housing Commission plus up to $5,000 towards the net cost of approved substitute land where applicable.

The Queensland Government is providing, half the cost of the loan finance from its own resources.

Estimated cost- grants, $ 15.0m; Loans, $0.5m; total $I5.5m.

Primary producers:

Loans, through the Queensland Agricultural Bank, of up to $40,000 at concessional rates of interest to primary producers for carry-on purposes (purchase of stores, seed, fertilizer, etc.), restocking and repair and replacement of farm machinery or other improvements (excluding dwellings) damaged or destroyed by the floods.

Estimated cost, $4.0m.

Businesses:

Loans of up to $25,000 for business firms (excluding public companies).

Estimated cost, $8.25m.

Local Government Assets:

Grants to local and other authorities for the repair and restoration to pre-disaster standards of roads, bridges, buildings and other assets and facilities.

Estimated cost, $23.9m.

State Assets:

Grants to cover the cost of repair and restoration of State Government assets to pre-disaster standard.

Estimated cost, $ 1 1 .75m.

Other measures:

Grants to cover the cost of repair and restoration of assets of the Queensland University and colleges of advanced education.

Estimated cost, $ 1.0m.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Total grants are estimated to amount to $56. 9m and loans to $ 12.75m. The Queensland Government’s share of this expenditure is expected to amount to $3. 65m, a very small fraction indeed of the funds required for the measures I have mentioned. The amount that the Australian Government expects to provide, $66 m, will dwarf any previous expenditure on assistance provided in the case of any single disaster. Loans by the Australian Government to the State will be interest-free. It has been agreed that the State may charge interest on loans at concessional rates, the interest thus received being available to cover administrative costs and to assist the State in meeting any losses arising from bad debts.

The BDI provides for assistance extending over a period of 3 financial years, including 1973-74. The measures which the Australian Government is supporting are both wide-ranging and liberal. In agreeing to these measures, the Government was actuated by the extent of the Queensland disaster which affected a very large number of people, many of whom were inadequately covered by insurance. The Government welcomed offers from insurance organisations to discuss the inclusion of cover for natural disasters in housing insurance policies. Preliminary discussions for this purpose have already taken place between officers of the Treasury and representatives of the various insurance organisations concerned. Officers of the Treasury will take up with representatives of the banks, insurance companies and other financial corporations that provide finance for housing the question of their lending policies and insurance cover in relation to houses constructed in areas affected by natural disasters. An examination will also be made of questions relating to insurance of crops and livestock against natural disasters.

These disastrous floods have focused attention on the need for an adequate approach to the question of flood mitigation and the Government is examining this problem as a matter of urgency.

To sum up, the Government is providing assistance on an unprecedentedly generous scale to those who have suffered loss as a result of the floods. It is urgently examining ways in which protection may be increased against future occurrences of a similar nature. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I wish to say only a few words on this legislation because I know that the hour is late. I commend the Government for the action it has taken in providing money to Queensland for flood relief purposes. I think that people are only just beginning to realise the extent of the disastrous floods in Queensland. We must pay a tribute to the people in the emergency services, the police and members of the Royal Australian Air Force who did such a wonderful job in rescuing people in many parts of Queensland. Houses simply disappeared in the cities of Brisbane and Ipswich and other cities. It will be a long and difficult job to re-house these people. The fishing town of Karumba on the Gulf of Carpentaria was almost destroyed by the floods. It will take a long time to get this town, which .is an important outpost in the southern part of the Gulf and which in normal times has a thriving fishing industry, back into order.

Some of this money will be allocated for use in restoring public utilities and the railways in particular and the roads of Queensland have suffered greatly from flood damage. It will take a considerable time and. very large sums of money to restore them to the condition they were in before the floods. Many other things have been damaged. For instance, all the telephone services in the Brisbane area have not yet been restored. A great deal of work will be needed to get this service back to normal. One does not realise how many other things need to be done even weeks and weeks after the flood unless one has been involved. 1 could say more on this matter, but bearing in mind the late hour I would just like again to commend the Government for the action that it has taken.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I desire to intervene in this debate because I think that all Queensland members of Parliament are conscious of the enormous disaster that struck Queensland and subsequently struck the northern part of New South Wales. At the time the flood struck Brisbane I was overseas. I flew back from northern Pakistan to Brisbane. I asked the captain of the international aircraft on which I was travelling whether he would be good enough to make a circuit of Brisbane. He obtained permission to do so and made 2 circuits of the city. The extent of the devastation that I saw was appalling. One was unable to recognise suburbs which are normally easily identifiable in that city where the convolutions of the river make it easy to establish where the suburbs are. At the weekend I took the opportunity to go around the various suburbs of Brisbane which were badly affected. On the Sunday I went to Ipswich where the devastation was enormous. I went to one section where a bank of the Bremer River was as bare as the floor that is now before me. It was pointed out that 7 houses had stood in this spot but they had completely disappeared. Not even a stump was left from those houses on that bank of the river.

Subsequently I called a meeting of all Queensland members of the Federal Parliament and Queensland senators who were readily and reasonably available in Brisbane. I regret that members of the Government did not respond to my -

Senator McAuliffe:

– You were doing the talking. We were doing what counted; we were getting the money.

Senator BYRNE:

– Very well, but unfortunately we do not have the control of the money. However, I called this meeting and invited honourable members. Some said that they would like to come along but were unable to do so.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Why do you not congratulate the Government for what it has done?

Senator BYRNE:

– The meeting was called and we presented certain propositions to the Premier of Queensland and to the Federal

Treasurer, Mr Crean. The propositions were: Immediate relief, domestic restoration, industrial and commercial restoration, taxation relief, moratorium provisions and institutional restoration. Subsequently we had occasion to take the matter further, as I will indicate for the consolation of honourable members who have interjected. We paid a tribute to the generosity of the aid which had been given through the Federal Government, the Queensland Government and the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and the work that these 3 bodies had done in accumulating aid and distributing it in an efficient manner. HoweVer, I indicated at that stage that a further meeting of all Federal members, when those from the more far distant parts of the State were available, and senators similarly situated, would be called. That meeting was called in Canberra when the Parliament resumed and as a result we took the matter up with the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). That meeting had called for certain matters to receive attention. I do not have with me the copy of a letter that we wrote subsequently to the Prime Minister, on 27 March, but the following are the matters embodied in that letter:

Repayment terms for loans made to small business should be extended from the proposed 3-5 years to 10 years.

Small contractors and small mining operators should be put in the category of small business.

There should be extended time for the payment of provisional taxation. There should also be extended time for applications of variation of the prospective provisional tax.

There should be a review of the decision that local authorities find 25 per cent of the cost of road restoration made necessary by the floods.

That with a view to restoring cattle herds a programme be immediately undertaken to make artificial insemination available to beef producers.

That some formula of equalisation be adopted to allow the import of materials in short supply, required for rebuilding, so that imported materials would be available at comparable prices. ‘

That sections 75 and 76 of the Taxation Act, which were repealed, be restored.

That non-Government institutional buildings (hospitals, nursing homes and schools) be considered for relief assistance for restoration.

Where farmers had lost, due to flood, their immediate crop and had no income, they should be treated as unemployed for the purposes of social services and receive unemployment benefit, if applied for.

Those were the general propositions that emerged from that meeting and which were subsequently conveyed to the Prime Minister, and to the Premier of Queensland in the letter of 27 March. I think that the Premier has acknowledged that letter and today I received an acknowledgment from the Prime Minister in these terms:

Your letter of 27 March 1974 and the attachments concerning additional relief and restoration measures to assist those affected by the Queensland and New South Wales floods has been received.

A reply will bc sent to you as soon as possible.

I merely mention that to indicate -

Senator McAuliffe:

– You are doing it for propaganda.

Senator BYRNE:

– I am not doing it for propaganda. I am mentioning it to indicate that there has been a response by Queensland members and that the incidence of flood and a disaster of this nature is of immense consequence. Subsequently, when the floods struck northern New South Wales, we invited New South Wales members from the affected areas to come and join in this common approach to the Commonwealth Government and to State governments of New South Wales and Queensland. Letters were therefore sent to Sir Robert Askin and to Mr Bjelke-Petersen and, as I have said, to the Prime Minister. We would hope, Mr President, that these particularised requests should receive attention. While we acknowledge the amount which has now been given and it being given in this grant-

Senator McAuliffe:

– It is a great amount of money.

Senator BYRNE:

-That is right. I have not analysed whether the particular matters that we raised have been embraced in it. I hope that they have. If not, if other aspects of the matters are not embraced in this very substantial appropriation which has been made then I hope that the Prime Minister will consider the particularised requests which we made in our submissions, as will the Premier of Queensland and the Premier of New South Wales so far as matters come within the jurisdiction of either of those States. So I express for my part, because of the necessary and compelling interest which Federal members should have in a disaster of this character, our appreciation of the money that has been made available.

I would say merely this: The Democratic Labor Party has as part of its Federal policy, and always has had, that there should be a Federal secretariat to handle the questions of natural disasters in Australia. We have seen these things come and they are always taken as if they were unexpected and sporadic. In fact, natural disasters in Australia are epidemic. There is either a natural disaster by way of flood, drought or cyclone or, perhaps, where Senator McAuliffe comes from on the Gold Coast, by substantial beach erosion. They always seem to take us by surprise. I do not mean that in the actual physical sense but in the financial and organisational sense. Therefore, we in the Democratic Labor Party have suggested- it has been in our policy for years- that there should be a permanent ongoing secretariat. I think that this matter has now received some attention from the present Government. If that is so, it is very good. But we were the first in the field to put that proposition forward.

Senator McAuliffe:

– No, you were not. You were overseas.

Senator BYRNE:

-Senator McAuliffe, this has been in the policy of the Democratic Labor Party and it has been espoused in national policy speeches for some years. It is a very reasonable and proper provision and one which I hope every government and any government would take up, because natural disasters in this country must be treated as of regular and expected occurrence. Then we can move to meet them without these ad hoc methods which now characterise all our approaches to natural disasters. Having said that, I support the Bill. I am sure that the moneys which have been provided- I do not underestimate the generosity of those moneys- will be put to the necessary purpose for which they are devised.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I had no intention of entering into this debate until honourable senators on the Opposition side tried to parade their virtues in relation to what was done in the calamity which struck Queensland recently. I feel it necessary for me to do so now because of the statements that have been made by the representative of the Democratic Labor Party, Senator Byrne. One would think after listening to him that he was the only person in Queensland or Australia who had done any work at all. While he was running around the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics people in Queensland were doing all the work. When he came back, that representative of a rump group suggested that something should be done. The fact remains that when this disaster struck, a meeting of representatives of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland was organised very quickly and the respective areas were allocated to all members to do work of a humane nature. Each and every one of us ploughed through mud almost up to our knees helping people in those areas who were stricken.

Senator Byrne has told us all the things that he had done. Everything that the DLP suggested should be done had been done in the first place principally by Mr Manfred Cross, Dr Rex

Patterson, Mr Brendan Hansen and Senator Keeffe from north Queensland. These people were in constant touch with the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) to arrange all the facilities that the Federal Government could provide in the way of relief for the people of Queensland. All the facilities of the armed Services were made available. I want to pay tribute to the wonderful work done particularly by the servicemen of the Royal Australian Air Force and the Army during those terrible days. I believe that other aspects of the work should be made known. The legislation provides for a substantial amount of money. Personally, I do not think that it will be sufficient.

Tragic circumstances were associated with the flood. Four servicemen lost their lives. We immediately contacted Mr Barnard and Mr Crean to ask that money be made available for the distressed widows and children of those servicemen. This information has never been released but I am going to say here and now that the Government generously made money available to the extent of $14,500 to the widows and $5 a week for each child. The widows have now applied for benefits under the Repatriation Act. The Repatriation Department is currently considering their entitlement. These are things for which the Government has never received any commendation. I would say that the breweries would be very pleased with the generous treatment provided by the Government, at the instance particularly of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy), when the Government refunded all the excise duty that had been paid on all the bottled beer that had to be destroyed under the provisions of the Health Act. The amount of revenue lost by the Government does not appear in this amount of money that is to be provided.

Mr Crean and Mr Barnard not only were on the job immediately but also visited the stricken people in these areas to see what they could do for them. I arranged personally for Ministers to come up and go through the University of Queensland and as a result of that the Government has made $lm available to the University of Queensland to restore that university, particularly the grounds, to the condition it was in prior to the flood. I believe that the Australian Government can take great credit for what it has done in all the circumstances. The Service personnel played a wonderful part.

The only difficulty experienced arose from the failure of the Queensland Government to declare a state of emergency. Had it done so, there would have been a lot less loss and lives would have been saved. The fact is that the servicemen and civil defence workers went to homes and asked people to leave. The people said: ‘No, a flood has never got up this far yet. We will not go’. The same personnel had to go back again to try to encourage the people to leave their homes because the water was rising. Again the people, particularly the elderly, said that they would not leave. That meant that the civil defence workers and Service personnel had to return again, and it was then that lives were lost. Because a state of emergency was not declared, the civil defence workers were powerless to compel people to leave their homes. It was a sad reflection on the Queensland Government that it did not have the foresight to do that. However, that is merely a comment.

I commend the Australian Government for the humane work it did in providing all the Army personnel, the Royal Australian Air Force personnel, helicopters, planes and other facilities. I pay a special tribute to Dr Rex Patterson, who did a marvellous job in north Queensland where the flooded areas were far more extensive than they were in Brisbane and Ipswich. He was among the people in that area all the time. This flood was an unfortunate occurrence. I believe that it was one of the worst disasters we have seen since the white man first inhabited Australia. I trust that we will never see the like of it again. I commend the Bill and the generosity of the Australian Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I take this opportunity to say something that I intended to say earlier. I hope that some tolerance will be extended to me if my remarks appear to be those which should have been made during the second reading debate rather than at the Committee stage. I pay a tribute not merely to the Army and other Service personnel generally but also to the citizens of Brisbane and the service clubs in Brisbane, such as the Rotary, Lions and Apex clubs, and other bodies of that nature. The way in which the citizens of Brisbane rallied to the assistance of their less fortunate neighbours and friends was amazing. It was the greatest outpouring of spontaneous generosity that I think Australia has ever witnessed. I recall one incident involving a Rotary club in a suburb of Brisbane. There were 2 doctors. One was the president and the other was either the secretary or vice-president of the club. They organised relief and the provision of furniture and gave 3,000 inoculations against infection and disease. They did a tremendous job in organising meals for thousands of people and matters relating to furniture, health and other things. This was only symptomatic of the total relief work mobilised by the generosity of the people of Brisbane and I take this opportunity to put on record in this Parliament the appreciation of the people of Brisbane who were affected by the floods for the assistance given to them by those who were fortunate enough not to be directly affected by that tremendous disaster. 1 think the national Parliament should recognise the work carried out by these people, because in an age of materialism and of some cynicism it shows that the heart of the Australian people beats warmly and rapidly when others are unfortunately affected. It manifested itself on this occasion and I think Australia should be proud that this is still the spirit of the Australian nation.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 924

NEW SOUTH WALES FLOOD RELIEF BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Order suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As honourable senators will be aware, the severe flooding which occurred in the early part of the year affected New South Wales as well as Queensland. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment of up to $5.5m to assist the State of New South Wales in financing the cost of measures designed to alleviate the effects of the floods. The damage caused by the flooding in New South Wales, although not as widespread or as devastating as in Queensland, nevertheless caused considerable hardship and suffering to those involved and the Australian Government expressed its readiness to assist the New South

Wales Government in providing aid to those affected.

The assistance authorised by this Bill is considerably less than that authorised by the Bill relating to Queensland. This can be ascribed to 2 factors: Firstly, because of the lesser extent of the disaster, the range of measures for which the New South Wales Government sought financial support from the Australian Government was not as extensive as in the case of Queensland, and, secondly, the expenditure on relief measures which the State Government is meeting from its own resources is greater in New South Wales than in Queensland. Particulars of estimated expenditure have been supplied by the New South Wales Government authorities and I ask that they be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 924

QUESTION

DETAILS OF ASSISTANCE TO NEW SOUTH WALES

Under the agreed arrangements Australian Government assistance will be provided for the following categories of estimated expenditure:

  1. . Personal Hardship and Distress:

Grants for the relief of personal hardship and distress, including emergency repairs to houses.

Estimated cost, $600,000.

  1. Primary Producers:

Loans, through the Rural Bank of New South Wales, on similar terms to those being provided in Queensland up to $20,000 as a general rule but up to $40,000 in the case of Cottongrowers.

Estimated cost, $4.65m.

  1. Local Government Assets:

Grants to local and other authorities for the repair and restoration to pre-disaster standard of roads, bridges and other assets and facilities.

Estimated cost, $3. 6m.

  1. State Assets:

Grants to cover the cost of repair and restoration of State Governments assets to pre-disaster standard.

Estimated cost $4.7m.

  1. Rail Freight Rebates and Concessions:

Rail freight rebates on donated food, fodder, clothing, etc., for distribution to flood victims and rail freight concession on the carriage of fodder purchased for starving stock and the transport of stock from flood-affected properties for agistment in respect of approved districts.

Estimated cost, minor.

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Certain other measures are under discussion between the Australian and New South Wales Governments and allowance has been made for costs in this legislation. The overall cost of the measures is estimated at $ 14.1m. After allowing for expenditure which will be met by the State from its own resources, the expected cost to the Australian Government is $5.5m. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 925

SUPERANNUATION (DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government’s decision that there should be a distribution of the surplus of $70,015,000 as at 30 June 1972 disclosed by the tenth quinquennial investigation of the Superannuation Fund, into which are paid the contributions under the Superannuation Act made by Australian Government employees. Honourable senators will recall that on 21 November 1973 I tabled the Superannuation Board ‘s report on the investigation, which was undertaken by the Australian Government Actuary. The Board’s report included the report of the Actuary. The surplus of $70,015,000 as at 30 June 1972 included the undistributed surplus as at 30 June 1967 of $14,779,000 which by 30 June 1972 had accumulated to $ 1 9,749,000. The Actuary stated that $52,525,000 of the total surplus was attributable to contributors and $17,490,000 to pensioners.

The surplus arose principally because the Fund had earned at a higher rate than the future long term average earning rate of 5 per cent assumed by the Actuary for the purpose of his previous investigation and by the Actuary’s assuming a higher future long term average earning rate, 5.5 per cent, for the purpose of the tenth quinquennial investigation. It follows from this that members contribution rates are now higher than necessary to finance their shares of the benefits provided under the existing scheme but no adjustment of contribution rates is contemplated pending a final decision by the Government on the new superannuation scheme proposed by the Treasurer (Mr Crean). I should add that the Government does not pay contributions into the Fund concurrently with members. The Government meets its share of the cost of benefits when the benefits are paid.

The principles adopted in the Bill are similar to those followed in the 1965 legislation covering the distribution of the surplus in the Fund as at 30 June 1962. As on that occasion, the total amount distributed will include an additional amount in the nature of further surplus that has accrued in the Fund since 1 July 1972 in respect of the surplus of $70,0 1 5,000. Subject to passage of the legislation, the Superannuation Board expects that it will be able to make payments to pensioners during September-October and to contributors before the end of this Year. The payments will, of course, be made from the Superannuation Fund and will not be a charge against Consolidated Revenue or the Budget. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 925

REMUNERATION BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

This Bill deals with remuneration and allowances for certain statutory office holders. Honourable senators will recall that in 1971 the then Minister for Health, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, gave an undertaking that remuneration and allowances paid on an annual basis to various statutory office holders would be specified by Act of Parliament. This was in accordance with the wishes of the Senate. This Government followed a similar practice when it introduced legislation dealing with the establishment of new statutory offices. The practice has been for legislation to provide for the determination of remuneration by regulation until a specified date, after which the remuneration must be specified in an Act of Parliament. The need for this policy has been overtaken by the establishment of the Remuneration Tribunal last year. That Tribunal is now responsible for undertaking reviews of the remuneration of statutory office holders and others. It will do this at least once a year. Its determinations and reports will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, in accordance with the terms of the Remuneration Tribunal Act.

This Bill is necessary to cover certain statutory office holders established before the Remuneration Tribunal Act was passed. Without passage of the Bill there will be no provision by which salary payments may be made after 1 July 1 974. All the Bill does is allow existing remuneration to continue to be paid in accordance with regulations until a determination is made by the Remuneration Tribunal. This will ensure that the existing rates of remuneration continue to be payable should there be no determination by the Remuneration Tribunal before 1 July 1974. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The purposes for which this Bill is introduced and for which it passed the House of Representatives are self-evident. It is, I think, fair to describe it as a tidying-up measure to take account of some officers who previously had not been accounted for in earlier legislation relating to the Remuneration Tribunal. On that basis the Opposition offers no objection to the measure.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– It will be remembered that when the Legislative Drafting Institute Bill was before the Senate last week I raised a question of whether the Senate had been wise in relegating to the Remuneration Tribunal its power to supervise directly the remuneration of holders of certain statutory offices. It will be remembered that through the last several years the Senate has striven to get the Parliament to take out of the hands of the Executive the fixation of the salaries of the most important of the holders of statutory offices and of the officers controlling departments. We succeeded and we exercised that power for a couple of years. Of course the difficulty of the Parliament, in its procedures, being in any way effective as well as fair arid wise in the relative salaries which were fixed, immediately became apparent.

My recollection of the Remuneration Tribunal Act of this year is that that Tribunal has power not merely to recommend to the Parliament but to fu. In that respect I think the Parliament has gone too far. I regret very much that the Parliament does not retain by way of specific consideration the right to set the ceiling of the most important salaries in the parliamentary service. I express the view that it is probable that we have given too much power to the Remuneration Tribunal in giving it power to fix directly those salaries. When the salaries which it fixes come before the Parliament we are faced with a proposition which still has to be penetrated, namely, that on an Appropriation Bill we should not interfere with either the whole of it by way of rejection or parts of it by way of amendment, request or review. The difficulty of supervising a ceiling for these salaries I think has become such that the Parliament has unwisely relegated that power to a mere administrative tribunal. I say ‘a mere administrative tribunal’ because it consists of 3 members. We do not yet know its procedures. It is presided over by a judge, and includes 2 others. It has yet to prove its stability from the point of view of retaining a proper measure of restraint upon these salaries and upon the ceiling of these high salaries of important officers such as those enumerated in the Bill.

I realise that tonight there is no point in taking issue on the matter. The Bill having been presented to us, I indicate that I am interested to know why it is provided in the sub-clauses of clause 3 that the salaries are to be fixed by regulation. It was my understanding that the statutory office holders would have their salaries fixed by regulation up to 1 July 1974- it may have been 1975 but it was for the first initial period of the office- and that after that the salaries would be fixed by Act of Parliament. If there is something in the Remuneration Tribunal Act which now means that the salaries for all time are to be fixed by regulation, I would be obliged if the Minister would explain the position either in his reply or in Committee.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– in replySenator Wright said that this matter was subject to the consent of the Parliament, although it is an appropriation Bill. He acknowledged that fact and pointed to the difficulties associated with an appropriation Bill. The provision of allowances by regulations is consistent with the provisions included in Bills establishing new offices. An old clause in regulations was picked up in Acts. It has been picked up in this Bill which relates to members of tribunals.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I regret to detain the Senate, but I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) to give his attention to clause 3 (2) of the Bill, which states:

Subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, the holder of an office specified in the Schedule shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed by regulations made under the Act by virtue of which that office is constituted.

That provision operates for all time. The usual provision in regard to new offices of this sort has been that until Parliament can provide for the allowances in a subsequent annual period they shall be made by regulation, but this provision appears to be one of a continuing nature. I would like an explanation of why it is to continue to be made by regulation. Clause 3 (3) of the Bill contains a curious power. The clause states:

The power to make regulations contained in an Act referred to in this section extends to the making of regulations for the purposes of this section.

In what way is that clause intended to extend the amplitude of the previous power?

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

– With the concurrence of the Deputy Leader, Senator Willesee, who is in charge of the Bill, may I suggest to Senator Wright that clause 3( 1 ) deals with remuneration, that is, salary. Clause 3(2) deals with allowances other than remuneration. Those allowances are to be prescribed by regulation. Certainly that feature of the provision is permanent. But the regulations are liable to disallowance by either House. As far as I can recall, this procedure is consistent with the practice set by the Senate and adopted by the House of Representatives. It has become the practice of Parliament that allowances shall be prescribed by regulation until replaced by remuneration provisions. So this provision sort of fits into our pattern. The salary will be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal and the allowances will be prescribed. That regulation is subject to disallowance. I see some affirmation from Senator Wright’s side of the chamber that my statement is in accordance with the scheme which we set out, as it has been adapted to the Remuneration Tribunal.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 927

AUSTRALIAN DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AGENCY BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Bill (on motion by Senator Murphy) read a first dme.

page 927

GOVERNOR-GENERAL BILL 1974

In Committee

Consideration resumed (vide page 883)

Amendment to clause 4 sub-clause ( 1 ) (Senator Wright’s) negatived.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Wright, do you wish to proceed with your second amendment?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Yes. I have moved a second amendment in these terms:

In sub-clause (4), at end of sub-clause add ‘or, if such pension or allowance has been converted into a lump sum, by the amount of the actuarial equivalent on a periodic basis of such lump sum’.

I feel particularly outraged by some of the extravagant lump sums that are being extracted both from the public purse and in private industry in the form of non-taxable superannuation funds. We are creating a new aristocracy which, unless Parliament modifies it, will create a resentment such as was created in 1789. If the allowance of the Governor-General is to be reduced by the amount of periodic pension payments he receives, it follows as the night the day that it is logical and fair that if that periodic pension is converted into a lump sum, then that lump sum should be subtracted from the 60 per cent of the Chief Justice salary that is payable to the Governor-General. I cannot see that the slightest question of policy arises in this matter, and I would expect that every Labor man would support such a proposition, that is to say, that under the Act a retiring Governor-General is to be provided with a pension equal to 60 per cent of the Chief Justice’s salary, and if he is receiving a periodic pension either from the State or the Commonwealth or the Territory, whether it be a judicial pension, a parliamentary pension or, as I interpret it, a superannuation pension- as to that I ask the Minister to confirm my understandingthe amount of the periodic pension is deducted. Under the system that applies to New South Wales public servants and, I believe, to members of the Queensland Parliament, a contributor can convert bis pension of, say, $ 1 5,000 a year into a lump sum which in one case in New South Wales amounted to $200,000. The point of my amendment is that if such a person should become Governor-General and enjoy the conversion into a lump sum, he should suffer a deduction of the equivalent of that periodic pension that would have been deducted if it had remained a periodic pension instead of being converted to a lump sum.

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and

Excise (1 1.20)- Of course, there is no provision in this Bill for a lump sum payment. A provision for lump sum payments has been proposed in relation to Public Service pensions but has not yet been accepted. There is no comparable provision relating to lump sum payments in the Judges Pensions Act.

Senator Wright:
Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Federal, yes. It seems to be accepted in principle that lump sum payments ought to apply to superannuation and that periodical payments also should apply under various provisions, especially of State law. But the honourable senator is really suggesting that the benefit proposed in this Bill should be reduced by an amount which has been received in a lump sum or by the equivalent amount of a periodical payment, if such moneys had been provided by a State or a Territory. It is true, as the honourable senator says, that this aspect is not covered in the Bill. There are some private schemes under which people can receive a superannuation pension as well as some other benefits. Such a person might become a member of Parliament and qualify for a parliamentary pension, but no one would suggest that one of those payments should be written off. Certainly if that person had received a lump sum payment as well, this would be moving a step further. For example, someone might have gained a windfall or received a capital payment.

All I can say to the Senate is that no such principle is embodied in the legislation. Such a provision would have to be given further consideration if it were proposed to include it in the legislation. The proposition put forward by Senator Wright is reasonable in this regard. He has suggested that a retiring Governor-General should not, in effect, receive the benefit of 2 pensions. I think it is reasonable at this stage to leave it at that. I can see a certain amount of force in what the honourable senator is putting but a decision has been made on this matter. I suppose some sort of engagement has been made on the basis of the Bill as it now stands. Senator Wright’s proposition may be a matter for future consideration. I suggest it may be wiser simply to leave the matter at that. If the honourable senator thinks he should pursue his notions, which I concede have some consistency and some logic, I suggest it should be on another day. It may be wiser to leave the Bill stand as it is.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-My experience of parliamentary proceedings always prompts me to think that this is the day on which a matter should be pursued. Once legislation with an omission of this sort is passed, it will never be corrected. We will find to our dismay that by reason of our default advantage is taken of it. I ask for a confirmation of my understanding that the words ‘pension or retiring allowance ‘ as used in sub-clause (4) of clause 4 of the Bill include a superannuation payment to a public servant of the Commonwealth. That is provided in part or in whole by Australia. I ask for confirmation of the view that it is intended that a periodic payment of that sort should be deducted.

We have been told that it is intended to provide that retiring public servants may convert their pensions into lump sums. Are we being really faithful to the purpose of our representation if we allow that to happen and then allow a complete pension to be paid to the GovernorGeneral? I submit that we are not. I submit that the periodic pension or, if it is converted into a lump sum, the actuarial equivalent of a periodic allowance or pension should be deducted from it. I ask not for the Committee to postpone the matter but for the Government to accept my proposition. If we have made any blunder it will be easy for the Government in the next half of the year to alter it back. But it will never be possible for anybody but the Government to initiate the correction. So tonight is the night. I ask for acceptance of the proposition I have put forward.

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

– As Senator Wright said, tonight is the night. The honourable senator has a Bill in front of him. He is a man who is not without experience of the law. He would know that what is in the Bill is what is going to be held to be the law. Since it involves the rights of other persons, if he is trying to draw some fine point on the Bill it would not matter what 1 said; it could not take away the rights of any person. I think that we should simply , deal with the matter as the Bill stands. There it is. Let there be no gloss upon it. The Bill as it stands is as it is going to be properly interpreted. Honourable senators should either accept it or reject it.

Senator Wright:

– What a fitting epitaph to the outgoing Attorney-General.

Senator MURPHY:

-I think that is right. For once we have the honourable senator conceding that in this country there is to be a rule of law and the law is as it is stated in the statute book. It is not for the law to be determined upon what might be said by the honourable senator from Tasmania or any other honourable senator in this chamber at 1 1.30 on the last night of the sitting but rather upon what is formally enacted in the Act of Parliament itself. That is what the law is and we have the tribunals to interpret it in the case of differences of opinion. We on this side of the chamber would prefer the law to be conducted in that manner rather than by some tortuous interpretation of a dialogue between the honourable senator opposite and myself.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: That the words proposed to be added by Senator Wright’s amendment be added. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’; to the contrary ‘no’. I think the noes ‘have it.

Senator Wright:

– The ‘ayes ‘ have it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I heard only one honourable senator say ‘aye’.

Senator Wright:

– Will you record my vote, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes. Under standing order 168 Senator Wright is recorded as being in favour of the proposition.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 929

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE BROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

The PRESIDENT:

– This may or may not be a matter of interest to honourable senators. However, it is a matter of great substance. I bring up the report of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings on the televising of parliamentary proceedings. A statement relating thereto will be incorporated in Hansard, if there is no objection, and I assume that there will not be. (The document read as follows)-

The Committee commenced its inquiry in May 1973 and since then has taken evidence from some 56 people and has met on 20 separate occasions, lt was the hope of the Committee that the report would be debated in both Houses during the Budget sittings. The present political situation has confused our aims. But I would hope that we can revive the report and that the Houses can vote on the recommendations of the Committee when the Parliament reconvenes. The principle recommendations of the Committee are as follows:

1 ) The Committee has found that it is desirable, in principle, to televise the proceedings of the Parliament;

The Committee has recommended that there be a 2-week trial period of closed-circuit televising to enable members to evaluate televising before making a decision on the Committee ‘s other recommendations.

The Committee has recommended that there be a telecast of question time on the evening of each sitting day and that there be a weekly summary program produced. The Committee has recommended that these programs be telecast on a national basis by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and that they be produced by a special unit to be known as the Parliamentary Television Unit;

Other recommendations of the Committee relate to providing access to Parliamentary video-tapes to all television networks for inclusion of material in news, current affairs and documentary programs; to permitting the televising of committee proceedings and to the liberalising of the present rules governing access to the radio broadcasts. The Committee has laid down draft guidelines which are appended to this report. These guidelines carefully prescribe the manner in which any television program might be produced.

A dissent has been added to the report by Senator Poke. If this Parliament or future Parliaments decide not to accept the Committee’s recommendations I would still hope that this report together with the evidence which has been accumulated will provide the blue-print for planning for the new Parliament House and for planning for television when it eventually does come.

Finally, I would like to re-assert my earlier statement. I trust that the Parliament will vote on our recommendations and I would hope that this would be a non-party vote.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Leader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I move:

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 929

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

-Mr President, I bring up the second report from the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 929

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-Mr President, I bring up the report of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory reporting that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry into the constitutional development in the Northern Territory, and move:

That the report be printed.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 929

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-Mr President, I bring up a report from the Joint Committee on Prices explaining why the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiries into certain of the matters which have been referred to it, and move:

That the report be printed.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 930

NATIONAL FORENSIC INSTITUTE

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I table a report of the National Forensic Institute Committee of Inquiry and move:

That the report be printed.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 930

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until a day and hour to be fixed by the President, or in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 930

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion ( by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to all senators during the period of any adjournment of the Senate.

page 930

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

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

– I move:

This has been a very short session. It has been a session not without some interesting events. Mr President, I would like to thank you for your courtesy and impartiality, your urbanity and friendliness towards all of us at all times. Taking into account all the necessary and sometimes unnecessary departures, I would like to thank all honourable senators, including our opponents, for their attitudes, even if those of honourable senators opposite have not been altogether helpful. Nevertheless, our opponents have sharpened our sense either of j justice or injustice. I have been fortified by the very great help of those on my side of the chamber. I have thanked Government supporters for their loyalty, enthusiasm, support and understanding.

We will miss those honourable senators who are definitely retiring from the Senate. Honourable senators are aware that Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield will not be seeking re-election. She has been with us in this chamber for a long time. She has worked assiduously on many aspects of the life of the Senate. Senator Joe Fitzgerald has had a long and distinguished career in the Senate. I think all honourable senators were distressed to see what happened to him. Yet, in a manful way, he overcame his affliction and continued his work in a way which must have been very difficult for him. It was a demonstration of great loyalty on his part.

Senator Byrne:

– And very great courage.

Senator MURPHY:

– And very great courage. Senator Harry Cant also will not be standing ibr re-election to the Senate. It is very difficult for any honourable senator who has put so much into his work on behalf of his Party and who has thrown himself with very great enthusiasm into the work of the Parliament and the establishment of the Committee system as Senator Cant has, not to seek re-election. As well as being a very great parliamentarian, Senator Cant has had a great sense of the institution of Parliament and the way in which it should work. Also from the State of Western Australia is Senator Lawrie Wilkinson who, I remember, when under much attack at one time showed himself to the consternation of honourable senators opposite to be a great farmer. He has worked quietly and assiduously in the best traditions of this Parliament. Senator Poke, who we thought was leaving us, may have the opportunity through the turn of the wheel again to serve in this Parliament. He is held in very high esteem in the State of Tasmania. We on this side of the chamber hope that he returns. I have spoken only briefly about those honourable senators who are leaving the service of the Senate. I hope that I have not left out anyone who is certainly leaving.

Senator Poyser:

– What about Senator Hannan and Senator Little?

Senator MURPHY:

-We know that there are others. We know after the discussion of the chickens and the axe that some honourable senators will not be returning to the Senate. But I think as hope springs eternal and it is 1 1 .38, if we are to get through the evening in any reasonable way I had perhaps better not specify anybody.

Senator Byrne:

– I do not think you mentioned Senator Turnbull.

Senator MURPHY:

-Senator Turnbull is leaving. He has been a very colourful figure in this Parliament. We have enjoyed his wit and his contributions.

Senator Devitt:

– And his ministrations.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, and his ministrations. He has given us very great help and wise medical counsel. We will miss him also. We will miss perhaps not so much the other honourable senators who have high hopes of returning. I will not dwell on that aspect. It will not help the smooth passage of the evening. We say to the Opposition as the Senate is to be dissolved and senators are to chance their arm: ‘You sought it; you got it; and you will have to put up with it’. I will say no more than that, lest I might be thought to have departed from my usual tolerant self and become provocative. We have spoken in this chamber about what has happened. I deliberately do not want to pursue the remarks which were made earlier. It has not been a very satisfying period for many of us. I will not say any more than that.

I must say that there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction with the working of this Parliament. Be that as it may, we wish the officers and staff of the Parliament well. I think that we all thoroughly sympathise with the staff who have not been serving us in the last week or so. It is a great pity. Every time we come to the break-up of the Parliament we speak of the staff; yet through some dreadful bureaucratic bungle the staff has been caught up in a way which I am sure you, Mr President, the Speaker and others would not want. We know that they have not been well treated. We know that has not been the desire of our officers. We hope that this matter will be resolved, because we have a very great regard for them and the way in which they have served us throughout the years.

Mr President, again I thank you and wish you well, as I do those on my side, who will return. I wish those on the other side who will go out and find their careers in other endeavours well in the various avenues and pursuits which they will be forced to undertake. I remind them that, due to the beneficence of the Labor Government, Mr Clyde Cameron has been working on a retraining scheme and he will be willing to supply them with the details of it in order to tide them over the first few months of their new careers.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

- Mr President, I should like to support some of the remarks that Senator Murphy has made tonight. I understand how he feels tonight. It must be quite sad to sit in that chair and have the capacity to move the motion for the adjournment of the Senate for the last time; but then I do not wish to be provocative as he did not wish to be provocative. To you, Mr President, I express the thanks, I think, of all the Senate. To those honourable senators going out- be they my own colleague Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield or my erstwhile opponents on the Government side, including two from my own State- I just say this: ‘Even if you do not think kindly of us personally, please think kindly of the Senate as an institution as you leave us’.

To the staff who have not fed us for the last fortnight, I -extend our grateful thanks because we have got better food in the interim. We owe our thanks to the Press Gallery because of the fact that some of my colleagues will get rich on defamation writs, and that might improve the standard of reporting in the next Parliament. Our usual thanks go to the Clerks and to Hansard.

I cannot let the opportunity pass without adverting- not in a partisan political sense- to the fact that there has been a reasonable working relationship between the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) and me. We will see him back, but where he will sit we know not. We have had our ups and downs in Opposition as he has had in Government. I would not like this opportunity to pass without publicly expressing my thanks to my Deputy, Senator Greenwood.

Senator Poyser:

– Oh, yeah!

Senator WITHERS:

-Irrespective of what Senator Poyser might think of my honourable Deputy, there would be no more intelligent or hard working senator in this chamber than Senator Greenwood. Irrespective of politics, he is entitled to that credit. I have a great personal regard for him. The other person whom I would like to thank publicly is my Whip. I made only one submission to the parliamentary salaries tribunal, and that was on behalf of the Whips. As honourable senators know, every time a salaries Bill has come into this place I have pleaded for the Whips. Unlike my friend on the Government side, Senator O’Byrne, I am now a distinguished ex-member of the Whips Union. I have always thought that they are possibly the hardest worked and most underpaid people in the Parliament. Nobody ever gives the Whips on both sides sufficient credit for the work they do in the chamber.

Senator Poyser:

– There are too many of them. There are five parties now.

Senator WITHERS:

-I think that the Government Whip might have done better if he had not had an assistant. To Senator Drake-Brockman I should also like to pay my thanks publicly. We have worked in co-operation at a level which I do not think has been achieved in many other parliaments. To the rest of my colleagues, I thank them for suffering my ill temper, my bad manners and my occasional lack of judgment.

Senator Poyser:

– And short-sightedness.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is why I had to get glasses. We all this night embark upon the great adventure. I think it is a good thing for democracy that we all go back to the people. We go not unafraid but we welcome it. We will most likely be seeing each other somewhere, perhaps not on the same platform, during the election campaign. I hope that in spite of the political arguments we have here that even during the election campaign we will have the same sort of friendliness and respect, one for another as people, which most of us have in this place. I hope we will maintain this respect during the election campaign no matter for which Party we are campaigning. I think that if we do not go out with that spirit we do not do the Senate much credit. I trust that whomever I meet, no matter where they come from or what policies they espouse, that we can still treat each other like civilised human beings. Mr President, I have spoken long enough. It will be interesting to see the view from the other side of the chamber.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– As a member of the Joint House Committee I am prompted to rise and say a few words because of a remark that Senator Withers made when he was thanking the kitchen staff for being- I shall say on strike, but he did not use that word. He went on to say that his reason for thanking them was that he was better fed outside. I take strong exception to those remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. As a member of the Joint House Committee I am one of those persons who feels a certain sense of responsibility for the refreshment room staff. The kitchen staff does a mighty job in this Parliament looking after the people who dine here. I want to say to Senator Withers that in the future, if he comes back to this place, if he is not satisfied with the fare that is available in the dining room there are plenty of other places for him to go. He does not have to eat there. His remarks are quite in keeping with the sentiments of Senator Withers and the feeling of his Party against the people on the lower wage standards in this country. I very much regret that he had to make those remarks.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I speak on behalf of my Australian Country Party colleagues and endorse the remarks of those who have spoken. When Senator McLaren spoke he mentioned the remarks of Senator Withers. I certainly disagree with Senator Withers when he criticises the meals in this place. I think that the chicken soup and the poultry that is served here is of the highest quality and I would agree with Senator McLaren on that point. However, Mr

President, to you the Country Party gives its thanks for your impartial administration of justice of this House. Also, to the staff who serve us, to all the members of the Senate, particularly the leaders in the difficult job that they have had over the period, we in the Country Party, as one of the minor parties, know the difficulties that are found in a Senate such as this. As one who has been here for some years, I recall with most honourable senators, the most interesting of times that we have had in the last half dozen years in this Senate. It surely has been one of the most interesting times in the history of the Australian Parliament. For those who may be returning, for those who may leave us, the Country Party extends its good wishes to all of them and wishes them well in the next months as they go to the election. It is our wish that as many honourable senators as possible return to this place.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

-On behalf of Senator McManus and the members of the Democratic Labor Party I wish to make a few remarks. Firstly, I wish to express our appreciation to you, Mr President, for your kind kindness and understanding at all times and for the manner in which you have conducted the proceedings of this place. We who sit in this corner are in rather a unique position. We watch the ebb and flow of Government and Opposition. Now the whistle has gone, it is half-time and the parties will probably change ends. We still stand here in the centre to watch the play as it goes in front of us.

This has been a unique Parliament. It has been of very short duration and we have witnessed the advent to government of a party which sat in Opposition for many years. We have witnessed in this period a continuation, under some difficulties, of the committee system which was embarked on with such success and which has played a conspicuous role in the functioning of the Senate. It has given it a new significance in the nation. In that regard I wish to pay particular tribute to 3 retiring Labor senators who have served very conspicuously on committees- Senator Wilkinson, Senator Cant and Senator Poke, who may be leaving us. Senator Cant particularly has been a most assiduous committee member. He has been a most competent member and a magnificent organiser. As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control, after taking over from Senator Withers, he has been extremely assiduous in what has been a difficult task. That the report of that Committee has not been presented was because, in many ways, it was beyond his ability to do anything about it. It has not been as a result of any lack of stimulus or enthusiasm on his part.

Senator Wilkinson also is a member of that Committee and by his particular interest in the matter under examination has been a most valuable contributor. Senator Poke joined the Committee after the reconstruction of the Government. These gentlemen, Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield, who is retiring, and all others carry our very best wishes. There will be some from both sides of the House who unfortunately will not come back. It has been an honour to serve in this place and it has been an honour to be among you. I am sure that whatever may be the outcome everybody feels that it is an honour which cannot be taken from any person who has been a senator in the Parliament of Australia.

On behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party I pay a tribute and express our thanks to all the officers of the Senate and to the staff of the Parliament whose constant attention and assiduousness have made the functioning of this institution possible. Very often we forget that it is due only to the functioning of people such as these in more humble positions that it is possible for others to carry the responsibility of discharging their duties. To them I express our very warm thanks and appreciation. I look forward with confidence to the result of the election in the next few weeks. I am sure that the strength of this Party in this corner will not be reduced.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I would like to support the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers, in what he said about Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield. Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield has earned in South Australia the reputation of being a very hard working senator, particularly in the health and welfare field. I think it would be remiss of me if I did not pay a tribute to her 1 8 years of faithful service to South Australia and to Australia in this Senate. I am very proud to associate myself with my Leader in his remarks in her favour. I extend my best wishes to Labor Party senators who will not be coming back here and join their Leader in wishing them the best as well.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

Mr President, may I be associated with the good wishes that have been expressed by honourable senators here tonight. In the first instance I would like to thank you, as one of your Temporary Chairmen, for your understanding and for presiding over the proceedings of the Senate. I want to join my South Australian colleagues in recognising the work of Senator

Dame Nancy Buttfield, who has been a member of the Senate for some 18 years. In addition to commending the work she had done on the committees to which my colleague Senator Jessop has referred, I want to place on record her contribution to the well-being of public life in South Australia. Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield comes from a distinguished South Australian family. During her representation of the State in this Senate she has applied herself not only to Senate committees concerned with health and welfare, to which references have been made, but also to the total field of political activity. I think that we should take a moment now to recognise that which she has contributed by way of her intellect, her brain and her continued endeavour as well as her constant attention upon the work of committees and the operation of the Senate. I take this opportunity, because I have been her colleague over a number of years, to express my appreciation of what she has done.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I will not keep the Senate for more than a few moments. As once again in my political career I have heard predictions of my political demise I feel it is obligatory upon me at least to thank you, Mr President, for your courtesy and your patience with me in particular. I do not suppose I have been a very easy member of Parliament for a chairman to deal with. I never have been. But we are all going to an election. We seek the will of the people, and I think we all accept what is happening in that spirit. To those who gaze into crystal balls and seem to find some satisfaction from what they consider to be the certain political demise of their opponents I say this: I would not be happy to know of the involuntary nonreturn of any member of this House. Knowing the facts of politics in this place, such members will probably be replaced by someone who thinks politically very much the same as they do. I have learnt to like most of my associates in this place whatever have been our political opinions, because we are all Australians seeking, I hope to serve Australia and to achieve those things which we think are good for Australia. As we are men- I think that we would not be here unless we were men of some capacity- we do not all think alike. But I do not think that we should learn to dislike one another personally for that.

I issue a word of warning for those with crystal balls who predict my defeat. I have been listening to those predictions for the last 20 years, but somehow or other I am still around. Whilst some people may get some satisfaction out of these predictions let me say that they leave me with no depression at all. I am thoroughly confident. I offer my thanks to you, Mr President, and extend my good wishes to the rest of the Senate in the forthcoming election campaign. I will be back here to bid them welcome when the new Senate is gathering after the forthcoming election. I hope that my colleague, George Hannan, whose involuntary retirement also has been predicted, will be back here amongst us as well.

Thursday, 11 April 1974

The PRESIDENT:

– Before I put the question I would like to say on behalf of all honourable senators- I know that I am speaking on behalf of all honourable senators- that it is with an immense amount of regret that the Senate acknowledges that Senator Cant, Senator Wilkinson and Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield will not be returning after the election. I was going to include Senator Poke, too, but I understand that he is going through a form of levitation. We have all marked the iron courage that has been shown by Senator Cant over the last 1 8 months in the face of the disabling illness from which he has suffered. I went across to Western Australia to see him. He was in great pain but he neither winced nor appeared to complain in one way or another.

I have never served on a committee with Senator Wilkinson but I have learnt since he became one of my temporary chairmen to regard him as a man of impeccable manners and as having an impeccable knowledge on how the Senate should be conducted. It is with an immense amount of regret that I note that he will not be back again. Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield has had a hard road to hoe in what is essentially a male community whose members perhaps do not understand a woman’s approach to a problem. Therefore she has had a very difficult task in fulfilling her role. Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield has not been well either. On several occasions I said that with the consent of the Senate she could speak or ask questions without rising from her seat, but she refused to do so and always said: No, I am a senator and I will stand on my feet ‘.

Next I turn to my old friend Senator Fitzgerald. I have known him for more years than I am prepared to admit to in the Senate. He also has suffered his disablement with tremendous courage, as has his wife. Therefore I take leave of those four senators tonight with an immense amount of sadness, but I shall carry with me some of the influences that they have exerted on me. I thank honourable senators for all the pleasant things that they have said about the anonymous people who serve the Senate in the Secretariat and those who serve the Parliament in the kitchens, refreshment rooms, bars, barber shops, libraries and printery- the whole combination of people whom perhaps most honourable senators never see. As I remarked on another occasion on the eve of leaving, we do not perhaps understand how much we owe to them. We owe a great deal too- I think that I should make this public acknowledgment- to the difficult role that is ably and honestly fulfilled by the Clerks at the table.

Finally, I would like to say that I was hoping that I could find some suitable expression in the Book of Exodus, but I could not, because no one knows where the promised land lies. I came to the conclusion that all I can say to honourable senators is: ‘Farewell, and I shall see you on the fields of Philippi’.

The Senate stands adjourned until such time as it is summoned by the President of the Senate.

Senate adjourned at 12.2 a.m.

page 935

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Question No. 2)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

How many and which countries have ratified or acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and deposited instruments of ratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

As at 4 April 1974, twenty-six countries had ratified or acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The countries are as follows:

Barbados, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Democratic Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Mauritius, Norway, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Question No. 51)

Senator Carrick:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

What persons, including Members of Parliament, other than the Attorney-General, were given access to the files or copies of files, in part or whole, taken by the AttorneyGeneral from the Australian Security Intelligence Organization.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

No files or copies of files were taken by me. A copy of a document from one file was taken by me. Access to that copy was given to Ministers and other authorised persons.

Statement on Croatian Terrorism and Related Matters (Question No. 52)

Senator Carrick:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Was the statement on “Croatian Terrorism and related Matters”, as presented to the Senate on 27 March 1 973 submitted to the Cabinet and approved by the Cabinet prior to its presentation to the Senate.
  2. Were the supporting documents, as tabled in the Senate, provided to all members of the Cabinet; if not, which Ministers saw the statement and documents prior to their presentation.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

It is not appropriate to answer such a question relating to proceedings in Cabinet.

Australian Citizens: Passports (Question No. 60)

Senator Hannan:

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

  1. 1 ) Why are Australian citizens who give their place of origin as Croatia refused Australian passports unless they substitute the word, Yugoslavia, which they find objectionable.
  2. Why are certain Australian citizens of Croatian origin who have never been charged or convicted of any crime refused Australian passports.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Because Australia, in common with other members of the United Nations, recognises Yugoslavia as a sovereign State- not the constituent parts of Yugoslavia.
  2. The principal grounds upon which an Australian citizen may be refused a passport are if the applicant is-

    1. attempting to escape from justice;
    2. b) the subject of a court order restraining departure;
    3. of unsound mind;
    4. a person under the age of 17 years who is unable to produce the consent of both parents or who is the subject of a custody or access order of an Australian court;
    5. a person for whom the Minister for Immigration considers it to be undesirable, in the context of Australia’s international relations, to request other countries to provide free passage, protection and assistance.

Crimes Act: Prosecutions (Question No. 72)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that there is no credible evidence warranting the launching of prosecutions under section 30 (c) of the Crimes Act, as a result of the searches made of premises in Sydney on1 April 1973 by Commonwealth and New South Wales Police; if so, why have no prosecutions been launched under the said provisions.
  2. Will the Government state that no prosecutions will be instituted.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) No, it is not a fact.
  2. It is not appropriate to answer this question relating to the administration of justice.

Australian Feature Films (Question No. 77)

Senator Poyser:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. ) How many feature films were made in Australia in each ofthe calendar years 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973.
  2. ) How many films sold abroad are likely to be profitable for the producers and which ones are they.
  3. What number of films are likely to be made in Australia this year.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1970-4

1971- 5

1972- 7

1973- 12.

  1. It is difficult to predict future sales and profitability, particularly in cases like this where producers are not required to place commercial information on official record.

However, to the best of my knowledge, the following recently-produced Australian feature films are profitable and have been sold abroad.

The Adventures of Barry McKenzie ‘

Alvin Purple’

Libido’

Marco Polo Junior Versus the Red Dragons’

Night of Fear’

Stork’

  1. According to the information available including financial commitments made by the Australian Film Development Corporation, at least 20 feature films could be made in Australia during 1 974.

Australian Fishing Vessels (Question No. 107)

Senator Rae:

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

What, if any, subsidies or other forms of assistance are, or will be, available to the owners and/or builders of new fishing vessels in Australia.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

Under the new shipbuilding policy announced by the Minister for Secondary Industry on 18 December 1973, Australian built fishing vessels of150 gross tons or more, or 70 feet or more in length, are eligible for Australian Government shipbuilding assistance.

Subsidy is payable at the rate of 25 per cent of eligible construction costs on fishing vessels up to 1,000 gross tons. Higher rates of assistance are available on a graduated scale for vessels over that size. Assistance is available only to vessels built specifically for commercial fishing and for which a State or Australian Government fishing licence will be required and obtained.

AnInter-departmental Committee is currently examining the need for long term credit facilities for ship construction in Australia. Until the Committee’s report is received and considered by the Government, it is not possible to indicate whether any assistance in the provision of credit facilities will be made available for fishing vessels constructed in Australia.

Australian Post Office

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On 14 March 1 974, Senator Hannan asked me as Minister for the Media the following question, without notice:

Is it a fact that the Australian Post Office has let a $2,400 contract- quite a small contract- to an American company to make a training film entitled ‘How to lose your best customer without really trying’? Is it not a fact that a short instructional film of this nature could easily have been made by an Australian company or by Film Australia? Can the Minister say whether any opportunity was given to an Australian company or Film Australia to meet this requirement?

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

A $2,408 contract has been placed by my Department with Western Audio Visual Enterprises, Hollywood for the lease of and airfreighting from the U.S.A. twenty four (24) copies of an instructional film which was produced for the Bell telephone system.

The film will be used by the Department’s Telecommunications service advisers who visit commercial and industrial customers to assist them in making more effective use of their telephone services.

In the past twelve months these service advisors have given 3,500 talks to about 100,000 people in commerce and industry. The talks always include the screening of appropriate films.

It is standard practice to use films produced by other telephone administrations as well as the local product. It is of interest that a film on the use of the telephone produced for the Department by Film Australia has been used in the Bell system for the past three or four years.

Australian Loan Council

Senator Willesee:
ALP

-On 14 March 1974, Senator Wright asked Senator Murphy a series of questions without notice concerning the history and operations of the Australian Loan Council and the implications for local government bodies of access to the Loan Council arrangements.

The Treasurer has advised that the Financial Agreement between the Australian Government and the six State Governments, which formally set up the Loan Council and defined its functions, was agreed on 12 December 1927. Subsequently, the Australian Constitution was altered by the insertion of section 105 A, which was approved by referendum dated 17 November 1928 and was assented to on 15 February 1929. The Agreement was subsequently validated by each of the seven Parliaments.

The Loan Council comprises representatives of the Australian and State Governments. At its annual meeting, usually in June each year, it determines the amount that can be borrowed by the Australian Governments during the ensuing financial year (except borrowings for defence purposes) on reasonable terms and conditions and divides this amount between the member Governments. It also decides the terms on which loans are raised under the approved borrowing programs of the Australian and State Governments.

Under the Financial Agreement, all such loans (with limited exceptions) are raised by the Australian Government- both on its own behalf and on behalf of the States. The avoidance of competition between Governments in raising funds and the high credit rating established by the Australian Government as a borrower in both domestic and overseas markets have helped to minimise borrowing costs.

There is also a voluntary arrangement, known as the Gentlemen’s Agreement, between members of the Loan Council designed to regulate borrowings by semi-government bodies and local authorities.

It is not possible to forecast with any precision the effect on the amount of loan money available from the market of giving local government direct access to the Loan Council arrangements. However, in so far as borrowings which would otherwise have been undertaken direct by local government borrowers were to be undertaken by the Australian Government on their behalf, the cost of these borrowings could be expected to be lower.

Legal Aid for Aborigines (Question No. 130)

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– On 8 April 1974, Senator Rae asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs the following question, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What amount of money has been expended on legal aid in Tasmania Tor Aborigines.
  2. Over what period has the scheme been in operation in Tasmania.
  3. ) How many applications have been received.
  4. In how many cases has aid been granted.
  5. 5 ) How many persons have received assistance.
  6. Is it afact that a legal practitioner who is not a solicitor is retained by those administering the scheme; if so, who is that person and what are the terms of the retainer.

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

  1. and (2) The Aboriginal Legal Aid Service in Tasmania has been in operation since April 1973 and at this time the Australian Government has supplied $76,905 to assist this Service.
  2. 3 ) The Service has handled a total of 1 , 082 cases.
  3. Of these 877 have been criminal cases and 205 other cases.
  4. The Service has also handled 82 other legal matters which have been settled out of court. These matters included such problems as evictions and taxation difficulties. The Service has also given advice in about 300 other matters involving matrimonial problems and issues involving State wards. These figures do not include many other enquiries that the Service receives every day.
  5. No.

Customs Procedures

Senator Murphy:
ALP

-On 8 April 1974, Senator Guilfoyle asked me for details of arrangements which are in operation to interview officers of the Department of Customs and Excise in Canberra concerning applications for ad hoc by-laws.

The Department receives a large number of such applications. In 1969, when the arrangements referred to by Senator Guilfoyle came into operation, 33,600 applications were received. Because of the necessity to make decisions without delay to meet the needs of the commercial community it was decided that some limitation had to be placed on the time available to interview applicants, to enable a definite part of the day to be set aside to consider these applications. As a result officers split their day so that they conduct interviews in the morning and have the rest of the day undisturbed to finalise these matters.

At the present time over 13,000 applications a year are being received. The reduction has been achieved by the procedure also introduced in 1969, to issue standing by-laws so far as possible, so that once a by-law has been granted other people desiring to import the same equipment automatically receive by-law. Even with these reduced numbers, the previous arrangements of releasing officers from interviews in the afternoon has been found to be most appropriate and enables the by-law system to operate with the minimum of delay.

I might mention that very few complaints of these arrangements have been received in the last five years.

Deportation of Yugoslavs (Question No. 79)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) What were the names of the four Yugoslav persons deported from Australia between 5 December 1972 and 30 September 1973 under Section 12 of the Migration Act as mentioned by the Minister for Immigration in an answer to a question asked by Senator Greenwood in 1 973.
  2. Were all such persons deported to Yugoslavia.
  3. For what offences or crimes in Australia had they been convicted.
  4. What period of what term of imprisonment had been served in each case.
  5. What were the names of the nine Yugoslavs deported during the same period under Section 13(a) of the Migration Act and mentioned by the Minister in the abovementioned reply to Senator Greenwood.
  6. Were all such persons deported to Yugoslavia.
  7. For what offences in Australia had ; hey been convicted.
  8. What period of what term of imprisonment had been seved in each case.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The information sought by the honourable senator was previously the subject of Senate Question No. 564 of 27 November 1973. The Minister for Immigration prepared a reply to the question before Parliament was prorogued but it was not subsequently included in Hansard. The information sought is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The statistics given in answer to Question 494 of 17 October 1973, showed that 4 Yugoslavs were deported pursuant to Section 12 of the Migration Act in the period 5 December 1972 to 30 September 1973. Actually the number was 3, one person deponed on 8 May 1970 having been included incorrectly.

The three men deported were: Milorad Stankovic Ibrahim Dedukic and Boris Ninkovic

  1. Yes.
  2. and (4)See Table ‘A’
  3. ) Drago Koren, Gojko Sosic Zdravko Gulen, Ivan Sich Marko Kravic, Ante Padovan. Dragolsav Stevic, Joso Jurcevic and Alojzija Kolar
  4. All except Ivan Sich were deponed to Yugoslavia. Sich a former resident of New Zealand, was returned there to rejoin his parents.
  5. and (8)See Table ‘B’

Note: With respect to (4) and (8), in accordance with long established practice deportation does not take place until the appropriate authorities authorise release for that purpose.

Chile (Question No. 1 13)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Government aware that, prior to the overthrow of the Allende Government in Chile in September 1973, persons who had been involved in terrorist and urban guerilla activities in South America had been accepted as citizens of Chile.
  2. Are many of these persons now refugees from Chile and either not prepared to live in Chile or not accepted by that Government because of their terrorist proclivities.
  3. ) Is it a fact that members of the Australian Government are sympathetic to the cause of these persons.
  4. In view of the Government’s admission that 228 refugees from Chile are to be admitted to Australia and, in the light of the Government’s sympathies and its restrictions on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, what positive assurance is the Prime Minister able to give that terrorists and guerillas will not be admitted to Australia.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. The Government is aware that, prior to the coup in Chile in September 1973, a number of nationals from other South American countries had moved to Chile and that some of these had been granted Chilean citizenship. It is understood that some, though not necessarily the same individuals as were granted Chilean citizenship, were believed to have been involved in terrorist or guerilla activities in their home countries.
  2. The Government is also aware that certain of these people have sought to leave Chile after the coup, either having been granted refugee status under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or because of a personal preference not to remain.
  3. The Government is sympathetic to the plight of those who have not engaged in terrorist or guerilla activity but who wish, or are required, to leave Chile under the present regime.
  4. The procedures for dealing with applications by people wishing to migrate to Australia include a check in each case of character and past activities. Any individual who is found to have engaged in violence, terrorism or criminal activities, irrespective of his political affiliations or leanings, will not be accepted for migration to Australia.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 April 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19740410_senate_28_s59/>.