Senate
14 May 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1367

PETITIONS

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 54 citizens of Australia: -

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

1 ) Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator MARTIN:

– I present the following petition from 23 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:

1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.

That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October, 1974.

That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurances and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.

That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

That the insurance industry is already coping with:

the effects of inflation,

b) increased taxation on life assurance offices,

the effects of recent natural disasters,

other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Estate Duty

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition from 2641 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That death taxes cause distress and humiliation to thousands of Australians, particularly widows, many of whom are left in serious financial difficulties;

That death taxes are actually an additional tax, levied on people’s savings to such an extent, that thousands have been forced to sell their properties to meet these taxes in a time of bereavement;

Despite the original intention that these taxes be applied to break up large estates and spread the wealth of the Commonwealth, these large estates have been able to apply Tax avoidance’ and so ‘evade’ considerable death taxes, whereas smaller estates have been unable to do this. As a result, the intentions of the legislation have failed;

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should take action immediately to Abolish Estate and Gift Duties, (following the example of Canada, which has taken action to abolish these duties as from the 1st of January, 1972) and devise a method of providing financial assistance to the States, so that they in turn, can follow the lead of this Government, and abolish Probate and Succession duties, or raise the minimum to $100,000 value for all estates before death duties become applicable.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I seek leave to table documents, signed by several thousand citizens of the Commonwealth, supporting the subject matter of the petition.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Estate Duty

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 13 661 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That death taxes cause distress and humiliation to thousands of Australians, particularly widows, many of whom are left in serious financial difficulties;

That death taxes are actually an additional tax, levied on people’s savings to such an extent, that thousands have been forced to sell their properties to meet these taxes in a time of bereavement;

Despite the original intention that these taxes be applied to break up large estates and spread the wealth of the Commonwealth, these large estates have been able to apply Tax avoidance’ and so ‘evade’ considerable death taxes, whereas smaller estates have been unable. to do this. As a result, the intentions of the legislation have failed;

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should take action immediately to Abolish Estate and Gift Duties, (following the example of Canada, which has taken action to abolish these duties as from the 1st of January, 1972) and devise a method of providing financial assistance to the States, so that they in turn, can follow the lead of this Government, and abolish Probate and Succession duties, or raise the minimum to $100,000 value for all estates before death duties become applicable.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I seek leave to table documents, signed by several hundred thousand citizens of the Commonwealth, supporting the subject matter of the petition.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 664 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

1 ) Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.

Add to the Taxpayers burden.

Trade unfairly.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 439 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

1 ) Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Compete unfairly with private insurers.

Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 980 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

1 ) Nationalise the Insurance Industry.

Reduce the flow of funds to Industry and Commerce from the Private Sector and increase their dependency on Government finance.

Endanger the economy by undermining confidence in Industrial and Commercial Company Shares and by thereby causing share prices to tumble.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1950 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

1 ) Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Compete unfairly with private insurers.

Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator JESSOP:

– I present the following petition from 848 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will nationalise insurance industry:

1 ) Causing widespread unemployment,

Stifling freedom of choice and virile competition, and

Making mendicants of former industry employees and policy-holders alike.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 2459 citizens of Tasmania:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

1 ) Nationalise the insurance industry.

Create hundreds of Public Service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Add to the taxpayers burden.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator RAE:

– I present the following petition from 1 145 citizens of Tasmania:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

1 ) Cost the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Compete unfairly with private insurers.

Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 122 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

1 ) Nationalise the insurance industry.

Make for mass unemployment in the insurance industry.

Greatly increase taxation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I present a petition from 220 citizens of Australia praying that the Parliament reject the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975,I would like the petition to be read, but as it exceeds 250 words I ask that leave be given for the petition to be read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

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

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

  1. ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.
  6. That the insurance industry is already faced with:

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the under- ‘ signed employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and

Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.

  1. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  2. That the insurance industry is already coping with:

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. c) the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  3. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.
  2. Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.
  3. Provide the opportunity for that office to obtain general and superannuation business by the application of Australian Government financial and verbal duress on State Government’s local and Semi-Government bodies, Australian or State instrumentalities or any other body, or their employees, which is funded by the Australian Government.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Cause the loss or jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  2. Compete unfairly with private insurers.
  3. Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth.

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  3. Add to the taxpayers burden.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Add to the Taxpayers burden.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  3. Increase Bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Increase Bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.
  3. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.
  2. Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.
  3. By the ‘National Interests’ provisions of the Bill provide the opportunity for any government to introduce national schemes which should properly be the subject of separate legislation.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Eliminate private insurance for Australians.
  2. Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.
  3. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.
  4. Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensastion for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reason for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with:

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of

Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  2. Compete unfairly with private insurers.
  3. Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. a ) the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislation measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners, are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Drake-Brockman.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Eliminate private insurance for Australians.
  3. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Nationalise the insurance industry.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  3. Add to the taxpayers burden.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

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

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully refer to the Bill concerning the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office.

We are not necessarily against the formation of such an organisation. We do, however, feel that the Bill could be rushed through Parliament without sufficient deliberation. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Bill be referred to a Senate Select Committee or Public Enquiry Committee. In this way submissions from interested parties can be called for. Recommendations from this Committee would then reflect the true wishes of the Australian electorate.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lawrie.

Petition received.

Capital Gains Tax

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

That a Capital Gains Tax applying as another Death Duty is unjust in its application and catastrophic in its effect.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Capital Gains Tax be not levied in addition to Death Duties.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

page 1373

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Health, Dr Everingham, is attending the 28th World Health Assembly in Geneva and will be absent from Australia until 1 7 June. In his absence, the Minister for Environment, Dr Cass, will act as Minister for Health.

page 1373

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1373

QUESTION

WAGE INDEXATION

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Does the Minister for Manufacturing Industry support the concept of wage indexation as spelt out by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Is he aware that with the present taxation scales the indexation of wages ultimately will result in a decline in real personal spending power? Does this mean that the Government’s proclaimed support for indexation is just a gesture aimed at filling its coffers while denying wage earners real benefits?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I support the principle of a fair system of wage indexation; but I hasten to add, as leading spokesmen for the Government have made clear in recent times, that such a system, if it is to be just and if it is to work, must be accompanied by some form of tax indexation. If we are to ask people, especially people on low incomes, to be content at least for a period with having their wages adjusted to meet rises in the cost of living, it is only reasonable that they should get all of that amount. Of course, that is not achieved unless there is some form of tax indexation. So, that is a package of which I personally am in favour.

page 1374

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation a question concerning the proposal to establish an Australian Government insurance office. In recent media reports there have been many allegations and assumptions that there will be unfair advantages to this proposed government insurance office. Also this appears to be substantially the basis of the petitions which have been flowing into the Senate in recent days. I ask the Minister: Is it true that the proposed Australian Government insurance office will not have to pay some taxes, as has been alleged, and that it will not be subject to some legislation with which its competitors will have to comply?

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not think I have seen a more misleading and dishonest campaign in the time that I have been a member of the Senate than that which has been mounted against the establishment of the proposed Australian Government insurance corporation. I have seen references to nationalisation when there is no proposal to nationalise anything. If in fact it is to be taken that the establishment of a government insurance office means that the insurance industry is nationalised, then already Mr BjelkePetersen in Queensland and Mr Lewis in New South Wales are presiding over nationalised insurance industries. In detail, allegations have been made that the Trade Practices Act will not apply to the proposed Australian Government insurance corporation when in fact any first year law student on reading the Bill would be able to see that the Trade Practices Act would apply to it. It has been alleged that it will not be subject to -

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr President, I rise to take a point of order. The Senate Standing Orders are quite explicit. They provide that a senator, in answering a question, shall not debate the answer which he is giving. My submission is that either questions are designed to elicit information, in which case Ministers have an obligation to give their information, or there are to be debates which ought to be held at the appropriate time. The Minister obviously has started to debate this whole question of the proposed insurance office. That is not what he was asked and it is not what the Standing Orders provide for. Mr President, you know the standing order to which I refer; it is standing order 99.

Senator Devitt:

- Mr President, I rise on the point of order. Because of the interest in this subject of the establishment of an Australian Government insurance office, I directed to the Minister in charge of the legislation a question asking for clarification in connection with allegations which have been made and which I believe are untrue. I asked the Minister the question for my own edification and for the edification of the nation at large, and I want to hear the answer.

The PRESIDENT:

– The matter before the Senate is very contentious. A question has been asked of the Minister. He is proceeding to give the Government’s attitude and policy on it. I think the Minister may proceed in that way in answering the question.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Thank you, Mr President. I am well aware that Senator Greenwood does not want an answer to this question and that he would prefer the misleading information which has been circulated to continue to be circulated without contradiction, but I intend to see that the Australian people are made aware of what the Bill provides, and that is that the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will be subject to all the taxes which are imposed on private insurance companies. It has been alleged by vested interests opposed to the passage of this Bill that this will not be the case. I know that there will be other questions on this matter and I know that there will be debate elsewhere on this whole question, but I should like to say again that I do not think that I have ever seen a more deceitful campaign than that which has been mounted. I have seen, for example, amongst the insurance company employees marching through Adelaide, Senator Jessop, a Liberal Party member of this Senate. I have seen Dr Tonkin, a Liberal member of the State Parliament.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise to a point of order. I have already referred to standing order 99 which states that questions shall not refer to debates in the current session. I now refer to standing order 100 which states:

In answering any such Question, a Senator shall not debate the matter to which the same refers.

I submit that the Standing Orders should be upheld. The Minister is referring to marches which took place and to deceitful campaigns. He is debating the issue. While he might feel strongly about these matters, in my submission the Standing Orders ought to be observed or they should be torn up.

Senator Devitt:

- Mr President, on the point -

The PRESIDENT:

– During the reply the Minister did make oblique reference to the Bill. I remind him that he was getting very close to offending against standing order 100. He went off that matter and has completed his answer. I call Senator Devitt.

Senator Devitt:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Are you allowing me to speak to the point of order?

The PRESIDENT:

– You may ask your question.

page 1375

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE

Senator DEVITT:

– I ask a question supplementary to the one I asked earlier. Senator Wheeldon has answered that part of my question which I directed to him concerning the payment of taxes, but as yet I have not heard his answer to the question whether the Australian Government Insurance Office will be subject to the same legislation and legislative procedures as are applicable to other insurance offices.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yes, it will be. It was originally proposed by an interdepartmental committee which engaged in a study of this matter that the Insurance Acts and the Life Insurance Act should apply to the Australian Government Insurance Office’s commercial undertakings. It was my own view, and I persuaded the Cabinet to agree, that they should not apply, because I believed that this was unnecessary in view of the fact that the Office would be, of necessity, a solvent office. The primary purpose of the Insurance Acts and the Life Insurance Act is to protect the solvency of these offices. Not for that reason but for constitutional reasons the State Government insurance offices are not covered by the Insurance Acts or the Life Insurance Act and no one so far, to the best of my knowledge, has claimed that this gives them an unfair advantage. So that competition will not only be fair but will be seen to be fair the Government proposes to introduce appropriate amendments to see that both the Insurance Acts and the Life Insurance Act also apply to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation so that it will be subject to all the laws to which the private insurance companies are subject.

page 1375

QUESTION

WAGE INDEXATION

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that individual Ministers and the Government itself have repeatedly told the nation that excessive wage rises are a major cause of Australia’s inflation and unemployment? Has the Prime Minister many times publicly called for wage restraint? Why then has the Government decided not to use its influence in the metal workers’ case to ensure the success of the Arbitration Commission’s carefully and responsibly prepared wage indexation plan? Are the people of Australia entitled to believe that the Government opposes excessive wage increases but will not be seen to be involved in achieving restraint?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It has been stated on many occasions, of course, by many spokesmen for the Government, including myself, that increasing wages and incomes generally are a factor which tends to push up the inflation rate and costs generally. I think that proposition would be widely accepted. It is ironic that members of the Opposition should castigate the Government for the efforts it has made to try to restrain the increase in incomes in this country because when in 1 973 we saw the danger arising and sought powers over prices and incomes we were opposed by the Opposition and by misguided sections of the trade union movement whose motives I would say would have been about as suspect. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has decided, as a result of a carefully thought out case which was put to it, to introduce a system of indexation. The most that we can do is to support the Commission and make this system of indexation work. Of course there will be differences of opinion about plateau indexation and total indexation, but we all have a responsibility to try to see that the system works. The same applies to the trade unions. Those trade unions which are not prepared to try to make this system work will be as guilty as anybody else of the runaway situation with which we will be confronted if it does not work. I can assure the honourable senator that the Government accepts the position that the court has taken the decision that it has. It is now a matter for the court to make its determinations in the light of the evidence placed before it.

page 1375

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MUTUAL PROVIDENT SOCIETY

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Repatriation and

Compensation. I ask: Is it a fact that the Minister has discovered links between the National Country Party of Australia and the Australian Mutual Provident Society?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yes. I have been very disturbed by the receipt of documents which have come from the head office of the Australian Mutual Provident Society and which clearly establish that the Australian Mutual Provident Society is an anti-Labor organisation that is dedicated -

Senator Withers:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes, it is an antiLabor organisation. When it goes around working class electorates trying to flog policies I hope that it makes it clear to the people to whom it is trying to sell the policies what sort of an organisation it is. It is an anti-Labor organisation that is dedicated to bringing down the Labor Government and it has entered into arrangements with the Country Party. I have with me a letter, a copy of which I shall table so that anybody may inspect it, which was sent out by the so-called Secretary, Public Affairs, of the Australian Mutual Provident Society. The letter will be tabled. It has been publicised as widely as possible. It refers to means by which staff and salesmen of the insurance industry and Country Party members of Parliament can support each other in the electorate in getting across to all members of the public the effects of the Government’s measures on them personally. Then this official of the AMP Society went on elsewhere to say that they should work together in order to force the Australian Labor Party Government, which was twice elected within 18 months, to change its policy or to force it from office. That is what the AMP Society says.

I want to say 2 things. The first is that the people who have done this- the directors of the AMP Society- have acted without any consultation whatsoever with the policy holders of the Australian Mutual Provident Society. The very people who talk about Canberra centralism have acted without consulting their own members when they have engaged in this political campaign. The other thing which I think has to be borne in mind is that in future every person should know- every Labor supporter, every trade unionist and every independent citizen in Australia- that every time he pays a premium on a policy which he holds with the AMP Society he is making a contribution to the funds of the Country Party. I intend to see that every Australian Labor Party branch and every trade union in Australia is made aware of the fact that by taking out policies with the Australian Mutual Provident Society their members are taking out policies with the Australian Country Party.

page 1376

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. My question refers to the Australian Film Commission. I ask: Is it a fact that a member of the Commission, Mr Pat Condon, who is the managing director of Paradine Productions, is associated in a subsidiary company of Paradine Productions named TV Productions Pty Ltd? Is it also a fact that TV Productions Pty Ltd is engaged in import-export and that Mr Jack Valenti of the United States of’ America is a shareholder or a nominee shareholder in that company?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true that Mr Pat Condon is a member of the Australian Film Commission and, as a full-time member of the Commission, he was bound by the Act of Parliament to dispose of any previous interests that he may have had in the film and television industry. I know that he was connected with a company known as Paradine Productions, of which Mr David Frost, the well known international performer, was a director. I know nothing about the circumstances of Mr Valenti having been a shareholder in any related company. As I said, Mr Pat Condon, having been appointed as a full time member of the Commission, is required under the Act to divest himself of any interest that he had previously in the industry.

page 1376

QUESTION

R’ CERTIFICATE FILMS: TELEVISION SCREENING

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. Is the Minister aware of Press reports over the last few weeks that some television stations are considering screening films which have previously been classified ‘R’ by the Film Censorship Board for theatre screening? If the reports are true, what is the point of classification, particularly of those films restricted for viewing in theatres to people under the age of eighteen, when they might become freely available on television at a later date?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am aware of the Press reports on this subject and I have spoken to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board on the matter. I have been advised by the Board that under its existing program standards there is no possibility of ‘R’ classification films being shown on television in the foreseeable future in the form in which they are shown in theatres. The Film Censorship Board, which is pan and parcel of the Department of Police and Customs, classifies film material of both Australian and overseas origin for both television and theatres. In addition, the film material which is shown on television also has to meet and conform to the standards that are set by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in its television program standards. Therefore, the Board has advised me that should films that are classified with an ‘R’ certificate for theatres be shown on television they would have to be cut and edited in order to conform to the standards of the Board which I have mentioned.

page 1377

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN OFFICE OF INFORMATION

Senator MARTIN:

– I ask a question of the Minister for the Media. Has the Minister seen recent newspaper reports claiming that the Government intends to establish an organisation to be called the Australian office of information, with a staff of three hundred? Will the Minister confirm that last December Cabinet decided to establish this office? Has the Government made an official announcement of that decision? What will be the functions of the office and with what areas of government activities will it be concerned? How many additional staff must be employed by the Government as a result of this Cabinet decision? What is the estimated additional cost of this expansion of the Department of the Media and what is the estimated total cost of the operation of the office of information?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Prior to this Government coming into office there was an Australian News and Information Bureau of the former Department of the Interior and that Bureau was responsible, among other things, for the dissemination abroad of information about Australia. I suggest to the honourable senator that it was rather ironic on the part of the previous Government to have the News and Information Bureau, which was responsible for publicity overseas about Australia, attached to and indeed a backwater of the old Department of the Interior, that Department having been charged basically with the responsibility of the administration of the Australian Capital Territory. When this Government came into office it changed the format of the News and Information Bureau to the Australian Information Service and, by charter, that service is now required to disseminate both abroad and within Australia information about Australia. I have seen recent reports that the Government is going to establish an Australian office of information. I can tell the honourable senator that suggestions have been made that the name of the Australian Information Service be changed to the ‘Australian Office of Information’, but that is as far as it has gone at the present time. No specific decision has been taken on that matter. It would rope in the Australian Information Service and the Australian Government Liaison Service.

There has been some increase in staff in the Australian Information Service over and above the staff that existed in the old News and Information Bureau. Speaking from recollection, I think there were about 1 8 posts abroad serviced by the old News and Information Bureau; whereas, as a result of the policies of this Government, I think the number of journalists serving in overseas posts on behalf of the Australian Government has now been increased to about twenty-eight. So there has been that increase in staff. Additionally, of course, under the administrative arrangements of the previous Government the Department of Immigration had a large internal information or publicity branch. In order better to co-ordinate the information activities of government that branch has been transferred to my Department.

Additionally- this might be the matter to which the honourable senator was referring when she suggested that the Government had decided to establish an Australian Office of Information- the Government did decide last December on my recommendation to establish an Australian Government Liaison Service to ensure that all sections of the media, and especially those that could not afford to have representation in the Press Gallery here in Canberra, would be made aware of the affairs of government and the events that take place and it is the Government’s desire and the Government’s policy to let the people know as much about Government as possible. That is why since the establishment of the Australian Government Liaison Service the former ‘Quarterly Digest of Information’ about Australian Government affairs has been transformed into a weekly digest which is made available to all sections of the media and all other organisations which are interested in receiving it. I might say that it is being very well received and acclaimed by the community generally.

page 1377

QUESTION

ACCESS RADIO STATIONS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Media. Is it true that what is described as Australia’s first public access radio station went on the air in Melbourne this week? Has the Minister had any reports on the way in which the station has been received? What are the Department’s plans to extend this type of broadcasting service to other areas throughout Australia?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true that Australia’s first access station, namely 3ZZ Melbourne, went on to air the night before last. Its counterpart in Sydney, station 2JJ, was the first new AM station put into Sydney in the last 30 years, and station 3ZZ is the first new AM station that Melbourne has had for 40 years. These things have been done by the Labor Government. The station, as the honourable senator will be aware, is using the standby transmitter of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Melbourne and it has been licensed on an experimental basis. It is run by the ABC. It will cater for ethnic groups 4 nights a week and the other 3 nights will be for social and community interest broadcasts. I have had a note passed to me which says that last night, which was the second night of transmission by this station, people were advised to contact 3ZZ on the 3ZZ telephone number because many people had been ringing the ABC number in Melbourne. The 3ZZ switchboard was inundated with calls and in fact it became necessary to ask listeners to give the station a chance to handle all those callers who were waiting. The ABC advises me that this is a very heartening indication of the audience that the station has had at this extremely early stage. With regard to the other portion of the honourable senator’s question, about what other plans are being made for stations of this nature, I can tell the honourable senator that plans for the development of broadcasting and television services generally are in the course of preparation now, and I hope to be able to make another submission in the near future to the Australian Government.

page 1378

QUESTION

MEDIBANK: ADVERTISING

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has the Minister noted that the Labor Government’s Medibank advertising program, which is being paid for by the taxpayer, claims that Medibank is a free service, when in fact all taxpayers will be obliged to fund not only their own health needs but also those of people who, for one reason or another, do not pay taxes? Has he also noted that the same Labor inspired taxpayer funded advertisements imply that patients can choose their own doctors when in fact patients, if hospitalised, must accept services by the hospital’s doctors or must elect to become private or intermediate ward patients, thus having to pay higher ward fees? If he has noted these instances of deliberate untruths contained in the Medibank advertising campaign, amounting to misleading and false advertising which breach the Trade Practices Act, will the Minister consider what action may be taken under the terms of that Act?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-There are various things wrong in the question asked by the honourable senator, including false allegations of falsehood in the advertisements in question. However, it is such a detailed question that I shall refer it to the Attorney-General and let the honourable senator have a detailed reply.

page 1378

QUESTION

ASIAN MAINLAND TROOP COMMITMENT

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: In the face of the recent nostalgic longings expressed by the Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman, Andrew Peacock, for renewed troop commitments on the Asian mainland, can the Minister give a direct assurance that no secret obligations have been incurred by Australia to buttress the Thailand” Government through the presence of Australian-armed forces, which would only perpetuate the tragedies of South Vietnam?

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

– Australia has no secret military agreements with Thailand. It is, of course, associated with Thailand through the South East Asia Treaty Organisation. As far as I know there has been no request from Thailand for additional foreign forces to be stationed in Thailand. Our associations are continuing to grow in the field of aid and will continue to do so. The most heartening thing about Thailand, I think, is the recent election which at long last installed a civilian government there.

– POLITICAL FUNDS

Senator GREENWOOD:

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. It follows on Senator Wheeldon ‘s attacks upon the freedom of a company to choose where it gives its political support. Did not the Australian Metalworkers Union exercise the freedom of an organisation in this country to give its support to the Australian Labor Party, prior to the 1972 election? Did it not, before that election, require the Prime Minister to attend its executive meeting and promise not to enforce the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, before the union granted the Labor Party $25,000? Is not that fact recorded in the minutes of that organisation, which have been publicised? Is that the reason why the Government on this occasion has decided not to oppose the Australian Metalworkers Union application before the Arbitration Commission?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-A11 that Senator Greenwood is doing, of course, is to build up a man of straw to suit his own proposition. The trade union movement, as everybody knows, broadly supports the Australian Labor Party. In supporting the Labor Party it supports the programs of the Labor Party, including its industrial policy and including, I think as Senator Wheeldon has set out more than once, its program of setting up a Government insurance organisation. Those policies are well known to honourable senators on the other side of the chamber because they are able to buy a copy of the Labor Party handbook whereas we cannot get a copy of their handbook. The position is well known to everybody.

Honourable senators opposite say that we have this relationship with the union movement. It is purely advisory. Of course we are not the only Party to have advisers. Senator Greenwood may remember his own advice during the passage of previous Arbitration Bills which he got from some factions of the political spectrum, including the Democratic Labor Party and other people which disturbed what were then declared to be good industrial relations policies on amalgamations. As to the Government’s attitude to the metal trades application, I recommend that the honourable senator consider the answer given by Senator Wriedt. He indicated quite clearly that the Government, the Ministers concerned, including the Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Cameron, consider that it is a matter for the Commission to determine. As to whether there is any argument in the catch-up application by the metal trades union, that will be settled in the proper place.

page 1379

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation aware that many members of the general public who are signing stereotype circulars in opposition to the setting up of an Australian Government insurance office and forwarding same to members of the Australian Parliament have been falsely led to believe by private insurance companies that the legislation to enable the Australian Government to set up an insurance office has in fact already been passed with undue haste by the House of Representatives? Is the Minister aware that private insurance companies in South Australia have refused to handle compulsory third party insurance and that if it were not for the South Australian Government Insurance Commission accommodating motor vehicle owners in this field no owner in South Australia would be able to register a motor vehicle?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yes, I am aware of the matters relating to the South Australian Government Insurance Commission and I am aware of the fact -

Senator Jessop:

– It is losing $5m.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes. I am glad that Senator Jessop said that. He is an excellent man to have in the Senate. He always says exactly what I want him to say. Yes, the South Austraiian Insurance Commission is losing money and the primary reason that it is losing money is because it is engaging in business which is socially essential but which private insurers refuse to write. That is why it is losing money. If there were no South Australian Government Insurance Commission the people of South Australia would be losing money. I am aware, as Senator McLaren has said, that the campaign has been most dishonest. In fact I saw in some of the material circulated that it has been claimed that the Bill was rushed through the House of Representatives. In fact all that happened was that almost 3 weeks ago the second reading speech was made and the debate was adjourned. As for the honourable senator’s question about people organising campaigns, I think it is well to know how authentic these so-called mass demonstrations are. I hope that nobody from the Liberal Party or the National Country Party will take a point of order about this because I will see that the sort of relationship that does exist is exposed elsewhere, if not now. I have a letter which was sent out within the last couple of weeks by Mr Crosier of the T & G Mutual Life Society Ltd of Melbourne, who acts as the convenor of the Victorian Life Offices Association Committee for Public Relations. He referred to a meeting which was going to be held by a breakaway group from the Australian Insurance Staffs Federation, the Insurance Staffs Action Committee. He said in his letter:

Outstanding speakers from within and outside the industry will address the meeting, and questions will be invited. The meeting is open to the public and all staffs should be encouraged to invite the public (especially policy holders) to attend.

The writer referred to a Mr Barnett who was the convenor of the meeting, apparently, and went on to say:

Mr Barnett has stressed that this is a completely independent group of insurance workers, and management are not in any way associated with the organisation of this function. However, the Sub-Committee has promised its discreet full co-operation to ensure that both protest meetings will have maximum attendances. Indeed, this is essential to the success of these meetings.

I think that if anybody had any doubts as to the authenticity of these bogus rallies in which Senator Jessop masqueraded as a worker in the insurance industry the documents prove the contrary.

page 1380

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Senator YOUNG:

-I ask the Minister for the Media: What is the cost of the Government’s advertising, including that on television, of its proposed Medibank scheme as well as its legal aid scheme? Does the Government intend to run television advertisements on inflation in Australia? If so, what is the estimated cost of such publicity and when will these advertisements commence?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am unable to tell the honourable senator the cost of advertising for the Medibank and legal aid schemes. I have not been able to get the figures from my Department at this stage, because what happens is that my Department acts as the servicing department, in the case of Medibank, on behalf of the Department of Social Security which is responsible for the Medibank advertising and, in the case of the legal aid advertising, on behalf of the Attorney-General’s Department. When the figures are available I will provide them to the honourable senator. Might I say also that the advertising campaigns that have been conducted have been pretty well received and have brought a very good response.

The other matter raised by the honourable senator concerned a prospective campaign on inflation. I am given to understand by my Department that discussions have been taking place between officers of my Department and the Treasury as to the possible costs that might be involved and the possibility of developing a concept and strategy for a national plan to be waged by the Government to combat inflation. Two separate advertising agencies have been selected to act as a joint team in developing a communication concept, and recommendations to a stage ready for consideration by the Government are in the course of being drawn up. I am told by my Department that no specific budget has been set by Treasury or by my Department; nor has any decision to proceed been made at this stage. The matter is under consideration.

page 1380

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. By way of preface I mention that in the House of Representatives yesterday the Leader of the Opposition referred to a letter from the Charge d ‘Affaires of the Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, addressed to Dr Cairns, and the reply of Dr Cairns to that letter indicating that it had been forwarded to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the substance of the letter as given to the House of Representatives by the Leader of the Opposition was correct and in particular, whether the 2 points of the Provisional Revolutionary Government program required the resignation of President Thieu and the end of all United States support for the Government of South Vietnam.

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I saw the statement that Mr Fraser made in the House of Representatives yesterday. During the debate he said that Dr Cairns had written to Mr Nien, the Charge d ‘Affaires of the Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and said in his reply . . . that he has received a letter of 10 January 1975, from Mr Nien, setting out the 2 points proposal of the PRG. He said that he had passed it on to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) and asked him to give it a sympathetic eye and ear’. Mr Fraser went on to say:

Honourable members might wonder what the 2 points of the PRG program were. Those 2 points involved the resignation of President Thieu and the end of all United States support for the Government of South Vietnam.

I am quoting directly the words of Mr Fraser. I am not, as was said last night, inferring what he said. I repeat what he said:

Those 2 points involved the resignation of President Thieu and the end of all United States support for the Government of South Vietnam.

Mr Fraser continued:

These 2 demands were both contrary to the Paris Agreements. The Paris Agreements said nothing about the resignation of President Thieu. The Paris Agreements specifically allowed for continued United States support. Here was the Deputy Prime Minister supporting a proposal, which was, in itself, in breach of the Paris Agreements, in the interests of North Vietnam and the PRG and against the interests of the South.

Mr Fraser misled the House in relation to the substance of this letter. Let me read the letter. I shall read it in full to avoid the practice so much loved by the Opposition of quoting out of context. Dr Cairns’ letter read:

Dear Mr. Nien,

I have received your letter of 10th January, 1975, setting out the two point proposal of the P.R.G. and I have passed it on to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Willesee, and asked him to give a sympathetic eye and ear to your request.

What was the letter? This is the letter from the Charge d ‘Affaires to His Excellency Dr J. F. Cairns -

Senator Greenwood:

– Did Mr Fraser have that or is that something you are now producing?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I do not know whether Mr Fraser had it or not. I do not know what corruption goes on between you and the Public Service in getting these things.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are you saying that he did?

Senator WILLESEE:

– I do not know whether he did have the letter or whether he did not. If he had it he certainly did not quote from it. But what has that got to do with it? What has it got to do with it when he turns around and says that this is what -

Senator Greenwood:

– So long as you do not accuse him by saying that he had it, that is all.

Senator Wheeldon:

– If he did have it he is a liar; if he did not have it he is irresponsible.

Senator WILLESEE:

-That is right.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask the Minister to answer the question.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes, I am answering the question and with your leave, Mr President, I will answer the interjection. As has been clearly pointed out, if Mr Fraser had the letter it makes it that much worse. If he did not have it it is just as bad to go accusing Dr Cairns of doing something with no evidence at all. If Mr Fraser had the letter, he had the evidence and what he was saying was a lie. That is what the situation is. Now I will deal with the letter that went to Dr Cairns. Senator Greenwood and Mr Fraser should know whether Mr Fraser had that letter. I do not know. This is the letter to Dr Cairns:

Your Excellency,

On 3 February 1975, the Diplomatic Conference on the Development of Humanitarian Law will be held in Geneva. The Provisional Revolutionary Government has the right to participate at the Conference but its participation still depends on the support of friendly countries.

We earnestly request Your Excellency and through You to the Government of Australia to support the reasonable twopoint proposal of the PRG as follows:

All governments party to the Four 1949 Geneva Comventions are entitled to participate in the Diplomatic Conference on the Development of Humanitarian Law. As a party to the said Conventions, the PRG has a right to participate in the said Conference as the other governments.

Both administrations in South Vietnam, i.e., the PRG and the Saigon administration are to be treated without any discrimination whatsoever: either both will participate in the Conference or neither will.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

NGUYEN DY NIEN

Charge d ‘Affaires a.i.

I will not say any more. I will leave it to anybody who is not completely blinded with prejudice to decide who does mislead this Parliament.

page 1381

QUESTION

WINE AND BRANDY INDUSTRY

Senator LAUCKE:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Agriculture in his capacity as the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can he inform the Senate of what action the Government now proposes to take to alleviate the acute problems confronting the wine and brandy industry arising from the provisions of section 3 lA of the Income Tax Assessment Act and also the inordinately heavy incidence of excise duty on brandy?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I have indicated in the Senate in reply to previous questions on this subject that the Government has received a number of representations from the wine and brandy industry seeking the restoration of the excise differential in favour of brandy as against other competing spirits and some release from the financial effect resulting from the changed basis for the revaluation of wine stocks. The industry also sought greater protection from competition from imported brandies. The Prime Minister has already advised the President of the Federal Wine and Brandy Producers Council that the Government is not prepared to accede to the Council’s request that the amount of deferred taxation owing by wine makers which accumulated as a result of the previous concessional basis for valuing wine stocks be waived. The question as to whether any concession in this matter may be possible in other ways is still being considered.

As regards the question of the brandy excise differential, the matter has been kept under close review by the Government and I expect that a decision will be taken on the subject in the preBudget deliberations. I understand that there is evidence of a significant decline in the level of imports of brandy in recent months. I should mention also that, apart from one or two localised problems which I understand have been resolved, there is no evidence of a surplus of grapes this season.

page 1382

QUESTION

MEAT: EXPORT PRICES

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture. Is it a fact that prices for Australian meat are increasing in the United States? If so, what are the reasons?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Yes, there has been an increase in prices of manufacturing beef on the American market over the past two or three months. We were receiving about 45 United States cents per lb for manufacturing cow beef towards the end of February. The figure has now increased to about 55c. That represents an increase of about 20 per cent. Unfortunately, in the meantime there has been an increase in shipping freight rates on refrigerated meat of about 8 per cent or 10 per cent. The important point is that the American market is firming and the demand in the manufacturing sector has strengthened over those 3 months. It should be reiterated that this year, even under the quota, we are actually exporting a greater volume of meat to the United States than we were last year. The great problem arose towards the end of last year when the price collapsed to a level that was less than 50 per cent of what we had been obtaining prior to that. At present the signs look good. I think they are very encouraging to the beef industry, especially in the north of Australia.

page 1382

QUESTION

PROPOSED AUSTRALIAN PRESS COUNCIL

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. Does the Government propose to set up a Press commission or any form of organisation either exercising supervision or oversight of the Press or producing a government newspaper? If so, what will be the composition and powers of such a body?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDOfficials of the Australian Journalists Association saw me in Sydney last week and told me that it was AJA policy to have a voluntary Australian Press Council established. They sought my advice or assistance as to whether in the event of their being able to persuade the newspaper proprietors that they should join in a voluntary Press Council, the Government would be prepared to subvent the cost of secretarial services of such a Council. I told them that if they submitted the matter to me in writing I would consider it. Senator Chaney should know that because newspapers do not come within the ambit of responsibility of the Australian Government, and this is the legal opinion that has been suggested to me, it is just not on that an Australian government itself, without any voluntary co-operation on the part of the industry, would establish a

Press Council. Senator Chaney should know that at the Terrigal conference of my Party the section of my Party’s policy dealing with the proposed establishment of an Australian newspaper commission was altered from the proposal to conduct a feasibility study of the establishment of an Australian newspaper commission to one of conducting a feasibility study of whether the Government should establish a newspaper which would be run by a majority of the operatives working for the newspaper. My Department will be looking at the matter to give me advice about how and when such a feasibility study should be conducted.

page 1382

QUESTION

SUBSCRIBER TRUNK DIALLING TELEPHONE CALLS

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Postmaster-General, relates to the incidence of subscriber trunk dialling telephone calls. Can the Minister give any information as to the number of STD calls compared with the number of calls made through trunk line exchanges?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-In 1960 the Post Office set a target of a penetration of 66 per cent subscriber trunk dialling telephone calls to be achieved by July of this year. It was achieved in June of last year. The percentage of trunk calls which are dialled direct by subscribers has risen from less than 5 per cent prior to 1 964 to nearly 70 per cent today. It has been calculated that the general savings because of the new system amounted to $500m which in part has not only helped the Post Office but has also helped the subscribers.

page 1382

QUESTION

INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the Prime Minister has reported to the nation promptly on his return from his latest overseas trip on what he regards as the problems of the world, when can it be expected that he will report to the nation on how the Government proposes to deal with record inflation and record unemployment, which are real problems concerning the people of this nation?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I will refer the question to the Prime Minister.

page 1382

QUESTION

INSURANCE COMPANIES: ALLEGED LINKS WITH POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is supplementary to a question asked by my colleague Senator McAuliffe and is inspired by a question asked by my political opponent, Senator Greenwood, is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. In view of the disclosures made by the Minister in relation to what apparently amounts to a political tie-up between the Australian Mutual Provident Society and the Country Party or the National Party or whatever it is known as now, for what would almost appear to be criminal misuse of policy holders’ funds, will the Minister undertake an investigation to ascertain how many other insurance companies have similar links with political organisations and are similarly misappropriating funds belonging to policy holders?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Earlier, in a question to another Minister, Senator Greenwood indicated quite clearly that he had not understood the matter which had been raised by me in relation to the association between the Australian Mutual Provident Society and the National Country Party. Senator Greenwood has referred to the relationship between the Amalgamated Metalworkers’ Union and the Australian Labor Party. The association between the Amalgamated Metalworkers’ Union and the Australian Labor Party is open. That organisation is affiliated with the Australian Labor Party and all the levies or contributions which are made by the Amalgamated Metalworkers’ Union to the Australian Labor Party are done publicly and are the subject to the laws of this country. If Senator Greenwood is arguing that the Australian Mutual Provident Society wishes to be placed in the same category in its relationship with the National Country Party as the Amalgamated Metalworkers’ Union is in its relationship with the Australian Labor Party, that is perfectly in order. We would not object to that. 1 believe that the AMP Society ought to make it clear that it is an anti-Labor organisation and should tell those people who vote Labor that it is an anti-Labor organisation before they try -

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the Minister is offending against standing order 100. As I understood Senator Keeffe, he asked whether there would be an investigation of other insurance companies. I would think that Senator Keeffe would recall that that was what he asked. Senator Wheeldon is debating an issue about a question that I asked earlier and, whilst he is enjoying himself, I submit that standing order 100 states that in answering a question a senator shall not debate the matter to which the question relates. I submit that the Standing Orders should be upheld and that the Minister should be required to observe them.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister has gone to great pains to give a thorough answer to the question. I would rule that he is within the provisions of the standing order and that he has not been debating the matter.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I shall confine myself strictly to the question. Yes, I am making investigations to see what other insurance companies are also secretly, without advising their policy holders, providing the services of their staff and agents to assist anti-Labor Parties.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Discreetly.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes, I think the word discreetly ‘ is preferred by the T & G Mutual Life Society to the word ‘secretly’. 1 am making those investigations. I am also making investigations to see whether there has been any breach of the Life Insurance Act by any of these companies, because I am sure that one of the purposes of legislation regulating such activities should be to see that secret arrangements between insurance companies and political parties providing for the misuse of policy holders’ funds are not what would be envisaged by the public when they understand that there are adequate laws regulating the insurance industry, in the same way as such provisions are applied to trade unions through the industrial laws of this country.

page 1383

QUESTION

FERRIES ‘KOSCIUSKO’ AND ‘LADY FERGUSON

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Transport with whom I have had correspondence in the recent recess. As a result of that correspondence I ask: Is it correct that it cost the Australian Government $2,500 a day per ferry to tow the ferries ‘Kosciusko’ and ‘Lady Ferguson’ from Sydney to Hobart and for the tugs to return to Sydney? What has been the total cost to the Federal Government on this project? What is the current market value of each of the 2 ferries? Did any official representative of the Australian Department of Transport inspect for and make any report to the Minister or the Department of Transport as to the seaworthiness of each ferry and its ability to withstand the added strain of being towed through head seas where west to southerly winds prevail from Sydney to Hobart, which port they finally reached in very poor condition?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

- Mr Jones has supplied the following answer to Senator Marriott’s question:

The Australian Government has pledged to meet all costs of the Tasmanian Government which may be reasonably attributed to the collapse of the Tasman Bridge. The pledge extends to the cost of providing additional services such as ferries. To date the Tasmanian Government has not made any claims in respect of the acquisition and delivery to Hobart of the Sydney ferries ‘Kosciusko’ and ‘Lady Ferguson’. Prior to the departure from Sydney they were inspected by Department of Transport officials to ascertain that the ferries were capable of making the voyage. This action was taken at the request of the owner in line with section 207 of the Navigation Act which relates to seaworthiness. No report has yet been made to the Minister.

page 1384

QUESTION

BRUCELLOSIS AND TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION CAMPAIGN

Senator GIETZELT:

– I ask the Minister for Agriculture: Is it a fact that less money is being made available in New South Wales for the campaign to eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis in cattle? Also, is it a fact that there has been a reduction in tuberculosis testing in that State? If this is so, will the Minister advise the Senate why this is happening?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not aware of any greater reduction in funds being made in New South Wales than in any other State for the eradication campaign. In fact, payments this year under the program will be in the area of $2m which is a significant increase on what it was when we came to power. I am speaking from memory but I think it was then about $0.75m, so a threefold increase has occurred in the last 3 years. The testing campaign would be conducted by the New South Wales authorities. If there is a reduction within that State I think it is for the New South Wales Minister to answer why.

page 1384

QUESTION

SHIPPING STRIKE

Senator RAE:

– Did the Leader of the Government in the Senate or any other Minister of the Government or the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions take any steps during the recent shipping strike to exempt Tasmanian shipping from the strike and so fulfil the promises made by both Australian Labor Party members and the President of the ACTU prior to the 1972 election?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I would not have the details of such a matter. I can only refer the question to the Minister for Labor and Immigration.

page 1384

QUESTION

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour and Immigration · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General as the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I refer to my previous question of 1 1 February this year in relation to the operation of the Regional Employment Development scheme in South Australia and especially to projects approved and jobs provided in that State.

Can he now provide the information I previously sought?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The information supplied by Mr Clyde Cameron is that up to and including 1 May of this year the total number of projects approved in Australia was 5509, including 375 in South Australia. In addition 152 projects have been provisionally approved in Australia. Eight of these have been in South Australia. The total cost of the projects in Australia was $ 155,744,000. That included $9,595,000-odd for South Australia. The amount of the Australian Government’s contribution through the RED scheme is $128,648,390 for Australia and $7,057,5 10 for South Australia.

page 1384

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General. I refer to the widespread and devastating bushfires in New South Wales in the December-January period of 1974-75 in particular. The Postmaster-General will be aware that amongst the great damage accruing was the loss of telephone communications on a large scale. Is he aware that many people in burnt-out areas are, four and five months later, still without telephone services? Will he seek urgently the reinstallation of a first class service in the many ravaged areas in the south, centre, west and north-west of the State? Further, will the Postmaster-General indicate that generous financial assistance will be made available to enable people to carry out the proper reconstruction of the private sections, often involving sums of up to $9,000 per subscriber? Would not such a generous approach be in line with the Government’s attitude in the, quite proper, rehabilitation of Darwin?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– As the honourable senator has just mentioned in the latter part of his question, for the first time that I can remember the Australian Government decided in the aftermath of the cyclone in Darwin to made certain advances to cover the damage caused by the cyclone. After that a number of representations were made- I know that one was made by Mr John Fitzpatrick- in which it was said that in the circumstances of bushfires and similar disasters there ought to be action by the Post Office to remedy whatever defect in equipment might have occurred as a result of those disasters. The Post Office and I take the view that, while the idea is a good one, the funding of it should come from another government source. We have referred the requests we have received from the sources I have mentioned to my colleague, Senator Wheeldon, to see whether some funding might in fact apply in those circumstances so that it would not be left to the Post Office to remedy those defects and therefore have to pass on the extra expense incurred in such a process to the ordinary users of such facilities. Senator Wheeldon might be in a position to respond partly with the information that he has obtained about the requests that have been made to him.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I could add something that would be of assistance to Senator Scott. This is a matter which has concerned the Department of Repatriation and Compensation. In fact, it is in order to overcome problems of this type that the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill has been introduced. National interest insurance will be provided by that Office for people such as farmers who have suffered from the hardships that are not normally covered by insurance offices. I take it that, as Senator Scott is so interested in this matter, he will be supporting the Bill so that we will be able to give adequate assistance to farmers in instances such as the one he has raised.

page 1385

QUESTION

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Last night Senator Wright asked me a question about the visit of Mr El Surani from Cairo. It will be recalled that I was uncertain about Mr El Surani ‘s title and the places he is to visit. I take this opportunity of giving Senator Wright some more detailed information. A visa to visit Australia has been issued to Mr El Surani. Mr El Surani will make a private visit to Australia. There is to be no Government sponsorship. Mr El Surani is a representative of the Arab League in Cairo. He is also a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in Cairo. He applied to visit Australia as a representative of the Arab League. The Arab League is a loose association of Arab countries. Another matter on which I was groping for information last night and was not able to find it is the fact that he is scheduled to arrive early in June. He will be visiting India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore.

page 1385

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

- Mr President, under standing order 408 I seek the indulgence of the Senate to make a personal explanation. I believe that my Party- the National Country Party of Australia- and I have been misrepresented during question time.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you seeking leave to make a statement or claiming that you have been misrepresented?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I seek leave, Mr President. I was seeking your indulgence.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would like the Senate to give leave to Senator Drake-Brockman. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-During question time today I felt that some of the answers given by the Minister were unbecoming and not in conformity with the Standing Orders of this Senate.

Senator Wriedt:

– Which standing order?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am just going to explain that, if the Minister will allow me. Senator Wheeldon claimed that he has evidence of a deal between my Party and the insurance industry. He may have a letter from an insurance company, but I say to him quite factually that there is no deal between the insurance industry and the National Country Party. He knows as well as I do that a representative from the Australian Mutual Provident Society has been around Parliament House for some weeks interviewing members of both the Government Party and the Opposition Parties. That representative has been to see Senator Wheeldon, as he has been to see me, and he has seen many other members of this Senate in order to put his case before them. He came into my office one day and asked whether he could see some of the members of my Party. I said: ‘If you hop into the room next door, there is a number of them there and you can address them’. He did just that and he put his views to them, as he has done to all honourable senators. The result was that some of the senators and members in that room asked the representative to send them some factual information on the case put forward by the insurance industry. I understand that he has provided such information, together with a covering letter. That is all this matter is about. Senator Wheeldon is trying to vent his spleen against the insurance industry on my Party. There is nothing to it other than that.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

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

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. This matter is not allowed to be debated, under standing order 408.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator DrakeBrockman sought leave of the Senate to make a statement and leave was granted by the Senate. He has made his statement and has completed it. I now call Senator Wheeldon.

Senator WHEELDON:

– In order that there shall be no misunderstanding about this matter, I table the documents from the Australian Mutual Provident Society, which speak for themselves.

page 1386

WHEAT RESEARCH ACT

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Wheat Research Act 1957 I present the seventeenth annual report on the operation of that Act.

page 1386

COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I present the text of the communique issued on 6 May 1975 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kingston, Jamaica.

page 1386

AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND AND UNITED STATES COUNCIL

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a communique issued at the twenty-fourth meeting of the ANZUS Council held in Washington on 24 and 25 April 1975 together with a statement by me on that meeting.

page 1386

VICTORIAN ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Pursuant to the provisions of section 23A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973 I present a copy of the report with maps showing the boundaries of each proposed division by the Distribution Commissioners for Victoria together with copies of the suggestions, comments or objections lodged with the Commissioners, and move:

That the report and maps be printed.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 1386

NEW SOUTH WALES ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Pursuant to the provisions of section 23 A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973 I present a copy of the report with maps showing the boundaries of each proposed division by the Distribution Commissioners for New South Wales together with copies of the suggestions, comments or objections lodged with the Commissioners, and move:

That the report and maps be printed.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 1386

SOUTH PACIFIC CONFERENCE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND RESERVES

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the South Pacific Conference on National Parks and Reserves held in Wellington, New Zealand, during 24 to 27 February 1975.

page 1386

NORTHERN TERRITORY POLICE

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Northern Territory Police for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 1386

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS: PRECEDENCE

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That, unless otherwise ordered, for the remainder of this period of sittings, Government Business take precedence of General Business on Thursdays after 8 p.m.

page 1386

QUESTION

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

-Is Government Business, notice of motion No. 1, formal or not formal?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Formal.

Senator Steele Hall:

– Not formal.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Senator Withers:

– Can the Minister give an indication when he will bring this matter on?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I hope that it will come on either shortly before or shortly after the luncheon break.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– The Standing Orders provide that the motion should be discharged forthwith, do they not?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-No. It has been declared ‘not formal ‘.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1386

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I move:

The principal features of this Bill are substantial increases in the basic rates of pensions and benefits, an increase in additional payments for children, implementation of the second step in the Government’s program to abolish the means test on age pensions, provision for the payment of unemployment, sickness and special benefit weekly in advance instead of weekly in arrear and provision for the immediate payment of special benefit to persons newly discharged from gaol.

The standard rate of pension for aged persons, invalids, widows and supporting mothers is to be increased by $5 a week to $36 a week. The married rate is to be increased by $4.25 a week to $30 a week, or by $8.50 a week from $51.50 to $60 a week for a pensioner couple. Additional payments for children of pensioners and supporting mothers are to be increased by $1.50 a week to $7 a week for each child. The overall effect of these increases will be that a single pensioner with 2 children will receive a total increase of $8 a week. A married pensioner couple with 2 children will receive a combined increase of $ 1 1 .50 a week. These increases will flow on to recipients of sheltered employment allowances. Unemployment, sickness and special benefits will be increased by the same amounts. Some 170 000 pensioner and beneficiary families will receive increases in additional payments for approximately 340 000 children. The full year cost of these measures is estimated to be $433m. Corresponding increases in service pensions will involve an additional $27m a year, giving a total cost of approximately $460m. For 1974-75 the cost will be approximately $88m.

The new standard rate of pension proposed in this Bill will represent 24.5 per cent of seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings in the December quarter 1974, the latest quarter for which figures are available. Although we have not quite reached our objective of a standard rate pension of 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings, it is still a record proportion. In the Liberal Government’s last year of office the comparable proportion was only 21.0 per cent. Since we assumed office in December 1972 the standard rate of pension has increased by 80 per cent and the combined married rate by nearly 74 per cent. For the same period the consumer price index has increased by 36.3 per cent. This indicates that there has been a substantial redistribution of purchasing power to pensioners and social security beneficiaries under this Government.

I feel I need to comment only briefly on the relationship between the married rate of pension and the standard rate. With the proposed increases the standard rate will continue to represent 60 per cent of the combined rate for a pensioner couple. This ratio is almost the same as the 61.4 per cent recommended by Professor Henderson in his interim report. I am convinced that we are correct in continuing to pay differential rates of pension. This policy has been followed in Australia for many years and it is an almost universal feature of overseas pension schemes.

The proposed increases in pension will have the effect of raising the limits of income and property at which pensions cease to be payable under the means test. This will enable people who are now excluded from pension entitlement to qualify for some payment for the first time. A single person without children and with no property affecting his pension will retain some pension entitlement until his other income reaches $92 a week. If he has no other income he will be eligible to receive some pension until the value of his property assessable for means test purposes reaches $48,240. For a married couple without children, the equivalent limits of income and property will be $154.50 a week and $81,160 respectively. A widow or supporting mother with one child and no property affecting will be able to receive other income of up to $ 120 a week before losing her entitlement to widow’s pension, or up to $ 124 if her child is under 6 years of age or an invalid child requiring full time care. If she has no income affecting, a widow with one child may have property to the value of $54,000, or $56,080 if her child is under six or an invalid child requiring full time care, before entitlement is extinguished. There are various combinations of income and property in between the figures I have quoted which will permit the payment of a full or part pension.

Means Test

Honourable senators will recall that the first historic step towards abolition of the means test on age pensions was taken by this Government in September 1973. Since that date all residentially qualified members of the community aged 75 or more have been able to receive age pensions free of the means test. We are now taking the second step in our program for abolishing the means test for all age pensioners over 65 years of age. This Bill will give effect to that step. Age pensions payable free of the means test will be made available to people in the 70 to 74 age group as from payday 1 May 1975. The Bill allows a period of 3 months grace from the date it becomes law in which claims may be lodged without loss of arrears.

An estimated 43 000 people who are currently receiving pensions at reduced rates will benefit from this measure by becoming entitled to payment at the maximum rate. In addition an estimated 56 000 people who are presently excluded on account of means will become eligible. These will be people in the relevant age group who have fulfilled the residence qualifications for age pension. A period of 10 years’ continuous residence in Australia at any time is required. This period is reduced where a person has lived in Australia for periods aggregating to more than 10 years and has had a period of continuous residence of not less than 5 years. Guardian’s allowance and additional payments for children will continue to be subject to the means test as will wife’s pension. Similarly supplementary assistance will remain payable subject to the existing supplementary assistance means test. In addition free-of-means-test pensioners will be required to continue to satisfy a means test to qualify for Australian Government ‘fringe’ benefits such as entitlement to a Pensioner Medical Service Card. The cost of extending free of means test pensions to the 70-74 age group is estimated to be $ 1 5m for 1 974-75 and $ 1 1 8m for a full year.

Transitional Benefit for the Aged Blind

Honourable senators will recall that a transitional benefit of $3 a week was introduced in September 1973 for the aged blind. The purpose of the benefit was to ensure that aged blind pensioners were not disadvantaged by the decision, taken at the time it was decided to abolish the means test on age pensions, to subject to income tax all social service type pensions payable to persons of age pension age. As its name implies, it was intended as a temporary measure only. It was reduced to $1.50 a week in July 1974 when the standard rate of pension was increased by $5 a week and the combined married rate by $6 a week. The Bill now before the Senate provides for the transitional benefit to be completely phased out as from pension payday 1 May 1975.

Payment of Benefits in Advance

The proposal to make unemployment, sickness and special benefit payable weekly in advance instead of weekly in arrear will, with the passing of this Bill, reduce by 7 days the time it takes the claimant to receive a first benefit cheque. The estimated cost of this measure for the remainder of 1974-75 is $2.4m and $9.4m for a full year. I should add that the Department of Social Security has been paying unemployment benefit in advance on all new claims approved on or after 1 3 January 1 975. The Bill will remove any doubts which may have existed concerning that practice.

Persons Newly Discharged From Gaol

The Government has been concerned for some time that persons newly discharged from gaol are often not given an adequate opportunity to re-establish themselves within the community. Many are faced with considerable expense in securing suitable accommodation. Then there are the outstanding debts which are often left to accumulate during imprisonment. Many are left to subsist on handouts from Church and voluntary organisations. As a result many again lapse into crime. The Government is keenly aware of the problems and has decided to take yet another step to fill a gap in our social security system which should not have been allowed to continue.

With the passing of this Bill special benefit will be payable immediately to persons newly discharged from gaol. The rate of benefit, means test and method of assessment of entitlement will be in accordance with the normal unemployment and sickness benefit provisions, whichever are appropriate. The cost of this proposal is estimated to be $0.7m for a full year and $0.1 m for 1974-75. As a general rule special benefit will be paid for one week. At the end of that time those qualified will transfer to unemployment benefit or if incapacitated for work to sickness benefit but hopefully the vast majority will secure work within a short period of their release from gaol. It is hoped that the prison authorities in each State will extend any help they can to the Department of Social Security to enable the scheme to operate efficiently. The Department will be contacting the authorities on this matter.

Mr President, a new method of payment for pensions and similar long term benefits is provided for in the Bill. The Government proposes to enable child endowment, double orphan’s pension, handicapped child’s allowance and age, invalid and wife’s pension, widow’s pension and supporting mother’s benefit to be paid to the credit of savings accounts with permanent building societies. Initially only child endowment will be paid to building society accounts but the other benefits will be paid in this manner as soon as the necessary administrative arrangements can be made.

Date of Commencement

The Bill provides for the new rates to commence from 1 May 1975 in the case of age, invalid and wife’s pension and from 6 May 1975 for widow’s pension and supporting mother’s benefit. Increases in the rates of unemployment, sickness and special benefits will operate in respect of benefit payments due on and after the day of Royal Assent.

The estimated cost of the proposals in this Bill is $106m in 1974-75 and $587m for a full year. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– The Opposition supports the measures which have been outlined in the Social Services Bill 1975. Because we are aware of the need of the people to receive these benefits we have decided that the Bill will proceed through the Senate without delay. I take this opportunity, however, to challenge the Press reports which were issued during the Parliamentary recess, which suggested that it was the Senate which had been delaying the payments provided for in these measures. It will be now understood that this Bill has reached the Senate today for the first time. It has not been impeded. It will not be the subject of lengthy discussion; it has our support for a speedy passage. The provisions which provide for substantial increases in the rates of pensions are welcomed, and I take note of the figures which have been given by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) showing that the new standard rate of pension will represent approximately 24.5 per cent of seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings in the December quarter of 1 974. 1 take note also of the fact that this Bill is proceeding in May of this year so it should be recognised that there has been a substantial increase in the figures to which the payments relate. The figure of 24.5 per cent falls further short than is evident of the objective which the Government has stated as being its consistent attitude, namely, the payment of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The time lag taken in relating the figure to earnings in December last year does not disclose the true relativity of the rate which the pension has now achieved.

The Opposition notes the figures relating to supporting mothers, the widows with one child or no property and the benefits which have been related to them. I use this opportunity to refer again to supporting fathers. I hope that such people in our community who are suffering hardship through their responsibilities will be acknowledged in this year’s Budget as being entitled to some measures of Government assistance. They are eliminated repeatedly from any Government measures and I hope that some opportunity will be taken to recognise the need in many cases of supporting fathers who face extreme difficulties.

Attention also should be paid to the anomaly which has occurred with regard to aged blind people. It will be acknowledged that they receive a non-taxable pension until they are eligible to receive the age pension, at which time the benefit of non-taxability of the pension is removed. I draw attention to this anomaly and suggest that it is worthy of consideration by the Government as being something which could be of assistance to these people who have special needs. I note that there is to be a reduction in the time lag for payment of benefits such as these. Payment will now be weekly in advance instead of weekly in arrears. In acknowledging the benefit of these people having 7 days less time in which to wait I still draw attention to the delays which occur in receiving pensions after entitlement and the hardship which is caused by that delay. The matter of crediting pensions in savings accounts with permanent building societies undoubtedly will be of assistance to people who require their pension to be paid direct into that form of savings institution. With those few remarks the Opposition supports the Bill.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– in reply- I thank Senator Guilfoyle for her support of the Bill and the Government will take account of the constructive suggestions she offered. However I ask her and her colleagues when in future they offer suggestions as to how government expenditure should be increased to explain how their suggestions for increases in government expenditure, albeit for socially desirable matters such as those mentioned by Senator Guilfoyle, are to be correlated with their policy of reducing government expenditure. I believe the things she suggested are desirable but sometimes I find it difficult to follow the argument. On the one hand they say we should increase government expenditure while on the other hand they condemn us because we have increased government expenditure. I am afraid I did not see the newspaper reports to which the honourable senator referred and I cannot comment on them. It is a fact that this Bill reached the Senate only today but I think it may well be recollected that on the last day during the previous weeks of sitting the Government wished to continue sitting so that the various matters -

Senator Marriott:

– Do not put that one over.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I will not pursue the argument. As Senator Marriott has expressed his support for what I have said I will accept his contribution and commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1390

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is a combined Bill which will authorise changes to the Repatriation Act and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowance Act. The Bill provides for increases and other improvements in repatriation benefits foreshadowed in last year’s Budget. It also authorises an increase in the war and defence widows ‘ pension rate.

Service Pensions

At present, the means test does not apply to service pensioners who are aged 75 years or over, and the Bill provides for abolition of the means test for those aged 70 years and over. This will go a long way towards the Government’s ultimate objective of abolishing the means test for all service pensioners aged 65 years or over. The cost of this proposal will be $ 1.333m for the remainder of this financial year and $8.667m for a full financial year.

In determining the amount of service pension payable where a person is still subject to the means test, it is necessary to take into account a person’s income. As most honourable senators will be aware, this Government’s policy is that disability pensions, which are paid as compensation for service-related incapacity, should not be taken into account as income in the assessment of service pension. To that end, and as a first step, the 1973 Budget provisions disregarded 25 per cent of disability pension for service pension assessment purposes. This Bill provides that a further 25 per cent, bringing the total to 50 per cent, will be disregarded in assessing rates of service pension for those still subject to the means test. It is estimated that the cost of this relaxation of the means test will be $0.1 5 8m for the remainder of this financial year and $ 1.030m for a full financial year. The Bill will extend service pension eligibility to veterans of Commonwealth countries other than Australia. In this context Commonwealth countries’ will include those countries, dominions and colonies that were, at the time of the relevant war or war-like operation, part of the British Empire or members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

In order to qualify for service pensions these veterans must have been resident in Australia for at least 10 years, in the same way as applicants for age and invalid pensions under the Social Services Act. They will be required to have served outside their countries of enlistment or else have qualified for the award of a campaign medal in respect of service against the enemy during wars or war-like operations in which Australian forces were engaged. Although it is difficult to say just how many veterans will qualify under the new provisions, the best available estimates are that some 9500 persons could become eligible immediately and, on that basis, the cost for 1974-75 will be $1.1 58m and for 1975-76, $7.530m. Although not specifically provided for in this Bill, there will be increases in the rates of service pension and in the additional amounts payable to service pensioners with children. These will flow automatically from proposals my colleague, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden), has already announced.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Before the suspension of the sitting for the luncheon break I was in the process of speaking to the second reading of the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill, and I shall continue from the stage at which I left off.

Transitional Benefit for Aged Blind

The Bill provides for cessation of the transitional benefit of $1.50 a week paid to aged Service pensioners who are blind. As its name implies, this was a benefit introduced for a temporary period to offset any loss which may have been suffered by such a person whose Service pension became taxable in 1973. No Service pensioners will suffer reductions in Service pension as a result of this provision, as the increase in the maximum rate of Service pension will more than offset the effect of this provision.

Disability Pensions

I shall now outline the specific increases proposed in the Bill. The rates of payment of the various pensions referred to are weekly amounts.

Special Rates

The special (totally and permanently incapacitated) rate pension is payable to those veterans who, because of Service-related incapacity, are totally and permanently incapacitated to such an extent as to be unable to earn more than a negligible percentage of a living wage. This rate is also payable to the Service-blinded, to certain double amputees, to certain sufferers of pulmonary tuberculosis, and to those temporarily totally incapacitated because of Service-related incapacity. About 1 8 600 will benefit from this pro- posal to increase the special rate by $4.00 to 68.10, at an estimated cost of $0.628m for the remainder of this financial year and $4.080m for a full financial year. The intermediate rate pension is paid to about 1 900 veterans who, because of Service-related incapacity, are able to work only part-time or intermittently. The Bill provides for this rate to be increased by $3.50 to $48.05. The cost of the proposal is estimated at $0.053m for the remainder of this financial year and $0.344m for a full financial year.

General Rate

About 190 000 veterans who suffer Servicerelated incapacity receive general rate pension at percentages from 10 to 100. Veterans in this group are not prevented from engaging in employment because of their Service-related incapacity, but their earning powers may be restricted. The Bill provides for the 100 per cent rate to be increased by $3.00 to $28.00. There will be proportionate increases for rates lower than 100 per cent. The cost of this proposal will be about $ 1.891m for the 1974-75 financial year and $ 12.291m for a full year.

War and Defence Widows

The war and defence widows’ pension rate is payable where a veteran’s death is related to his service or where he was receiving at the time of his death, or would have been entitled to receive, a special (TPI) rate disability pension. The Bill proposes an increase of $5.00 to $36.00 in this rate of pension. The cost of this proposal is estimated at $2.046m for this year and $ 1 3.296m for the next financial year.

So, Mr President, you will see from what I have said that this Government is proposing substantial improvements in the repatriation sector costing approximately $47. 238m in a full year. In addition, a further $32.029m will be provided for increases in Service pension flowing from amendments to the Social Services Act. It is proposed that the increased rates of existing pensions will apply from 8 May 1975. Pensioners will receive the increases as soon as practicable after the Bill is passed by both Houses of the Parliament. It is anticipated this will be pay-day 5 June 1975, on which date the new rates will be paid together with arrears of the increases from 8 May 1975. It is my pleasure, Mr President, to commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

-On behalf of the Opposition I rise to support the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1975. Remembering question time today before lunch and the fact that the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon), who was so constantly on the job, then followed by introducing the Social Services Bill 1975 and followed immediately after by introducing this Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1975, 1 think one can say to the Minister: ‘Little man, you are having a busy day’. But the Minister is receiving the co-operation of the Opposition because we see benefits coming from this legislation. There are 2 reasons why I am not going to prolong the debate on this measure. The first is that both prior to lunch and just now the listening public, Hansard and the media, if they were interested, had the opportunity of knowing the detailed contents of this legislation, and I do not believe in mere repetition for repetition’s sake. Also the massive public relations ability of the Government and the expensive advertising which it undertook have long ere this told the public of Australia what are the main benefits accruing to beneficiaries under repatriation legislation.

The Bill came into the Senate this morning and will be passed, I believe, fairly shortly. I emphasise that the Senate sat yesterday but did not receive the Bill. The Senate had enjoyed, or endured, according to one’s likes and dislikes, a fortnight’s recess ordered by the Government to allow the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to go overseas. So let us not have any nonsense to the effect that we on this side of the Parliament have delayed the benefits being passed on to the veterans. There was reference in another debate to an article written during the recess by Mr Laurie Oakes in the Melbourne ‘Sun’. I must be fair both to him and to others. His quite wrong, unfair, ill-informed criticism of the Senate was concerned only with an Appropriation Bill and money to be appropriated for defence service homes. He did not, in my belief, refer at all to repatriation or social security benefits.

The second reason why I am happy to encourage the speedy passage of this legislation is that I understand from the Minister’s second reading speech that if we pass it today the benefits not only will be back dated to 8 May but also will flow on to the beneficiaries as from the pay day of repatriation benefits on 5 June. So, unless we have reason to oppose or to probe, it is our moral duty to get on with the debate.

I believe that the Bill does 2 things. First of all, it puts into effect promises or policy announced in the 1974-75 Budget. Of course, one cannot criticise a government that puts into legislative form in May promises it made in August of the previous year. Secondly, I think it is fair to say that the Bill does show the development of Labor policy in this sphere of welfare legislation. I do not know of anybody who could be critical of the progress being made in relation to repatriation benefits. This Bill would, I believe, support that view. It must be said that the increases, in dollars and cents, are much bigger than were provided 10 or 15 years ago by the LiberalCountry Party coalition. But it is not true to say that the Government is being more generous. It is fair to say that the Government is endeavouring with all its financial and monetary responsibilities to keep repatriation benefits rates and allowances abreast of inflation. I believe that is putting the position very fairly in a non-party political sense.

A further reason why I am quite happy to help speed this legislation through the chamber is that it is traditional that important policy matters, such as repatriation and social welfare matters, are properly, fully and critically examined when the annual Budget of any government is presented in August because that Budget contains the financial policy for the ensuing year. The introduction of this Bill is a popping-up action to keep repatriation benefits abreast, if possible, of inflation. The Government must not think that we on this side of the chamber do not believe that more should flow to repatriation beneficiaries. We believe that we should be satisfied with what is being done in a half-term measure and await the Government’s fiscal policy in this sphere in the Budget which I believe will be presented in August.

I take the sincere view, particularly when we are dealing with mid-year legislation that is acceptable or good- I put this Bill in that category- that we are not obstructionists. This morning we passed in, I think, about 20 minutes the Social Services Bill which will bring great benefit to many thousands of people throughout Australia. Any Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill which increases benefits, as this Bill certainly does, and which widens the scope of eligibility and thereby increases the number of beneficiaries, as this Bill does, deserves consideration free of cheap party political gibes and of emotionalism. Honourable senators on both sides of the chamber have to bear in mind that the times through which we are passing should lead us to give very careful consideration to the financial policy which the Government puts forward and which the Senate, which is its master, agrees to pass. I support the legislation.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (2.27)- I rise to my feet because this is the only opportunity that presents itself to me to correct a matter which was mentioned twice this morning. I refer to an article in the Melbourne Sun’ which was written by one Oakes, who I understand is the Canberra Press representative for the Melbourne ‘Sun’. It relates to the events of the Wednesday prior to the Senate adjourning, before the journey abroad of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). I mention this to you, Sir, as the President of the Senate, in rather tenuous outline because this article was a gross travesty of the truth of the events that happened on that Wednesday.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Did the article refer to the Repatriation Bill that is before the Senate at the moment?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-It referred to the Senate’s inability to pass Bills that relate to the well-being of ex-servicemen, and that is why I address myself to it. It was mentioned in the cross-talk that occurred in the Senate today before the suspension of the sitting for lunch.

The PRESIDENT:

– If you address yourself to the Bill you may refer to the matter.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I am addressing myself to the Bill by saying that I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to redress a statement which was grossly untrue and had nothing to do with the events that it purported to describe. If the matter is forced hard enough, I am prepared to move a motion under standing order 427 which relates to a matter of privilege.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– in reply- I am afraid that I am unable to comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the article by Mr Oakes which has been mentioned. I have not read the article; nor until a couple of hours ago was I aware that Mr Oakes had written an article on this or any other subject. The article apparently was not in any of the journals which I habitually read. What Senator Sir Magnus Cormack proposes to do about Mr Oakes, naturally, is a matter for him to determine. I am afraid that I am unable to offer any assistance in this matter.

I appreciate the approach which the Opposition has adopted to the passage of this Bill and of the Bill relating to social services, which preceded it. I thank Senator Marriott for his remarks not only insofar as they relate to the merits of the Bill but also insofar as they relate to my unsurpassed industry in this chamber. Having said that, I once again thank the Opposition for its support. I trust that this Bill, which is of considerable importance to a great many well deserving people, has a speedy passage through this chamber and is implemented speedily.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1393

PARLIAMENT ACT 1974

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to draw the attention of honourable senators to sections 4 and 5 of the Parliament Act 1974. These sections of the Act set the site for the new and permanent parliament house and established a parliamentary zone in which building construction must receive parliamentary approval prior to erection. This of course would include the construction of a new and permanent parliament house. At a recent meeting of the Joint House Committee it was agreed that the Presiding Officers should draw the attention of their respective Houses to Parliament’s responsibilities under the Act. While the Presiding Officers may not initiate the formation of appropriate machinery by which Parliament can adequately carry out its responsibilities under section 5 of the Act, each House can, and I feel should, give consideration to the way in which Parliament can best participate in the planning of a new and permanent parliament house. I recommend to honourable senators that they give their earnest consideration to the responsibilities of the Senate as a House of this Parliament under section 5 of the Act.

page 1393

TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

I am pleased to introduce to the House a Bill to establish the Trade Union Training Authority. The Bill sets the seal on one of the Government ‘s major initiatives and aims embodied in its industrial relations policy, the provision of adequate training facilities for trade unionistsboth their leaders and their rank and file members. It recognises the crucial importance to Australia’s industrial relations system of an efficient and well-led trade union movement. The Government has given a massive boost to education. It now formally accepts its responsibility for ensuring that trade unionists have an opportunity to participate in training programs designed specifically for their needs.

Australia is one of the most highly unionised countries in the world. In fact, one of the main aims of our unique conciliation and arbitration machinery is to encourage and protect the development of trade unions as social institutions. Some 53 per cent of wage and salary earners in public and private employment belong to unions. The total resources available for union training, however, are negligible compared with those available for management training. Significant changes have occurred in recent years which have resulted in increased pressures on the union movement, as well as on management. Union officials’ jobs are becoming more complex. Technological change, acceleration in the economic growth rate, the change in industrial relations scene with collective bargaining and worker participation in management, and growing complexity of awards and legislation all add to the demands placed upon today’s union officials. The workforce is now better educated and unions are having an increasing impact on society. It is crucial to better labor relations that those who do business on behalf of organised labor know and are able to articulate the views of those whom they represent. At the shop floor level, the shop steward traditionally fulfils a formidable number of duties. He is a vital link in the chain of communication that ought to operate between shop floor and management.

Fifty years ago, when educational opportunities depended upon a parent’s pocket rather than upon a student’s intelligence, many of those who in today’s circumstances would have become the country’s leading lawyers, scientists, academics or professionals gravitated to leadership of the trade union movement. Chifley, Curtin, Theodore, Rosevear, Eddie Ward, Percy Clarey, Clarrie Fallon, Jim Healey, Bill McCormack, David Temple, William Lane are some of the most outstanding examples. We still have men and women working on the factory floor who are there for reasons of lack of education. The fulltime union official is in a unique and unenviable position in that all too often he or she is forced to learn his or her skill on the job. There is nowhere a plumber, an insurance clerk or a waterside worker can systematically or readily acquire new skills as a research officer or negotiator.

By the establishment of the trade union training scheme as detailed in this Bill, they will be instructed in how to analyse the significance of today’s rapid changes, accept new ideas and methods and perform more effectively their organising and administrative duties within the union movement. The training provided will be aimed primarily at promoting trade union competence. Such training will go towards bridging the gap between unionists’ and managements’ level of industrial relations knowledge and technique. This will undoubtedly diminish the tensions and frustrations between the 2 parties and contribute to the more efficient avoidance and resolution of industrial conflict. We have too many unions and union fees are too low. We need fewer and more efficient unions. The internal resources of unions are small. Therefore, funds must be obtained by means which will not diminish trade union responsibility. I feel sure the Senate will agree that trade union training should not be excluded from the many fields of training and education which a responsible Government supports and assists financially.

I shall now turn to 2 major factors determining the nature of trade union training provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides for trade union training to be offered by a national college and State centres which are established solely for that purpose. The training of unionists in union functions is a specialised task. Instructors and lecturers need to thoroughly understand their subject and the objectives and nature of the trade union movement. It must be the special responsibility of the union movement to formulate its own training schemes to accord with its own ideas and not to leave them to outside institutions. Thus the conduct of courses cannot be a joint responsibility of unions and employers. Whilst there are many similar problems facing employer and union bodies, there is much that they do not have in common.

Certainly, both unionists and management representatives do attend courses and seminars in industrial relations and associated areas jointly. This is excellent and is to be encouraged. I least of all would support any idea of training activities for unionists being carried out in isolation of the rest from the community. However, these activities are not designed specifically to develop the expertise of unionists as officials and members in the union movement itself. There has always been a range of governmentsponsored or assisted management schools, entry to which places no emphasis on participation by the trade union movement. The trade union training proposals can be seen as balancing government assistance to management training. For instance, the Government has established the Australian Graduate School of Management at the University of New South Wales and is providing $2m per annum to support it, but no-one would suggest that this is other than to meet the needs of the private sector for skilled managers. This is not the only form of assistance which is given to the training of management. I can certainly see some possibility in the long term of the proposed Trade Union Training Authority coming together with management education bodies to run joint programs. However, its primary objective will be the adequate provision of trade union training. The philosophy expressed in this Bill is well recognised in many other countries and their experience has been drawn on in planning the development of trade union training in Australia. Most industrialised countries are providing organised education and training for unions. Establishment of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority will provide the means whereby we can catch up with these countries.

Before I turn to the present union training developments in Australia there is one further issue I would like to raise- paid education leave. The skills being developed by union training should be seen as an integral part of union official’s work. It would be highly impracticable to provide such training out of work time. Industry and commerce recognises to a large extent the right of apprentices, supervisors, managers, and others to in-company or external training for which paid leave is granted. They now need to recognise the similar right of trade unionists. The 1974 Conference of the International Labour Organisation adopted a convention and recommendation on paid educational leave. Australia and other member countries are now considering ratification of this convention. The Australian Public Service and the State Public Services in South Australia and Tasmania have taken the lead through the provision of paid educational leave for trade union training. Increasingly, private employers are recognising the need to do likewise and some formal arrangements have been made. For instance, in the vehicle industry there is already provision for paid educational leave for shop stewards attending union training courses.

Since November 1973 the Government has taken steps to support and expand trade union training activities already in existence, most importantly by setting up an Interim Committee for Trade Union Training. Membership of the Interim Committee reflects the composition of the Australian Council. Under the chairmanship of the permanent head of my Department, it comprises 3 representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, one each from the other peak union councils- the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations- and a representative of each of the State Labor Councils. The Committee submitted a report to the Minister for Labor and Immigration for the fiscal year 1973-74 covering its first 7 months of operation, and this was tabled in Parliament on 4 December last year. The Committee has advised the Minister of its views and comments on this legislation. It has done much to plan for a national college of trade union training.

I want to outline to the chamber now the principal features of the Bill. The Bill has been carefully drafted so as to be appropriate to the involvement of public funds in the activities that the Bill encompasses. I can say to the Senate there is no absolute need to bring down legislation on this subject. The Bill is therefore an expression of the Government’s intention that what it is already doing will be the subject of continuing parliamentary scrutiny. As further evidence of this, I would like to draw to the attention of honourable senators the fact that when the Bill was before the House of Representatives the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) accepted an amendment moved by the Opposition to include in the Australian Council for Union Training one member of Parliament appointed by the Prime Minister, another member appointed by the Leader of the Opposition and a member of the Council appointed on the nomination of the Minister for Education. There is a provision in the Bill for annual reports to the activities of the Authority to be presented to Parliament and it contains other provisions that will ensure proper control of the public funds which will be devoted to these activities. The organisation scheme proposed by the Bill is a simple one. It centres around the sharing of responsibilities by a national body, the Australian Council for Union TrainingACUT and 6 State Councils for Union Training. The whole will constitute a statutory corporation which will be known as the Trade Union Training Authority- TUTA.

The Australian Council will be responsible for the general policy-making and direction of the activities of the Authority. The State Councils will be responsible for carrying out programs of union training. In this they will enjoy a degree of independence. The Australian Council will control the functioning of the national college, approve funds for trade union training programs, for carrying out of research into union training. The duties and powers of State Councils are set out in clause 1 1 . They will be responsible to the Australian Council for all matters relating to their respective State centres. They may make recommendations to the Australian Council. State Councils will have autonomy in setting their syllabuses, and in selecting students. Funding of State programs will be co-ordinated by the national body.

The Australian Council will be chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Immigration or another officer of the Department appointed by the Minister, and it will be constituted by the Director of the Australian Trade Union Training College, 3 representatives of the Australian Council for Trade Unions, one representative from each of the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations, one representatives each of the State Labor Councils and the 3 members I have referred to earlier in this speech. This representation will be reflected in the State Councils with the addition of an educationist and a teacher representative on each of those Councils. We have sought to give a flexible definition in Bill of the term ‘trade union training’. This is to accommodate the wide range of activities which it can comprehend in that term.

Clause 5 sets out the functions of the Authority. They are, briefly, to develop, conduct, coordinate, and review trade union training in Australia. The Authority will be responsible to the Minister for Labor and Immigration. The Bill envisages, in clause 9, that councils for union training may need to be set up in the future in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. In the meantime, responsibility for union training in those areas will lie with the Australian Council. The Bill provides in clause 25 for sitting fees of the Council members to be fixed by the Remuneration Tribunal.

Part V of the Bill deals with the college and the State trade union training centres. I believe honourable senators will find it straight-forward and self-explanatory. Part VI deals with the staff of the Authority. Part VII of the Bill deals with the finances of the Authority and honourable senators will find that these provisions are standard and call for the usual scrutiny of accounts and financial transactions of the Authority by the Auditor-General. In Part VIII of the Bill, the Australian Council is required to present an annual report to the Minister and this report is to be presented to Parliament. I would draw the attention of honourable senators to sub-clause (2) of clause 57 in this Part of the Bill. That subclause, which requires the annual report to include details of syllabuses and study undertaken at the college and state centres, was also inserted on the motion of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and accepted by the Minister for Labor and Immigration.

I feel sure the Senate will agree that this Bill is a significant cornerstone of the Government’s responsibilities to trade union training. Not only is there a desperate need for the provision of training but unionists have demonstrated a very keen desire to participate and learn in programs which have been offered sporadically up to date. The Government will not deny the trade union movement, as it does not deny other groups in the workforce, equal training opportunities consistent with needs. Our aim is to enable the union movement to perform their duties with greater understanding and efficiency.

I believe the whole community will benefit from what this Bill proposes. It is based on the proposals of many experts in the union movement, training, education and government. It has been carefully framed to meet the needs of unionists under the direction and control of a high level Council which is answerable to Parliament. I am sure honourable senators will wish to see this work being carried on and further developed to make Australia the forerunner in the provision of trade union training. I should mention that in the course of the debate I shall be moving amendments to the Bill. They are all consequential upon those adopted in the House of Representatives save for one which is merely intended to enhance the day to day running of the Authority. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 1396

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

That leave be granted to the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System to meet during the sittings of the Senate on Thursday, 15 May 1975.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Honourable senators will recall that last night Senator Sir Magnus Cormack moved a motion seeking the leave of the Senate for the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System to sit on Thursday, 15 May, tomorrow, to enable the Committee to complete its business and to present a report, as I understand it, at the end of this sessional period. When Senator Sir Magnus Cormack moved the motion in his capacity as Deputy Chairman of the Committee, I, as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, did not know anything of the circumstances, so I sought the adjournment of the debate. I do not cast aspersions in any way in saying that. I have since had discussions with Dr Jenkins, the Chairman of the Committee, who advised me that in the opinion of all members of the Committee it is essential that leave be given for the Committee to sit when the Senate is sitting so that it can complete its business and present a report.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– It wishes to sit on that one occasion.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, on the one occasion. I was about to say that. I know that Sir Magnus said that he had some trepidation about moving the motion because of the general principle that when the Senate is sitting it is the responsibility of senators to pay attention to the business of the Senate and to the matters that are before the Senate. In view of all the circumstances and because it was a unanimous request by the Committee for leave to be given for it to sit tomorrow, on the one occasion, to enable it to complete its deliberations by the time this sessional period is completed, the Government offers no objection to the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1397

DAYS AND TIMES OF MEETING

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I move:

The subject matter of the motion is whether the Senate, as from next week, for the remainder of the sitting should sit either 3 days a week or 4 days a week. This morning we agreed that, unless otherwise ordered, for the remainder of this period of sittings, Government Business shall take precedence of General Business on Thursdays, after 8 p.m. We know that to date in this sessional period the Senate has been rising at approximately 5 p.m. on Thursdays, with the exception, I think, of one occasion. As honourable senators will see, there are 37 Bills still on the notice paper awaiting deliberation and debate. A great number of them are of tremendous importance. In addition 13 Bills are at present on the House of Representatives notice paper awaiting deliberation, debate and subsequent dispatch to the Senate. The Family Law Bill, which was the subject of lengthy debate in this chamber last year, is at present before the House of Representatives. If the deliberations on that Bill in the House of Representatives are completed in this sessional period no doubt it will be returned to the Senate. Therefore, the Government believes that it will be necessary for the Senate to sit 4 days a week for the remainder of the sitting if it is to have its business dealt with in this sessional period. That is the business as set out today. Other matters are to be introduced. I gave notice of motion yesterday so that this matter could be debated today and a determination made. We are not suggesting that the Senate sit this Friday. If it sits on Friday week, honourable senators certainly will have had sufficient time to readjust the appointments which they might have made.

I wish to make one other brief point, and that is that I think it is fair to say that it is a difficult operation if one House of the Parliament sits when the other House is not sitting. I think there was an occasion last year when we sought to amend a Bill, and it was felt that if the Bill were to be amended the House of Representatives would have to be recalled, at considerable expense to the Australian taxpayer. I believe it is in the interests of the Parliament to try to synchronise as much as possible the sittings of both Houses of the Parliament. I suggest that it will be necessary for the Senate to sit on Friday of each week for the remainder of sitting to keep pace with the rate at which legislation is being presented to the Senate from another place.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– That is counting on a 3-weeks session?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– This morning when the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) said ‘formal’ when you, Mr President, called on the discovery of formal business, I said ‘not formal’. I wished to initiate some debate on this issue to ascertain why the Opposition is opposing this motion. I wanted the Opposition to state its case. I understood that the Government had knowledge, as a result of communications between the 2 parties, that the Opposition would not justify its refusal to sit on Fridays in the last weeks of the sitting. I desired to say something about the matter because I believe that the work of the Senate, particularly the work of the Opposition, is prejudiced if the 2 Houses meet separately. If this House alone sits for the last week or two of the session after the House of Representatives has risen, it will be useless in any legislative work and will be simply a forum for the exposition of Opposition views and criticisms of the Government. It will be powerless to amend except on the basis that the legislation will have to be stood over to the next session of Parliament, next August or possibly September, when the Bills can be dealt with again.

There was an example of this last year. At the end of last year 2 Bills containing matters of great importance and matters of principle were unable to be amended as the Opposition intended them to be amended. One or two amendments of mine were not passed, although they had the general agreement of members on this side, because the responsibility would have rested on members on this side for the failure to pass those Bills and for them being stood over until February or March of this year.

Senator Jessop:

– Which Bills were they?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-One concerned the Australian Wool Corporation. It now has within its powers the right to manufacture and process wool, in direct competition with private manufacturers and processors, simply because the House of Representatives had risen and we could not send these amendments to it. Important State rights were given away by this side of the House when it did not pursue amendments to an education Bill because we would have delayed the passage of it if we had proceeded with the amendments. For the Opposition to refuse to sit on Fridays, which makes it almost certain that the Senate will sit after the House of Representatives has risen, is the greatest gift which this side of Parliament could give to the Labor Government. If I were in the Labor Government’s shoes I would make sure that I got as much legislation as possible to this place to put the Opposition in the position of having to agree to it in its entirety and without amendment or having to bear the responsibility of having it stood over until next August or September. By the performance of the Opposition last year, I know what would be the case. The Government would get its legislation. I expect that the Leader of the Opposition will speak directly, but it would seem that for some reason he would not take his normal responsibility, which is to speak after the Minister has put a proposition to the Senate. He would not rise. Mr President, as you saw, he waited for me to get up first. I was willing to get up first. Let him tell the Senate, if he is to justify his position, all about what happened last year and how the States’ rights were given away by a party which spends half of its time talking about States’ rights. What is the reason that the Opposition has informed the Government that it will not sit on Fridays? Is it that the new research officers, which all members have been given since the event of last year to which I referred, are not of sufficient help to members to enable them to sit on one, two or three Fridays at the end of this session? What is the reason? I certainly want to make my protest if the Senate, because the Opposition’s tardiness to sit on Fridays, is to be forced to sit in disjunction with the lower House when the lower House has risen. I make a protest now at the fact that any amendments I may make on behalf of my constituents, and any amendments which this side of the chamber may make, will be useless in the face of the pressures that I have mentioned.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– A few facts ought to be set straight. For a start, when you, Mr President, called on the discovery of business this morning you asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) whether this motion was formal or not formal. I remained mute and the Leader of the Government in the Senate called ‘formal’. That is his right. He is entitled to call ‘formal’. If there had been no dissentSenator Hall was quite entitled to call ‘not formal’- the matter would have just been put to a vote. I do not see anything improper or outrageous about that situation. If the Government wants a matter to be declared formal, we are normally so co-operative with regard to the procedures in this place that we go along with it.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– We did that in relation to the Thursday night arrangements.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is right. Senator Hall has not been here long. Perhaps he has been here too long. However long he has been here he has not learned much. There are often more ways of killing a cat than choking it with butter.

Senator Poyser:

– Milk.

Senator WITHERS:

– Milk, is it? The Opposition will not vote for the Friday sittings. No doubt all Government senators are enormously relieved to hear me say that. One of the reasons is quite simple. We anticipate that we will sit for 4 weeks in this period of sittings, whether or not we sit on Fridays, if the House of Representatives rises after 3 weeks. As I understand it, the House of Representatives will sit on some Mondays, admittedly to deal with the Family Law Bill. That Bill might come back to us with amendments and we might send it back to the House of Representatives with amendments. If one looks at the mathematics of the situation, to sit on Fridays from 10 a.m. to 4.30 p.m., by the time one loses an hour for question time and the various opening procedural matters -

Senator Poyser:

– You are not suggesting that you lose that time?

Senator WITHERS:

-It is taken out of Government Business time. I will put the matter that way. The most the Government could squeeze out of a Friday is 4lA hours. If my mathematics are correct, by sitting from 1 1 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 2 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. we will do 4Vi hours of Government business. I give no undertaking on this matter but I suggest to the Government that it look at an alternative method of getting an extra 4lA hours a week. We did that when in government. I will have to consult my colleagues about this matter to get their agreement, but I put an alternative to the Government: It has been the custom, an unwritten rule, in this place that we rise at 5.45 p.m. for dinner and 12.45 p.m. for lunch. That provision has gone now so we do pick up some time during the week. There is an argument- I put it no higher than that- that by sitting until 1 1 p.m. on both Tuesday and Thursday nights, we will get an extra hour a week. We have already agreed to surrender our 2Vi hours of general business on Thursday nights. I think there is an argument for starting earlier on Wednesdays and Thursdays. I put it to the Government that it ought to consider those alternatives. If the Government is looking to sit for an extra 4% hours a week, and it has a hard look at the hours we sit on 3 days, it will find those extra 4% hours in those 3 days. We may well be prepared to sit longer on those days.

Senator Hall made great play of the problems of the 2 Houses not sitting conjointly. For very many years the Senate has always sat a week longer than the House of Representatives whether we were in government or the present Government was in government. I remember one famous occasion, which Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson will remember well, when ex-Senator Murphy- I was almost going to say the late Senator Murphy- then the Leader of the Opposition moved that the remaining Bills on the notice paper be stood over until the Spring session. Approximately 14 bills were stood over. We were then the Government. I think Sir Kenneth Anderson made a speech, not with as much outrageous indignation as Senator Wheeldon is able to generate, but with a reasonable amount, if I may say with respect. We told the country what a calamity this was and how the nation would collapse. Funnily enough, we came back in August and the country seemed to have run on quite well through that winter recess.

We have heard all about urgent legislation. I recall a long time ago- Senators Greenwood, Young, Sim and Sir Magnus Cormack will recall the occasion- when we were in government and an urgent mapping Bill was before us. It was suggested that it had to be passed that December or some calamity would take place. There was a bit of a riot and we stood the then Minister up. That was an urgent Bill. I think 4 years have passed and the Bill has never come back, but the country seems to have gone on all right in the meantime.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not being mapped though.

Senator WITHERS:

-Of course it is being mapped. We were told the whole of the mapping of Australia would come to a standstill. We are used to these arguments. We have heard them year in and year out.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That related to the matter of trespass.

Senator WITHERS:

-Yes, to the law of trespass and the right of entry. I know that the fact that the Senate has sat on longer sometimes has been inconvenient and it does cause problems. It is a nicety of judgment between the Government and the Opposition. After all, that is what politics is always about- a balancing of attitudes as to whether the Opposition will press an amendment to the ultimate, for example. That is a judgment to which the Opposition must come and then it is a judgment for the Government as to whether it will leave that Bill for 3 months or recall the Parliament. It is a balancing from both sides. The Opposition must do it; the Government must do it. It is a bit like who can scare whom the most. Sometimes we win; sometimes the Government wins. I do not want to take that spice out of politics. 1 think this is what politics is all about. It is a judgment to be exercised by the respective party leaders and the respective Houses of Parliament.

I do not know that the Senate has ever been really disadvantaged by sitting for a week after the House of Representatives has risen. I know that when we were in government we did not care for the situation over much. I doubt whether the present Government cares for it over much. The proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast and 1.6 per cent of radio owners are listening to us with bated breath. Therefore, it is a great deal to come back with 3 days on the air to ourselves. I think the figure is 1.6 per cent. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack might correct me. During broadcasting one cannot speak for more than 30 minutes and this is an advantage. But there is a problem sitting 4 days a week. I put the situation quite frankly. The problem is not only that a number of senators have commitments. There is another problem of which I think all honourable senators are aware. A number of Senate committees are working desperately on Fridays, Saturdays and Mondays to complete their committee work and meet Senate deadlines. Senator Hall by choice- it is his business- does not sit on any Senate Committee. I can understand that. It is a matter of his choice. I know of one committee where the chairman, who I think is Senator Everett, was even trying to get the committee to sit on Sundays because it is desperately seeking to meet a Senate deadline and to do its work properly.

One would imagine from Senator Hall’s speech that if we do not sit on Fridays honourable senators will be going off on some frolic. I am informed by my colleagues that most committees will be sitting on Fridays and Mondays, and some even on Saturdays. I know that it would most likely suit the convenience of a number of senators, and in some ways it would be easier, if the Senate sat on Friday rather than for some senators to be indulging in this very difficult and hard slogging committee work on Fridays. I believe also that to be locked up in this great white box, as most of us are, from 9 a.m. to midnight 3 days a week is long enough. Already one colleague, Senator Milliner, has had a slight health problem as a result of the strain and pressure of this place. A number of our colleagues in this place have suffered from the strain of the Senate parliamentary life.

Senator Button:

– It is the strain of listening to you, Senator.

Senator WITHERS:

– That may be so. After all, I am well worth listening to. It is not often that the honourable senator gets the opportunity to hear me so he should take the greatest possible advantage of it. He might even learn something and one day might occupy the seat occupied by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, or most likely my seat- if he is lucky enough.

Senator McLaren:

– That is wishful thinking.

Senator WITHERS:

-Certainly, Senator McLaren never will; most likely he would rather be on a perch. Let us be more sensible about this. The number of senators who suffer from the strain is well known. I believe that we will be able to accomplish in 3 days what the House of Representatives accomplishes in four days. We are but half the number. Admittedly we have a more leisurely procedure and there is greater opportunity for speaking. It does not terrify me to look at the number of items on the notice paper. There are 39 matters listed, but many are cognate matters. Much of the list is legislation to which we are not opposed and to which we will give speedy passage. For those reasons I do not think we should go along with the motion.

I put it to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate in the normal spirit of cooperation and harmony which we try to achieve in this place that he is seeking to get, I believe, at the maximum 4 1/2 hours of Government business on Friday. I put it to him that he should consider a variation of the hours that we sit on the normal 3 days. I do not believe he will achieve the AlA hours of Government business on a Friday, but most likely he will achieve something close to it.

If Government senators think there might be a reasonable alternative I invite them to inform us of it so that I may consult my colleagues to see whether or not we will go along with what is proposed.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– in reply- Senator Withers has indicated on behalf of the Opposition that it intends opposing the motion. Therefore, because of the sheer weight of numbers and despite the logic of the argument that has been put forward by the Government, we know what the outcome of the proposition will be. For that reason I certainly will be brief. I think it fair to say that in recent times- the last 12 or 1 8 months- a lot of the sort of discussion which previously went on at some great length and quite often in a heated fashion has been taken out of the deliberations of this Senate as the result of negotiation between Senator Wriedt and myself on the one hand and Senator Withers and Senator Drake-Brock man on the other. This is a case where the Government genuinely believes the sittings should be extended in the interests of effective discussion and debate, instead of having legislation by exhaustion, as used to be the case many years ago.

Whilst Senator Withers was being a little nostalgic about certain events that used to occur, I remember during one all-night sitting the heating system suddenly being turned off about 4.30 a.m. in order to close the debate at 6 a.m. We do not want to go back to those days. I am one who believes in the old trade union principle that the shorter hours the more effective the work. I believe that by sitting on Fridays for 4Vi hours and keeping the hours on the other days to those to which we have been accustomed in this sessional period we will be getting through the business of the Senate and the business of the Government one week after the House of Representatives rises. However, if this proposal is defeated, we will look at a rearrangement of the existing hours and put them forward in the hope that they will be sympathetically considered.

Senator Poyser:

– And perhaps speaking times.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDSenator Poyser has indicated that we might be able to get some agreement on the limitation of the length of speeches that are made. If we cut speeches down from 30 minutes to 20 minutes I believe we will go a long way towards saving a lot of time.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– They stopped Mr Daly cutting them down to 10 minutes.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I certainly agree with a time limitation in a lot of cases, Senator. Nonetheless, we will certainly look at the situation if this proposition is defeated. It may well be- I offer this as no threatthat it may be necessary for the Senate to sit not only for one week after the House of Representatives has risen but for one week and a bit, or even more.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 26

NOES: 28

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

In Division:

The PRESIDENT:

– The division is in progress. The debate is closed. After that perhaps the parties can come together and discuss the other alternatives.

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1401

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1975-76

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 April on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I take it that I am entitled to speak in the broad without reference to a particular department. I wish to direct my attention principally to the area of the Department of the Treasury and to seek certain explanations. I am quite sure that some of my colleagues will want to deal with other departments after I have finished my remarks. Is that in order?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– It is in order to do that, Senator Cotton. Page 3 of the Bill sets out all of the departments.

Senator COTTON:

-Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. I wish to deal with the Advance to the Treasurer items in this Bill and the Supply Bill (No 2). I wish to avoid having to make a separate speech on the same subject in relation to the Supply Bill (No. 2); and, if it takes me longer than 1 5 minutes to make my remarks I trust that I will have the indulgence of my colleagues. The Advance to the Treasurer is referred to in division 680 of Supply Bill (No. 1) and division 970 of Supply Bill (No. 2). Together, those 2 advances add up to a total of $240m.

I want to trace the appropriation of this kind of money through time. At the same point of time as this in the year 1972-73 the sum total of money allowed for the Advance to the Treasurer was $50m. In the next year, which was the first year of the Whitlam Government, the amount of money allowed for the Advance to the Treasurer at this time of that year was $60m. Last year it was $ 120m. We are now being asked, in the Supply Bill (No. 1) and the Supply Bill (No. 2), to approve Advances to the Treasurer for incidental purposes unknown of $2 40m. There has been an increase of 4 times- 400 per cent- in 3 years. I think that the area as such is too loose and undefined for the Senate and the Parliament to allow this matter to go forward not remarked upon, not checked further and not thought through more deeply.

The general trend of the Government’s expenditure is now available to us in the form of the Supply Bills. The Government’s expenditure at this time last year in the form of Supply was put down in round figures at $2,300m. At the same time this year, looking forward, it has been put down at $3,800m. An expansion of expenditure between last year and this year of 63 per cent is being contemplated. That is what it amounts to. That indicates to us the shape of the Budget to come, because we are now talking about the financial provision by the Government for the first 5 months of the next financial year, the Budget for which will be presented some time in midAugust. A massive increase in expenditure of this order- 63 per cent- should not be allowed to go forward unremarked upon or unconsidered by any responsible body of parliamentarians. I think that it calls for careful scrutiny and careful examination.

In my contribution to an earlier debate on this and three other areas of expenditure I referred to the very slight analysis and the very slight comment by the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) in his second reading speeches on the Supply Bill (No. 1) and the Supply Bill (No. 2). I said that they had been tackled lightly and, it seemed to me, without very much regard being paid to the size and quantity of them and the complications involved in them. I referred also to the Advance to the Treasurer and pointed out how it had grown massively. Later I will be seeking- I hope that the Senate will agree to my request- more detail from the Treasurer on his advance account. I think that we are entitled to ask for more details to be supplied and for matters to be spelt out a little more clearly and a little more carefully. We want something of a general statement that will lead us to know what his areas of expenditure are likely to be on other than incidentals and what the expectations are that call for such a massive increase.

I believe that the tendency to increase this amount unregarded and unscrutinised by the Parliament needs to be placed under critical review. It has been growing so much that the time has come, I believe, for the Committee of the Whole of the Senate to call a halt and to have a good look at where we are going in relation to this matter. The increase in expenditure is massive, as I have said. Of course, it is an area out of which the Treasurer himself can agree to dispense money with the Governor-General’s approval. It allows a massive operation to take place within such a sum of money which can well become so committed that the Parliament might not be able to reverse later something that has been embarked upon.

Let us look at the record last year as an example of what can happen. The Appropriation Bills passed for 1973-74 gave the Treasurer an advance of $100m. That advance was not explained, as this case shows. But, when a statement was finally put down in the Parliament at some time in December, we found that the amount of money provided to the Treasurer at that time had been underspent by $34m. More power to him! A fair indication of the irregularity and lack of consideration in these areas is that that amount was not spent and it obviously could have been spent, appropriated or put to some purpose and finally to come under the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament. But it comes under scrutiny after the event and not before the event. I suggest that the increase in the Advance to the Treasurer and the whole area of the massive Government expenditure that is contemplated are now up for critical examination by the Senate.

I want it to be understood quite clearly that there is no intention on the part of the Opposition to refuse to pass the Supply Bills. I give the Government that assurance for myself, and I have so assured Senator Wriedt, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and Senator Douglas McClelland, Manager of Government Business in the Senate. The Opposition feels that the time has come when this matter should not be passed over lightly, should not be treated casually but should be looked at far more critically, and that a little more time should be taken on it. When the Budget comes to us finally in the middle of August the whole range of Government expenditure will be laid before us, with the proposals on how to finance it and with the order of the deficit. By making a comparison with last year’s figures for Supply, we now know that the expenditure patterns are growing by 63 per cent. That is the order of increase. I am quite sure that some of my colleagues will want to mention later in this debate various items that are of concern to them. I am dealing specifically with the general proposition. As I have said, my specific concern is with the massive increase in expenditure, the massive growth in the Advance to the Treasurer, which has increased fourfold in 3 years, the need for this to be checked and the need to ensure that these particular disbursements, which are of such magnitude and such consequence, are not embarked upon without parliamentary scrutiny, when they would become irreversible by the sheer passage of time. I will therefore want to see something more definite about the details of these disbursements.

I wish to ask Senator Wriedt, who represents the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) in this chamber, to obtain more detail from the Treasurer, more explanations for the necessity to increase the Advance from the sum that I have mentioned to the present sum, a fourfold increase in 3 years. Why does the Government need $2 40m? What are the general areas that it thinks will call for emergency expenditure? Does the Government propose to embark on new projects which have not been explained to the Parliament? I should like to pay the Treasurer the courtesy of giving him the necessary amount of time to enable him to give the Senate as much information as he possibly can. I therefore indicate, in relation to this Bill and to the later Supply Bill, that when my colleagues have had an opportunity to discuss other matters, so that the matter can be put into proper context I will move that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again on Tuesday, 20 May, to provide time for the Treasurer to answer questions asked this day in connection with Division 680, Advance to the Treasurer, $120m, in this Supply Bill. I have indicated in what I have said the areas on which 1 think the Treasurer should answer. I am not being specific about other areas to which other people may wish to advert. My specific concern is that the total quantum of Government expenditure has increased massively, in particular the Advance to the Treasurer, involving an amount of $240m in total in the 2 Bills. Can we not be told a great deal more about the areas of expenditure which it is likely to be necessary to cover in an item like this?

I have a general view, and I have expressed it on many occasions, that with the kind of increases in expenditure and the kind of total amounts involved it is necessary for the Senate in particular to maintain greater care and scrutiny in a time of most astonishing increases in outlays, with problems of growing unemployment and growing inflation. I believe that we must be and must become once again a more responsible people; Parliament must lead and must reduce expectations and extravagance in the community. When I think of that I am reminded of the words of Gibbon on the Athenians, when he said:

When they finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished was the freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I will speak now to the matters raised by Senator Cotton and dispose of the general question of the Advance to the Treasurer. It is true, as Senator Cotton said, that there is a significant increase this year over the amounts which were appropriated in the previous Supply Bills. There are of course good reasons why there should be a significant increase. In the Supply Bills for 1974-75 the amount of $60m which was appropriated was sufficient for a period of less than 5 months. Obviously supplementary amounts were necessary to meet the requirements of the Government. Basically, it is a matter of judgment as to how much the Advance to the Treasurer should be, and I am quite sure that over the years it has been traditional to allow the Government to exercise its judgment in the light of its programs and what it is endeavouring to do in order to ensure that sufficient funds are available to meet the temporary shortages which do arise.

Bearing in mind the level of expenditure and costs, especially in Government programs where expansion is rapid- and expansion has been rapid under this Government in a number of areas, especially in the education and social security areas- it was inevitable that it would be necessary to re-assess the amounts of money involved, and in particular the advance that is made to the Treasurer. I was interested in the quotation Senator Cotton used at the conclusion of his speech when he referred to those who take from the people unto themselves. I think he used some such words. I do not think that any government could have done more than this Government has done to disburse money to those people in the community who have the greatest need for it. It has been a central part of this Government ‘s strategy to ensure that moneys made available do go to those areas where the Government feels that the greatest need exists.

I will accept that there has been an increase of 63 per cent, which was indicated by Senator Cotton, but I do ask the Committee to bear in mind the very massive increases in the Government’s programs. I do not think it is appropriate to respond now to the remarks of Senator Cotton concerning inflation and so on. This would not be the proper time to do that. I have to accept on behalf of the Government, I suppose, the reality that if the non-government members of this Committee decide to support Senator Cotton’s motion then obviously the Government will have to accept the deferment of the Bill. Nevertheless, the Government must oppose the motion; obviously it will not defeat it.

In view of the manner in which Senator Cotton raised this question, I am certainly quite prepared to ask the Treasurer for more details concerning the Advance to the Treasurer under this Supply Bill. I am not, of course, in any way committing the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) by saying that; it is entirely a matter of judgment for him, but I take the point that Senator Cotton raised. I am also pleased at his assurance that these Bills will be passed next Tuesday and that there is no intention to defer them any longer. It is quite obvious that the Government does need these Bills to be passed. I suppose it can be said that Senator Cotton has a legitimate point. He wants to know more about the moneys requested, which have increased quite considerably over the period since the last Supply Bills were passed, and I undertake to convey his request to the Treasurer and to obtain such information as the Treasurer sees fit to make available to the Senate.

I reiterate the point that the Government must oppose the motion for reasons which do not have to be stated. I hope that when the information is provided to the Senate next Tuesday the Senate will pass these Bills in order to cover the period to which they apply.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I do not wish to be difficult; I merely wish to seek some elucidation from the Minister, and in due course from his advisers. The Minister made a comment that did not square with my calculations. My calculations may be wrong or the Minister’s calculations may be wrong, and I would like this matter to be cleared up. The Supply Bills for 1973-74 sought parliamentary approval for a total of $60m. That transferred into the Budget for the same year as a request for a total of $100m. When the expenditure was finalised at the end of the year it amounted to about $64.8m. So there is some confusion in the advice which has been given here. I think it would be useful if that were tidied up. I am saying this only because I have come to the view that in a responsible parliament the Treasurer’s advance accounts have to be taken far more seriously. The Public Accounts Committee does deal with these accounts. That Committee issues very good annual reports. I am indebted to the Secretary of the Committee for a copy of the 152nd report. It deals with these accounts very extensively and carefully, but after the event. What I am trying to do is to make the point that this large sum of petty cash, which is what it amounts to, should be much more carefully identified before it is committed, not after it is committed. Therefore the Advance to the Treasurer is important. It should be identifiable with the transfer to the Appropriation Bill. The position is finalised when the Parliament gets the report that is tabled by the Treasurer and sees the results of the Public Accounts Committee examination of that expenditure.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise to speak on this subject because I think the remarks of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) indicate a misconception in respect of this item covering the advance to the Treasurer. I submit to the Senate that this item is of a very exceptional nature. It is not an item which is to be committed to the judgment of the Government in the light of its program. This is an item which is put into the Appropriation Bill which seeks approval to authorise an amount of money to be spent for purposes specified by the Treasurer and as such the Parliament delegates authority to the Treasurer only in respect of contingent and unforeseen expenditure- completely contingent and not part of any program. All programs that the Government has developed and placed before the Parliament should find their place in the main Appropriation Bill or the supplementary Bills that have just been passed in this place. This is important because in this Parliament we are unique in that we allow only about 50 per cent of government expenditure to be the subject of a vote each year. According to the latest issue of Australian Senate Practice ‘:

In recent years special appropriations have comprised slightly over 50 per cent of total annual expenditure as compared with the United Kingdom where the special appropriations of that order do not normally amount to more than 10 per cent of total expenditure.

That refers to special appropriations which are made year after year as distinct from the annual appropriations for expenditure which received approval in the last 2 Appropriation Bills. This is important because section 8 1 of the Constitution provides that none of the public moneys collected for the Treasury is to be dealt with otherwise than by going into Consolidated Revenue to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth. Section 83 of the Constitution says:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law.

In other words, appropriations made by Act of Parliament, not by the Treasurer’s fiat. Therefore a small item at the end of the Supply Bill providing for unspecified expenditure would be a normal requirement, but for the Minister to say that it is a matter of judgment according to the Government’s programs indicates, I think, a complete misunderstanding of what this item is all about. The exaggeration of the item can be shown by the fact that in 1970-71 when the item special advance to the Treasurer amounted to $40m that was for 12 months in that year, but the Supply Bill seeks approval for $240m for 5 months of this year. That gives an idea of the gravity and the irresponsibility of the manner in which this item has been put before us. In 1970-71 the amount sought was $40m for the whole year. This year for 5 months Parliament is asked to approve expenditure amounting to $240m. As to the deficit that we are going to face by the end of 30 June, even the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) with all his desire to minimise it estimates that it will be $23,300m. Such a deficit has not been anywhere near equalled in our previous experience. It imposes upon this Senate a duty to be vigilant in regard to appropriations which are allowed by law. I say that the Senate, far from being in a position similar to the House of Lords which is a House that is by its nature bereft of all financial power, is committed to a duty in relation to the ordinary annual services of Government to scrutinise them and if necessary request that amendments be made. In regard to other expenditure we have a duty to amend or to reject proposed appropriations according to the decision of this chamber based upon adult suffrage.

Honourable senators will recall that last night Senator James McClelland referred to new novel appropriations for financial assistance aggregating about $ 1.25m to 2 industries in Tasmania, namely Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd. He acknowledged the novelty of those payments and the difficulties that would attend any attempt to extend them to other industries. Another matter for consideration is the question of legal aid upon which there has been some difference in respect of the amount of financial assistance and for which there is no parliamentary sanction except in the Appropriation Bill. Another matter is national compensation in which great expenditure is being incurred long before the Parliament passes the legislation and even while a committee of the Senate is still inquiring into the matter. It would be quite improper to finance those 3 programs in any way out of the special Advance to the Treasurer. It is needful that in the event that the motion foreshadowed by Senator Cotton to postpone this debate for a week is successful a proper conception of the purpose of this item should be gathered by the Treasurer. He should understand that this item provides only for contingent unforeseen matters, not for undisclosed new Labor Government programs which have not yet received the approval of the Parliament. If the idea is that contingent expenditure of that sort should be met in that way so as to gain an advantage and to get under way with new programs before money is appropriated, I suggest that the Treasurer is misconceiving the whole idea of this item. We know that in respect of this item section 36 (a) of the Audit Act provides that expenditure in excess of specific appropriations is to be decided by the Treasurer and that that expenditure has to be accounted for. We know that there are special accounting statements year after year under this head of expenditure. If honourable senators take the trouble to look into this matter they will see that as this item has developed in the past 3 years it seems to have been conceived as a supplementary program to allow expenditure under practically every head of expenditure in the Appropriation Bill.

In my submission, the Senate ought to accept the view that this item- Advance to the Treasurer- is not an item of that sort and is only an item to provide the Treasurer, and such colleagues as he approves, with such small appropriations for needs which cannot be reasonably foreseen and therefore specified in the line for line appropriations that we still require yearly in our Appropriation Bills. As I have said in this Parliament, we have cut provision for this item to about 50 per cent of our expenditure, unlike Great Britain where this item occupies a continuing appropriation and does not exceed in the aggregate about 10 per cent. So it is of the utmost importance at this juncture, having regard to the misconception that this Government has with regard to that matter, and having regard to the huge increase that is indicated in the item, whereby $40m in 1970-71 for 12 months is bid for today at $240m for the next 5 months.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I wish to speak on an item relating to this measure, which is being taken as a whole. It relates to the Department of Foreign Affairs and the amount that has been set aside for that Department. I wish to talk to the Committee for a little while in relation to the difficult situation of refugees from Vietnam. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) will recall that I asked him a question yesterday relating to the situation and the role of Australian organisations that are involved in the care for, and particularly the resettlement of, Vietnamese refugees. The Minister will recall that he replied that an approach was being made to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and that the Government was awaiting advice on the matter.

We all recognise that there are problems which a refugee situation imposes. But we live in a century of refugees. I have heard it described as the century of the homeless man’. All my adult life, some part of the world has been plagued with the difficult problems imposed by refugees. We have lived through programs of the World Refugee Year, and all manner of organisations at international and local level have been and still are working for and on behalf of refugees. Nations and governments therefore are not without experience. Today’s situation is not without its precedent. Governments today- our own Government in particular- have not been without information relating to this situation. Therefore, this Government has plenty of expertise, information, precedent and experience to set out a basis for guidelines with regard to refugees. Now that the tragic events in Indo-China have produced yet another refugee situation it is my view that the Government should have been in a position to move much more quickly, with much more humanitarian effect and with greater effectiveness. The Government was aware of events, it had information as to the possible trend of events in Indo-China, and surely our officers had some ideas as to what was likely to happenwhat in fact has now happened. This is a serious refugee situation. Shiploads of people in the various parts of the seas to our near north are undergoing extreme hardship and privation. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) has described them as no longer being people from Vietnam, but just crowds with nowhere to go.

Our questioning, which I again take up during this debate on the Supply Bill, is to seek some urgency in response from the Government. I question whether it is necessary for the Government to make approaches to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I admit that perhaps in the international arrangement of things this might be the proper course to take, but it is also my view that if we have to go to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, he should have said something about the situation before now. Indeed if nothing has been said up to now, the Government should be pressing the High Commissioner to say or do something, and furthermore, should be telling the country and the Parliament what has been done, instead of waiting for whatever directions or arrangements might come from the High Commissioner’s office.

In my view there are several lines which the Government ought to follow in this difficult situation. It ought to be responding more to the need that exists. I suggest that the Government ought to be making a greater contribution to solving this difficult situation. All over Australia today there are many people who are unhappy about our contribution and the Government’s slow reaction to the Vietnamese refugee situation. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam) has talked in recent days about what he calls ‘recognising Asian realities’. Here, if ever there was one, is an Asian reality. Here, if ever there was one, is the opportunity for the Government to show that it means business when it talks about Asian realities. Here, if ever there was one, is the opportunity for the Government to share in a situation. It is my view that the Government is not doing so.

The Prime Minister has been in Washington. He has been talking about Australia’s role in Asia. He has been assuring President Ford in relation to Vietnamese refugees that we would take what he called our fair share. What does he mean by a ‘fair share’. I make this inquiry this afternoon: What is meant by a fair share? What is the number which might be regarded as our fair share? I am not convinced that we are taking our fair share. How does our fair share compare with that of the United States. I think the United States is talking in figures of 120 000 and it has the most massive and widespread unemployment. I should be grateful if the Government and the Minister could enlighten the Senate and the people on this detail. True, there may be officers of his Department and other departments who are in the Pacific engaged in what is normally called ‘processing’ people who might be seeking admission to Australia or who might want to come to Australia, or refugees who might be taken to Australia. But the process is painfully slow. My observation, from reading reports of this, leads me to believe that the staffing seems to be totally inadequate. Is there no way in which this staffing situation can be eased? Is there no way in which a greater efficiency and a greater expedition can be brought to this situation to relieve the pressure. There should be some relief of the pressure, to assist in the processing of applications.

I think the Government could take greater cognisance of the presence of fleets of ships and vessels and boats, laden with refugees, in various places to our near north. They are in a difficult situation. I understand the typhoon season is near, and this could very greatly increase the problem. Is there not some way in which these vessels, these fleets could receive some relief, some assistance, some assurance, some understanding, some medical supplies? Could additional services be arranged so that in the case of weather problems at least there would not be the acute danger of loss of life that I now believe there is. Alter all, Australia is the only prosperous country in this region, and surely we have a responsibility to make a greater contribution, really to take a fair share of the problem, taking into account all the situations that Mow from a very difficult and complex situation such as this.

I make this plea not just because I want the Government to do more, but believing that it is the reflection of a feeling that is very strong in the Australian community today. I make my comment seeking a Government response. I make my criticism because I am not expecting the Government to do things that the Australian community is not prepared to do. In my question yesterday I pointed out that there was an organisation known as the Department of World Christian Action. That organisation has personnel and expertise of long experience in handling, receiving and resettling refugees. It has a wide network of international connections and it is not only willing and prepared to help but also is asking the Government if it can have the opportunity to help in this resettlement.

Although I happen to be associated with that organisation, I recognise that it is not the only agency prepared to do this. Recently by telegram the Australian Roman Catholic Bishops indicated a similar plea to the Government. The Anglican Primate of Australia, Sir Frank Woods, has added his representation. The organisation known as World Vision has put in a strong plea in the same terms. Therefore this is a constructive and responsible inquiry in respect of which I call for a response from the Minister. In addition, there are international agencies with Australian bases which are funded from Australian sources and which already are at work in the Indo-China area, under extreme and acutely dangerous circumstances. They are pulling their weight, taking their place, and assisting where they can.

Finally, there is another group of Vietnamese people for whom we are all extremely concerned and to whom I want to refer. These are the members of the student community who already are in this country. I believe there are some 400 to 500 Vietnamese students in Australia. Naturally, they live in circumstances of considerable distress. They are caught up in a very serious situation. They came here under the auspices of the Saigon Government. They have received no word as to the situation in their country; they have received no word from the present Government. Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs in various capital cities seem to be unable to help them. The few Press releases indicate that the Government is prepared to let them stay in Australia until the situation settles in Saigon.

Cannot the Government give some sympathetic understanding and offer some assistance in this situation? These people are uncertain as to the continuation of their funding. They have personal problems- problems concerning their own families. The greatest of those problems is their uncertainty as to what will happen if they return to any part of Indo-China because, obviously, as is well understood and well known, there are political situations which could create increasing difficulties for them. From universities and from colleges in various parts of this country there have been requests, pleas and inquiries from student bodies, from principals of institutions and from counsellors who care for them. They plead for a response from the Government. If it cannot give them total assurance, at least it should listen to them with sympathetic understanding and indicate that this country will look after and care for them while this present situation of very great difficulty exists.

I hope that the Government will take these representations into account because what I have said reflects a matter of very great concern in a wide section of the Australian community. I am sure that if the Government is prepared to live up to the statements its representatives have been making in recent days it will respond to this urgent request.

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I rise to enter this discussion briefly because I am much concerned about the time the Senate is wasting on something which is not applicable to the 2 Bills before us, particularly as there is an intention to move that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday when again we will have to come back to these 2 Bills and take a vote. We have been told today what the result of that vote will be. That adjournment is to be moved for the purpose of getting some information which I think is not important and could be provided now.

Supply Bills are presented in order to carry on the ordinary expenditures of government from the end of June following the period for which there has been an appropriation for all expenditure considered and approved by Parliament. Those appropriations have been dealt with in the previous Budget or in subsequent Bills. The time to account for what we will do next year will be when the next Budget is before us. That possibly will be in August. Until such time as the next Budget is presented, and having accounted for expenditure up until the end of June, there is no money and no authority to pay anyone until we get the next Budget. Therefore we have before us 2 Supply Bills, one relating to ordinary expenditure and the other relating to capital expenditure, so that we can carry on the ordinary payments as we did last year on the basis of accountability until the Government presents its next Budget.

Senator Wright:

– If you did that under the Adance to the Treasurer you would be asking for $62.5m, not $240m.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-We would not. We have to consider the various departments. If what the honourable senator said is correct, it is only a Supply Bill, but we have just spent 15 minutes listening to an honourable senator saying what should be done about Vietnamese refugees. Whether or not there is any validity in his argument as to whether we should do it, I point out that we cannot do a thing about it under these Bills. Government legislation is required. Therefore honourable senators are wasting time by talking about what we should do and what should be done in the Budget or by means of special legislation. We can never introduce some innovation in a Supply Bill. The source of complaint seems to be the big amount in the Advance to the Treasurer. Someone has ideas that the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) is going to finance some secret policy of the Australian Labor Party without the approval of Parliament.

Senator Greenwood:

– A few of us have. We have seen it happening. Do not be so naive.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– All right, if the honourable senator is convinced, but there is no power to do it. Accountability for every expenditure must be presented to the Parliament. We are concerned with appropriations for ordinary expenditures. In Supply Bill (No. 1 ) we are seeking $120m to enable the Treasurer to make advances that will be recovered during the financial year in respect of expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This is not some new plan. The Bill relates to the ordinary annual services. The money is recoverable during the year. It also provides for money to be available for expenditure on ordinary annual services of the Government, particulars of which will be submitted to the Parliament afterwards in the Budget. The Bill is limited to ordinary annual expenditure or expenditure pending an issue of the warrant of the Governor-General specifically applicable to the expenditure. There are all the safeguards in the world. I turn now to Supply Bill (No. 2) which is to make advances that will be recoverable during the financial year. It will make moneys available for expenditure, particulars of which will be submitted afterwards to the Parliament. This expenditure includes payments by way of financial assistance to a State on such terms and conditions, if any, as the Treasurer determines. It will make moneys available for expenditure pending the issue of a warrant of the Governor-General specifically applicable to the expenditure. The reason for the big expansion in Treasury expenditure is the expansion of Government expenditure.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Without parliamentary approval.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No, not without parliamentary approval. The Treasurer can spend only with parliamentary approval or in the reasonable anticipation that parliamentary approval will be forthcoming. As Senator Douglas McClelland pointed out last year, it was reasonable for the Treasurer to make an advance to the apple and pear growers of Tasmania because it was known that Tasmanian Liberal senators would not oppose it. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Parliament will give its approval. The Treasurer is limited in all of these questions. He accounts for these things in his Budget accounting in the next year. It is not a suspicious payment at all.

Let me refer, for example, to the matter of advances to the States. The States today are receiving 3 times what they received previously from Federal governments. It is partly to allow the Government to provide for the advances to the States that the Advance to the Treasurer must be increased. There is no mystery about it. When we resume next Tuesday the answer will be provided as to what it is planned that the Treasurer will do. It is not a matter that is open for debate at this stage. I believe that the Senate could amend Supply Bill (No. 2). Possibly both Supply Bills could be rejected. But who wants to do that? The Opposition spokesman said today that the Opposition does not want to reject the Bills; that it only wants an explanation. The explanation can be given to the Opposition without delaying the operation of this Bill. It is not the same type of appropriation Bill as the Budget, under which can be raised such questions as why immigration spending is not higher or why health spending is not higher and under which the matter of refugees and so on can be raised.

Those matters are not appropriate to this discussion. The question before us is whether we should pass 2 Supply Bills which will allow the Government to carry on its operations between June and the passage of the Budget proposals. These matters are the subject of special legislation. The question is whether we should refuse to pass these Bills and whether we should query the provision of finance to enable the Public Service to carry on between June and the passage of the Budget proposals. Do not let us discuss matters that we should discuss and Have a right to discuss under the Budget procedures. Do not let us make some mystery out of the whole question by supposing that the Treasurer is sneaking home some of the cash or doing some other nefarious thing which he should not be doing.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I would like to take a moment or two to refer to a matter in the discussion on the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1975-76. 1 suggest to Senator Cavanagh that the Senate’s responsibility is to examine very critically these items, particularly the one that has been referred to already by Senator Cotton and Senator Wright, namely the Advance to the Treasurer. The people of Australia seem to regard this Government at the moment as being irresponsible in the way it is frittering away the taxpayers’ money. I think it is quite in order for the Senate to suggest to the Government that it ought to be providing some detail with respect to this item because, as I understand it, it is an Advance to the Treasurer to provide for unforeseen contingencies, and as such the advance ought to be a reasonable figure. We maintain that the sum of $ 120 m provided in this Bill and the sum of $ 120 m provided in the other Supply Bill that we will be discussing are quite extraordinary and quite excessive. I suggest that a figure of something like $62. 5m ought to be sufficient to cover the period of only 5 months which, I understand, is the period with which we are dealing. The Opposition is quite justified in delaying the measure so that it can get more specific detail on that matter.

I want to take just a few more moments to examine a matter which has arisen in South Australia with regard to the Department of Education. This matter could well be typical of situations that face other schools throughout Australia which may be having similar problems. I refer to the Sacred Heart College at Somerton Park in South Australia. As a result of a grant of $74,000 made by the previous Government, that school entered into a contract to construct a library; but up till now that school has received only $25,000 of the $74,000 promised by the previous Government. I would have thought that a subsequent government ought to have honoured a promise made by a previous administration. The school concerned arranged finance to the extent of $49,000 from a bank on the quite reasonable assumption that the present Government would be providing the additional $49,000 in due course. A situation has now arisen in which this school has been offered a grant of $12,000 to assist in building a lecture theatre which is urgently required. It has been forced to refuse to accept that amount of money because it is almost bankrupt.

I had hoped to ask a question on this matter during question time this morning. I hope that the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) will be in a position to give me some information on this very serious matter. Mr John Mathwin the Liberal member for Glenelg in the South Australian State Parliament, has a particular interest in this school. He informs me that the college headmaster, Brother Columbanus, wrote to the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) early in April but as yet has not received a reply.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Is the Liberal member Dr Tonkin, the insurance agent?

Senator JESSOP:

-I was talking about Mr John Mathwin, as a matter of fact. This is a serious matter. No doubt Senator Wheeldon, being an avid reader of newspapers, would have noticed the headline in the Glenelg ‘Guardian’: Can’t Afford to Accept a Grant’. The headline was referring to a grant from the Schools Commission. Senator Wheeldon nods. I take it that he has read the article and that he has some concern about the matter. I want to know why this amount of $49,000 has not been paid to the Sacred Heart College. I want to know how many other schools in South Australia are in a similar situation. I want to know what the Government is going to do to enable this college to take advantage of the $ 12,000 which is vitally needed for the construction of a lecture theatre at the college.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I am sure that what I have to say will not satisfy Senator Cavanagh, because he takes the view that accountability is something that happens only at the time of Budgets and that in the meanwhile we should not draw the attention of the Parliament, on the few occasions on which we have the opportunity to do so, to areas in which there is a neglect by the Government and in which things should be done.

Using the item of the Joint House Department, I want to bring to the attention of honourable senators particularly some matters related to the conditions of living in these Houses of Parliament which are occupied by people who are here as members or as employees. I want to say just in passing, in regard to the amount which is questioned and which is to be deferred, that I am very interested to note that the amount of $ 120 m for

Advance to the Treasurer appears in each Bill. It seems strange that that particular figure should appear in both Bills.

We have received the answer, of course, that such matters should be raised under special legislation. What I am raising here is not a matter which requires special legislation; it is a matter which requires special attention by the officers responsible for the conditions of living in this Parliament. I refer to a matter which I first raised in the Estimates Committees on 31 October 1974. As reported at page 467 of the Hansard record, I drew the attention of the representative of the Joint House Department, Mr Hillyer, to the conditions of heating, the conditions of health, the lack of ventilation and the excessively dry atmospheric conditions in this building. I sought to ascertain why these things were so and what could be done about the situation. I will not read all of what took place at that time, but as a result of the discussion the Chairman asked Mr Hillyer this question:

What do you think yourself, Mr Hillyer? Do you think that this is a healthy place, to coin a phrase, air-wise?

Mr Hillyer said:

No, I do not.

He went on to refer to the age of the building and said we should recognise that though this building may be somewhat aged we will be here for many years.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I would not bet on it if I were you.

Senator MISSEN:

– I would bet on it because I have not seen any signs of great speed by the Government regarding the new plans. Therefore, in the period that we will be in this building it is important that members of Parliament and the officers employed in this building should work under conditions in which efficiency can prevail. In the Estimates Committee the Chairman asked:

Is it curable or not? Do we have to wait until we get into the stratosphere up on Capital Hill before we can breathe healthy air, or have there been any suggestions that parliamentarians might deserve slightly better air to breathe every day? Is it a subject about which you are at all concerned?

Senator Poyser:

– Fairy tales.

Senator MISSEN:

– These are not fairy tales; these are questions asked by a respected Labor senator who was the Chairman of that Committee at that time. Mr Hillyer replied:

Yes. As I say, we have recognised the inadequacy of the ventilation. In fact, we have gone along some part of the way towards achieving a long-term solution to the problem, and that is the air-conditioning of the old main structure of the building. At this point of time there has been installed what we could call a ring main system, which is a bulk supply of chilled and hot water in the ceilings above the main floor. This has been done, and there is now only the job remaining of tapping that chilled and hot water line and installing duct work, fans and all the associated work that goes with airconditioning. But the bulk supply of the refrigerant and the hot water is there.

I ask honourable senators to note that: It is already there. It has been there for some years but we have not proceeded to finish off this work. When asked by the Chairman what was proposed to be done, Mr Hillyer said:

Some areas have already been done by tapping that main area. But at the moment there is no concrete proposal that I know of to take it any further.

Finally, when asked whether anything was proposed to be done, he said:

No, as far as I am concerned there is no reason why it cannot be done. I am not sure whether there is any technical problem. There is none that I am aware of.

I have waited in vain for some further statement about what is being done in this matter.

I have not just waited to see whether this airconditioning work, which has been almost finished, is to be completed. I have had correspondence with the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association which is concerned about all these matters which are related to the working conditions in Parliament House. In a letter which was written as long ago as 29 August 1974 to the Joint House Department, the Secretary of the Parliament Section of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Mr Gary Brown, said:

The Committee -

That is of the Associationwas unanimous in its concern that full and adequate measures for the prevention of fires in the building and, if fire breaks out, for the protection of Press gallery staff and honourable “senators and members should be provided.

The correspondence raised, in particular, the question of fire danger to which I now turn. The Association pointed out that there was an urgent requirement for the drawing up of contingency plans for possible evacuation of the building in the event of fire. It went on to state:

Given the age of the building and what we know of its construction- -particularly in the roofs- the risk of major fire cannot be ignored. Such a fire would put at risk the lives of parliamentarians, of parliamentary officers, of the Press and the visiting public. It would also threaten many valuable records. The Committee is very concerned that adequate precautions against fire are taken, and would be very glad to hear from your Department on this matter.

At that stage the correspondence dealt with the question of fire. Following an unsatisfactory answer, in my opinion, from the Joint House Department, on 30 September 1974 the Parliament Section of the Administrative and Clerical

Officers Association again wrote to the Joint House Department and said:

The Committee remains concerned about some aspects of the fire situation which are not covered in your letter to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Staffs Association last April.

The Association went on to draw attention to the fact that it was also concerned about the question of fire in the Parliamentary Annexe. After I had raised the general question of conditions in Parliament House at the Estimates Committee hearing, and following other correspondence, the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association wrote to me on 20 December 1974 and said:

You will see from the correspondence that we are most concerned about the safety of all who serve within the precincts of Parliament (including of course members of Parliament) visitors, members of the Press gallery and also of the many important parliamentary and administrative papers housed at Parliament House.

There appears to be a serious lack of training or instructions for fire wardens or their deputies and from the letter of 3 October 1974 from the Acting Secretary, Joint House Department, it appears lack of available resources and funds is preventing the implementation of additional procedures to the systems established for Parliament House, its occupants or its records.

As I understand it at the present time, the situation in respect of fire remains unchanged. From this stage I took up with the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association the other questions of atmospheric conditions and working conditions in Parliament House that I have already mentioned. I have received correspondence from the Parliament Section of the Association on the matters which I raised, and I desire to read some of its conclusions. It said this in a letter:

The Section Committee considered the Senator’s queries about atmospheric conditions, and has the following comments, which I would be glad if you could pass on.

Parliamentary Annex: Is usually heated by boiler in winter, but this is turned off at weekends takes a considerable time to warm up again. Because the wiring of the Hotel Canberra is not good, it is not possible to have both lights and electric heating simultaneously- the lights fail, and the staff have had to work by torchlight on some occasions. With no electric heating while the boiler warms, the air gets very cold.

What an unsatisfactory situation for this Parliament to place its employees in at the Parliamentary Annexe which we have recently established. In regard to Parliament House the Parliament Section of ACOA stated:

Parts of the building (e.g., Library) are air conditioned because materials kept there need even temperature or because VIP’s work there. However, other parts are not, and the age of the building means that even air conditioned areas are not always well ventilated.

It also seems that there is no humidifier attached to the air conditioning (if there is, it is most inefficient), and the air can get excessively dry. Some staff have had eye trouble as a consequence.

Another spinoff of dry air in winter has been troublesome static electricity discharges. Staff walking around build up a static charge against synthetic carpets. In moderately humid air, such charges leak away, but in dry air the leakage is very small. As a result the charge is removed only when somebody touches a metal object or another person. The spark and the snap of discharge can be quite often seen and heard and (speaking for experience) can be quite painful, even causing minor finger burns. Some staff become reluctant to touch metal in winter, though the longer you avoid it, the bigger the shock when you inevitably forget.

These matters all come together as conditions which in this Parliament are in no way good enough. They indicate, as we all are aware, the working conditions of the people in this building who work abnormally long hours when compared with normal working standards. Members of this Parliament can speak for themselves and perhaps do something about this matter, but obviously the staff have been fobbed off. Obviously the Parliament has been fobbed off. When I raised this matter in the Estimates Committee hearing last year I was followed by Senator Young who referred to the particular question of fire precaution, but that matter was fobbed off.

I put it to the Government that, considering the important nature of the work that is carried out in the building, and not just as a matter of the sheer comfort of the members of this Parliament, it is high time that the extra work was planned. There should have been some reference to it in the Supply Bill, so that we would know that something will be done. Surely it will not be costly to complete work that, in a major sense, has already been done in this building. I call on the Government to indicate if it has the interests of the staff of this building at heart and to come forward with proposals that will remedy this disgraceful situation.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I wish to refer to Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2) and in particular to the Advance to the Treasurer which was referred to by Senator Cotton on behalf of the Opposition. I support the move which he has foreshadowed he will be taking later in regard to this legislation because I share his concern about the appropriation of $ 120m in each of the Supply Bills for the period to 30 November next. Having been a member of the Public Accounts Committee since 1971, I have watched with some interest the growth in the amounts provided in the Advance to the Treasurer. I am well aware of the purpose for which the money, the subject of this Bill, is sought. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) and Senator Cavanagh completely misunderstand the purpose of the inclusion of the Advance to the Treasurer. The Leader of the Government referred to Government programs, but that is not the explanation for the inclusion of this Advance. It is traditionally an advance to cover incidentals which were not anticipated at the time of applying for supply in Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2).

The fact that we have seen included $120m leads me to ask: Do we seriously suggest that each of the departments which are listed as applying for supply under these Bills has been inaccurate in its budgeting to this extent? If they are applying for supply for the 5-months period- $ 120m is required in each of the Bills- it is suggested to me that the budgeting is not as accurate as we would like to see it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Supply need not be accurate; the Budget must be accurate.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-Supply is based on what the requirements should be. I am suggesting that apart from the original requirements, $120m is required in each of these Bills. It indicates either some Government ex gratia payments or matters not anticipated at the time that the original Supply Bills were cast on behalf of the respective departments.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I would agree with that.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The Minister agrees. The fact that there is a requirement of $ 120m in each Bill leads me to ask whether the proposition put by Senator Cotton on behalf of the Opposition is to be recognised as a requirement which should be met before we pass these Bills.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The accountability will happen in the Budget.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-Accountability will happen in the Budget, after the expenditure has been made from the Advance to the Treasurer. Each year while Parliament is in recess I come to Canberra to work as a member of the Public Accounts Committee on the Advance to the Treasurer so that we are able to put to the Parliament the report on the way in which this money has been expended. To suggest that we require $120m in each Bill leads me to say that there must be included in this amount some large items which the Government is aware it will need and for which we have not yet seen legislation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Or sufficient to make sure.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– To make sure of what?

Senator Cavanagh:

– To make sure that we have enough money until the Budget.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– We would like to see the basis on which these Bills have been compiled. It is a matter of seeing a reasonable explanation before we pass the 2 Bills. I turn to the Department of Social Security and I see, under divisions 596 and 598, that the Health Insurance Commission will require $22. 7m under the first division and $335m under the second division. I ask: On what basis has this amount been set in the Supply Bill? We are seeking supply for 5 months. We have these enormous amounts for the Health Insurance Commission. I think it would be an appropriate question for the Committee of the Whole to ask: What is required in these sums which have been sought under divisions 596 and 598? What are the components of these divisions? Are they the complete 5-months requirement for the new national health scheme? Is there an inclusion in the Advance to the Treasurer for payments which may need to be made to the States with regard to hospital arrangements for Medibank? They are questions which I think can justifiably be asked by the Opposition. The information should be supplied by the Government before we are asked to pass these Supply Bills. It is in this context that I support Senator Cotton’s foreshadowed motion. I earnestly ask that some reasonable explanation be given by the Government as to why the Advance to the Treasurer has reached the magnitude of $240m for this period.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (4.20)- I must confess that although I bear an affection for Senator Wriedt I have never seen him so discomposed as he was this afternoon when he replied to Senator Cotton.

Senator Missen:

– Decomposed or discomposed?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

Discomposed. I felt very sorry that the Leader of the Government in the Senate had to try to justify this enormous sum under the heading ‘Advance to the Treasurer’. Senator Cotton has pointed out that the Advance to the Treasurer has been escalating over the past 3 years. It is no good Senator Cavanagh berating the Opposition for inquiring as to the reason this appropriation is sought.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I said that it was the wrong time.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-No money can be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund except by agreement of Parliament. That is the function of Parliament. I refer to section 54 of the Constitution. It states:

The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation.

We are dealing with a proposed law. All the appropriations have been sought under Apprioriation Bill (No. 1), except this amount of $120m which is now sought. I have no doubt that next Tuesday, if Senator Cotton’s foreshadowed motion is carried, Senator Wriedt will produce some answer as to what this $ 120m is all about. That is the first point I make. I take up the point made by Senator Guilfoyle because it has emerged from the mouth of Senator Cavanagh that this money may be required for unexplained contingencies which could not be foreseen. Surely the essence of budgeting is to budget for what is believed to be the requirements of departments of State. Without creating any sort of economic or financial scenarios, one is forced to the conclusion that this money is required to finance projects which have not yet come before the scrutiny of Parliament. I make that categorical observation at this moment. There are elements in the Government ‘s collective mind as to how large sums of money are required to finance programs which Parliament has not yet sighted.

The third matter I raise is a matter which Senator Cavanagh sought to defend. He said that no one is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Parliament and trying to get money illegally. I think that the Advance to the Treasurer has become an illegal appropriation because of its dimensions at the moment. Senator Cavanagh said that it will all be accounted for at Budget time. We will be accounting for money which has already been spent without the specific knowledge or approval of Parliament.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We must get the approval of Parliament to authorise it.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-The Government is asking for approval to spend $240m now, and the Parliament has no idea why it wishes to spend it. When Budget time comes the Government will say: ‘This is how we spent it’. Parliament is founded on its ability to control the money of the nation, to control taxation, to impose taxation and to see that there is a proper accountability to Parliament for money whose expenditure it has approved. That is what Parliament is about. If governments project themselves into a time machine which is recessive they will go back to hisorical times; they will get back to the times of King Charles II. He would ask Parliament for money for the navy and would spend it on the Duchess of Portsmouth. I do not know what sort of Duchess of Portsmouth the Government has in mind on which some of this $ 120m is to be spent. Let us have an explanation of the expenditure. That is all we are asking.

I do not think the Government can put any arguments why it should refuse to supply details as to how it calculated this $120m in Supply Bill (No. 1 ), but I say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that unless there is an explanation the Committee may have to consider what it is all about. That is where we are getting to. If next year the suffering public of Australia finds it is still governed by this Government and we find $400m in the Advance to the Treasurer, I think members of Parliament will have ceased to perform the functions for which they were elected. The function of Parliament constitutionally is to see that performance is carried out in accordance with constitutional practice. This is a method of nibbling away at the constitutional practice of the past. As Senator Wright pointed out, the appropriations have now reached extraordinary dimensions compared with those in the United Kingdom and vast sums of money are appropriated under these specious appropriations which have been presented to the Parliament. Therefore, I support Senator Cotton’s foreshadowed amendment, but I add that I wish later to raise some other matters in relation to these Bills.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I wish to add only a small point to what has already been said. I was very concerned to read the amounts of this item in the Advance to the Treasurer during the last 5 or 6 years. Senator Guilfoyle has mentioned how they have been increasing. I was surprised at the extent to which they had increased. I remind the Senate that if we look at the Supply Bills for 1970-71 onwards we will find that the total amounts included in the Advance to the Treasurer were $40m in 1970-71 -

Senator Wriedt:

– We have heard all that.

Senator BAUME:

-Not all of it, senator. The following year the figure was $50m. Then the figure rose to $75m. The total amount asked for in the Advance to the Treasurer in those 3 years is less than the amount being asked for now in a single year. The amount asked for last year was $150m and we are now being asked to approve $240m. The amount and rate of increase and the unspecified nature of the expenditure are proper and legitimate matters of concern. It is all right for Senator Wriedt to become a bit testy, but the facts speak for themselves: The expenditures up to the last 2 years were small and they have increased very rapidly and considerably.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

-I support Senator Cotton’s foreshadowed amendment because it is of great concern to this Parliament to see Advances to the Treasurer escalating to an amount such as $240m. I agree with Senator Cotton that we must have some clarification of the expenditure on areas in which these advances are being made because for too long there have been too many single line entries presented to the Estimates committees spelling out great expenditude but giving no details of it. I wish to deal with a Press release that was issued by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) on 23 March of this year. I wish to emphasise that this release came from the Minister for Tourism and Recreation. He stated that a grant of approximately $953,860 would be made on his behalf for arts and cultural projects throughout Australia. It amazed me that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation is making grants in this area. One notices that there is a grant of $12,500 for a central art gallery. Then we also find that an advance of some $153,860 will also be made for the ‘Paddington (Sydney) Centre Complex which will comprise a Video Research Centre, 2 Cinemas, a large Hall for concerts, exhibitions, receptions, a restaurant’ and so on. We find also that the Old Tote Theatre in Sydney, a live theatre, will receive a grant of approximately $100,000. 1 do not criticise, or object to, money being given in this area for assistance in the development of the arts, but I do question that this grant should come from the Minister for Tourism and Recreation.

The Press release stated further with regard to the Paddington exercise that it is a venture shared between the Sydney City Council and the Film and Television Board of the Council for the Arts. My understanding- the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) can correct me if I am wrong- is that this area comes within the responsibility of the Prime Minister. So I ask: Where does responsibility start and where does responsibility finish? One finds the Minister for Tourism and Recreation making advances. When I questioned him I received in correspondence a statement which said:

No commitment for further funding for this project -

That is the Paddington project - has been given by the Minister nor is it envisaged.

That Minister may not make any more advances, but which Minister will? Will it be the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) who will give the next grant? Will it be the Prime Minister? This arts matter is right in his area. Will it be the Minister for the Media and his

Department which will make extra grants? The whole thing is spread so broadly and the lines of demarcation are so thin that it is hard to see to where we can point for responsibility or where we can make inquiries to see where the responsibility does lie.

When one looks at the overall complex in Paddington and the finance that will be involved, $ 153,860 is not very much money. One wonders whether any more Government contributions will be made in this area. I would not expect the Minister for the Media to be able to answer these questions because it may be the Department of the Prime Minister or the Department of Urban and Regional Development which will pick up the tab next time. But when there are shades of grey in areas of responsibility such as this, how far down the line does responsibility go? I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) or the Minister for the Media whether they are prepared to say how far down the line the Department of the Prime Minister goes with regard to responsibility for the arts. I am critical in this area because when dealing with this matter in the Estimates committees we found it rather difficult to obtain some of the information. I do not blame the Leader of the Government in the Senate who is now at the table, but I feel that responsibility is spread so thinly that we should question exactly where it lies.

I would like to turn to what I consider to be an extremely important area in which the taxpayers’ money is being used in an endeavour to indoctrinate the taxpayer himself. I refer to the advertisements with regard to Medibank not only in the Press but also on television. The Government has stated that it is spending approximately $ 1 Vim to explain Medibank to the community. I would prefer to use a word other than the word ‘explanation’. I feel that this has been a political sell by the Government at the taxpayers’ expense. Since the Medibank campaign has eased off we now find that we are getting propaganda on television with regard to legal aid. This is being pushed on us in many ways. I know that the Minister for the Media has been questioned on certain aspects of the presentation of this propaganda, if I may use that term.

I go further. Medibank was publicised at our expense. It was a sell of Government policy. We are finding that suddenly legal aid has had a great impact- not only on television. I presume that all Federal members of Parliament, like politicians in South Australia, have received great bundles of printed propaganda regarding legal aid. I wonder how much more of this propaganda has been sent round the country and what the cost to the community will be, because the Government is paying for it out of the taxpayers’ money. In addition to the expenditure on this propaganda exercise, where is it leading us? Is this another subtle and devious approach to whittle away gradually the free enterprise system of the legal fraternity and a back door method which will eventually lead to nationalised- a more popular word used by this Government is socialised’- legal services in this country?

I questioned the Minister for the Media this morning regarding the possibility of television advertisements on how to live with inflation. The Minister did not give me a clear cut answer this morning. He stated that discussions are taking place and that he is looking at the cost aspects of the matter. I notice the smile from Senator Wright. Nevertheless, there has been no firm statement that this television propaganda regarding how to live with inflation will not take place. I mention the 3 areas: Medibank, the legal aid scheme and the probable television advertisements with regard to inflation.

What concerns me is the setting up in this country of a monolithic propaganda machine. The matter does not stop at the televising of these things. Publications are being pushed out into the community in no uncertain manner. The Government has set up what it calls the Australian Government Liaison Service- a service which will increase greatly the numbers of staff, including the numbers of journalists, but a service which I consider will be a one-way flow. It will be a Government propaganda exercise again to tell the people of this country- to feed information out to the city Press, the rural Press and local governments all over the place- the nature of Government policies, the reason for Government policies, second reading speeches of Ministers and such other matters as will gradually get around to selling Government policies to this community; a sell for which this community will be paying.

I am not surprised that the Government has done this, but I am concerned that the Government has done it. Quite frankly, I see developing in this country a situation in which millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money will be expended in order to sell Government propaganda to the community. We have seen it happen in other countries. I feel that this is a subtle method of imitating what was done years ago in Germany when Dr Goebbels did his wonderful propaganda exercise using the theory that if you tell people something often enough they finally will believe it. This is what is happening in the repetition of the television advertisements for Medibank. We have had the same with regard to the legal aid system and no doubt we will get the same with regard to inflation so that people will expect- and accept, the Government hopes- to live with an inflation rate of 1 6 per cent, 20 per cent or 20-odd per cent. The Government will attempt to sell its policies in order to overcome the criticism it is getting at present.

Having said that I wish to move into another area of the media. I refer to access radio. Some time ago the University of Adelaide was given a licence to run a radio station known as Radio University. The licence stated that the station should also be used for access radio and that the access radio would be available to the various community or ethnic groups. Finance has been one of the grave problems for this radio station. It has applied for financial assistance. I refer to an article in the local Adelaide Press which reads:

Approaches for financial assistance for the provision of a producer to aid the groups, for studio support expenses, a part-time office assistant, office expenses and publicity to reach those interested have fallen on deaf ears.

Yet the Film and Television Board, which originally declared it could not help as it had no funds for access radio, recently made a $15,000 grant to the Sydney-based Public Radio Association of Australia, of which Radio University is a member for ‘research into access radio’.

All that Radio University in Adelaide has asked for is a minimal grant to be used in the area of experimentation. The grant was sought on a nonrecurring basis. The station wanted an initial grant for the first year. No request was made for further years. This station was to have been the first access radio in Australia. On a trial and error basis it would have found out the best way in which to operate access radio to give assistance to the various ethnic groups in this country. The station has been refused any assistance; yet now 2 access radio stations are to be set up in this country. As I understand it- the Minister can correct me if I am wrong- one will,be in Sydney and one will be in Melbourne. This is at the request of Mr Grassby, who is, I suppose one could say, the unofficial Minister for Immigration. These will be on a 3-month experimental basis. The programs will be taped programs of 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the evening. The programs will be for the various ethnic groups, but the programs are to be arranged by Mr Grassby.

Before I go any further let me make it clear that I fully support the concept of access radio for the various ethnic groups in this country. I am not critical of it in any way at all. I express concern that, if these stations are to be used with a program basically supplied or directed by Mr Grassby, whose political colours are well known, the stations could be used to indoctrinate the various ethnic groups of this community. I ask the Minister, if I am incorrect, whether he will give the Senate a guarantee that these stations will not be used for propaganda purposes in any way at all, that a man such as Mr Grassby will not be in charge of the programming, that some independent authority will be in charge of the programming and that if politics are discussed there will be a balance and political discussions will not be loaded one way. Everything in the area of the media today is pointing towards an imbalance. As I said earlier, we are seeing the creation of a giant propaganda machine to sell for this Government. It is one of the great dangers we face in this country at present. The danger is not that the people of this country will be silly enough to accept indoctrination by this Government but that such a situation is gradually developing in this country. In other countries where this has happened we have seen the tragedy that has followed eventually.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise to express very briefly a concern which is largely along the lines of that already expressed by Senator Cotton, Senator Wright and others. It refers to the $240m in the Treasurer’s Advance which takes the place of an amount which, I understand, was in the vicinity of $64m in the previous year.

Senator Wright:

-$ 1 50m, I believe.

Senator SCOTT:

– This is the actual amount spent. I believe that the actual amount spent in this year was $64.8m. In view of that it is now deemed necessary to allot $240m. Senator Wriedt suggested, in a brief reply to Senator Cotton, that perhaps the chief reason for this sort of expansion was the extreme expansionary nature of the Australian Government’s performance. I suppose he was referring to the extreme expansion in the areas of inflation and unemployment.

I believe that rather than the Government concerning itself with the specific amounts it should be concerning itself with the effectiveness of the expenditure of the moneys that it has sought and that it now seeks. In those areas I believe it is finding itself very much short of the mark. In fact we must be aware that inflation, which is in large measure produced by the Government’s economic policies, is in itself the most conducive element in producing the measure of unemployment that we have in this country. I want to take the slightly different view that the importance that we should attach to assessing the need for explanation of this $240m is an importance related to the manner in which the expenditure is to be made and to the way in which it is to affect an economy which is already in dire straits, already suffering unemployment at a significant level- and increasing- and inflation at a similar level. In this sort of circumstance I believe we should be aware that some of the areas of expenditure are of doubtful operative value in terms of the economy.

I am reminded of the large amount of money that is being expended under the Regional Employment Development scheme. Some of these projects, of course, are producing a somewhat distorted appearance in the unemployment situation in this country. But, more particularly, they are producing a circumstance in which there are being established in this country services and facilities which may well be needed at a more affluent time- perhaps 10 years from now- but which should be directed at this point more definitely towards producing the goods and services that alone can, by matching the everincreasing volume of money, in some measure control inflation. Much of the Regional Employment Development scheme has failed as a solution to the problems of development and to the problems of the maintenance of a rate situation which is constantly spiralling throughout the local government areas of this country.

I suggest that the Government should be looking at the manner in which it expends these moneys that it seeks as well as at describing and defining the needs that it finds for asking for those moneys. In large measure had some of the significant amounts spent under the RED scheme been available to councils to use according to their own priorities and not priorities established in remote places elsewhere, significant numbers of people would not have become unemployed in the first place and would not have had thrown into jeopardy their superannuation and long service leave entitlements. That would not have happened. But, more importantly still, I believe that the moneys expended in that sort of avenue would have established a circumstance in which there was a real possibility of councils being able at least to maintain the level of rates and certainly not to increase them in an area in which the community is totally incapable of providing an increase.

I just wanted very briefly to draw attention to the fact that not only do we require but also that it is necessary that we have an explanation of such an extreme increase in the amount of money provided as the $240m provided in this instance represents. I also wanted to emphasise that there is incumbent upon the Government an enormous responsibility not only to talk about the provision of more money but also to demonstrate a proper method of expending the moneys it has.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-It seems incredible when one reflects upon it that the Government was able to convince a majority of the Australian electorate in 1972 that its advent to power would mean open government. I think that the experience of the past 2 years has disclosed that the Government is the most secretive government in the nation ‘s history.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Except on Cabinet submissions.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Well, it is also, I should imagine, the least secure of all governments in this country’s history.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Tell us what item you are speaking to. You are in Committee.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-So that Senator Cavanagh may have his fears allayed I point out that I am addressing myself to the sum of $2 40m about which no information has been given and which stands out the more starkly because no attempt has been made to explain what it is for. The sum of $ 120m provided for in each of the Supply Bills is for what might be described as the Government’s urgent and unforeseeable requirements. It is a contingency fund in total of $240m. It is a contingency fund provided for in the Supply Bills for 5 months of what is the normal 12-months period. In the last year of office of the Liberal-Country Party Government that contingency fund was $40m under the Appropriation Bills. In the first year of office of the Whitlam Government I think it rose to $100m. In the Budget for the current year the Appropriation Bills reveal that in total $ 1 50m was sought. Now, as I understand the position, the amount is running at the rate of just under $600m.

The implications of that are frightening because we have not been told what that money is to be used for. As I have said, it represents a kitty into which the Government can plunge in order to pay for things which it regards as urgent and unforeseeable but which, if it is not very scrupulous, it can draw upon to initiate proposals for which it has not received parliamentary authority. Indeed, that is what the particular Advance to the Treasurer in this case is specifically indicated as constituting. It is an advance to enable the Treasurer to make moneys available for expenditure particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to the Parliament, including payments by way of financial assistance to a State on such terms and conditions, if any, as the Treasurer determines and to make moneys available for expenditure pending the issue of a warrant of the Governor-General specifically applicable to the expenditure. So the point is that the Government would be able to spend any part of this amount, which I have said is running at the rate of almost $600m, on any objective that the Government chooses, and it would not have to ask the Parliament for its approval or have parliamentary authority for it, nor would it have to have constitutional authority for it. It would simply be under an expressed obligation to submit the matter to the Parliament afterwards. For a government which has regarded the law of little consequence, which has contributed as much, I would think, as any group in the community to the erosion of standards and authority and which regards the Constitution of the nation as something to which it does not have to ‘pay even scant attention, as has the present Government, there is no limit to what it might do.

I suggest that some of the significant steps which the Government has taken in the period in which it has been in office are steps which have not carried with them any parliamentary sanction except that money has been voted for them in some way by the Parliament and has been used by the Government without its telling the Parliament what it is being used -for. For example, we have seen the creation of a structural assistance scheme under which moneys are payable to employees whom some Government officials say have lost their jobs because of Government policies. What means of checking that are available to the Parliament? None at all. It is highly satisfactory for those who are getting 6 months pay at the average they were earning over the preceding 6 months, but it is not very satisfactory for those employees who. lose their jobs and are curtly told that they did not lose their jobs as a result of Government policies. It is a totally unfair system that is characterised by patronage and all the opportunity for abuse that that must involve.

The National Employment and Training scheme under which people can be paid, as I understand the situation, at the rate of some $93 a week for retraining is a scheme which has not received any parliamentary authority. As I understand it, the Regional Employment

Development scheme has no parliamentary authority. The legal aid office which is being established and which is striking at the very existence of an independent legal profession also has no parliamentary authority. We see, of course, the emerging development of payments to companies. Even multinational companies can qualify. Sums of money are being paid to maintain the mighty combines which produce motor cars, and enormous sums of money are being paid to purchase a car company’s premises- $25m, as I recall. Where is there parliamentary authority for any of these steps? This is what is implicit in the grant by this Parliament of an open-ended cheque to the Treasurer of the day. By this particular Bill we are being asked to give him a blank cheque for $240m over a period of 5 months, and all that the Opposition is asking is why? Senator Guilfoyle said earlier that there must be some reason for which this greatly increased amount is being asked. Why will the Government not come clean? The Opposition is giving the Government the opportunity to come clean.

When this Bill was introduced the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) made a speech in which he set out some of the specific matters for which supply was being asked and in which he thought the Senate might be interested. He mentioned food aid, compensation to the victims of Cyclone Tracy, the Aboriginal Loans Commission, the Health Insurance Commission and the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, but he did not mention a word about that significantly large item, the Advance to the Treasurer. If it is good enough for the Government to specify these other matters and explain why an additional amount or a large amount is being offered in those areas, why will the Government not say why it wants a greatly increased Advance to the Treasurer? What is it that the Government is concealing? We have the ebullient and enthusiastic Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) taking up question time day after day explaining all about his Government Insurance Office. That Bill has not yet been passed by the Parliament, but is it not assumed within his Department that the Office is being established? Are not advertisements appearing and are we not going to have in the next few months a massive advertising campaign financed out of the Advance to the Treasurer? Are we going to have further moneys from the Advance to the Treasurer used for Australian Legal Aid Office advertising? Look as one might through the Appropriation Bills of last year and through the Supply Bills, there is not a word with respect to advertising legal aid. Yet we know that there must have been immense sums of money spent on that in the last few months. For what is this Advance to the Treasurer to be applied? What are the policies which it embodies? Is there in fact to be established, as I have heard rumoured, a Government newspaper and is it to be established in advance of parliamentary authority, and the Parliament then told: ‘Abolish the newspaper or abolish the Commission, if you dare ‘.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer is no, that is not going to happen.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-At least by interjection one Government Minister has been stirred into some life. For the last hour or so while these points have been made the Government Ministers have sat silent. All the Opposition is asking for is information, but this Government-

Senator Wright:

– Government senators are a bit silent too.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I agree that they are not very happy about it. It is very interesting to see that the Government Ministers have got scarcely a Government backbencher supporting them. No wonder, when they look so glum. They would not give any encouragement to anybody behind them. As Senator Cotton indicated, the Opposition believes that these matters are sufficiently important for us to give the Government the opportunity to explain what it is seeking in regard to this item and to provide better information than it has provided in the past. I support all that has been said on this issue by Opposition senators. Having regard to our parliamentary system, it is not good enough for governments to adopt this attitude of asking for immense sums of money without disclosing how they are to be used.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have listened with a great deal of interest to all of the remarks that have been made by honourable senators opposite. I have left it until this late stage to speak on the matters for which I am ministerially responsible in this chamber because the Government wanted to give the Opposition its say and they have had their say. But frankly, having listened to Opposition senators since 2.15 or 2.30 this afternoon dealing with the Supply BillsBills that the Government thought would be passed on Wednesday 23 April- we now find that the Bills are to be deferred again for further explanations, even though the Senate sat on Estimates Committees for about a fortnight so that Ministers could be queried individually about the respective items in the Appropriation and Supply Bills and in the Estimates. While the Government realises that because of sheer weight of numbers the proposal of the Opposition to have these Bills deferred until next Tuesday will be carried, my mind boggles at the amount of time that has been taken up in the individual Estimates Committees, in the debate that took place in this chamber 3 weeks ago before the Senate rose, and now in these committee stages.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– We are only talking about an amount of almost $4 billion.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Opposition has been talking about the $4 billion. The Government also has been given an undertaking that the Bills will be passed, but again they are deferred.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are you going to say that you are not going to provide the information? ls that it?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The information has been provided over and over again. In the Senate Estimates Committees we sat here from 2 o’clock in the afternoon until 10 o’clock at night and then the next day from 8 o’clock until 10.30, and so it has gone on and on. While the numbers in the Senate are the way they are then the Government will continue to be frustrated in its legislative process. Senator Guilfoyle talks about an amount of $4 billion. With great respect, Senator Missen spent about a quarter of an hour talking about the lack of air conditioning in Parliament House. I would suggest with great respect that he could well have done that at an individual meeting of the Senate Estimates Committee when the individual officers of the Parliament were present and where he would have received more and probably better information than that which can be given in these circumstances.

I deal now with two matters that are not related to my portfolio but to 2 other portfolios for which I am ministerially responsible in this chamber. Senator Jessop from South Australia referred to a school that had not received financial assistance for the construction of a library. In my capacity as Minister representing in this chamber the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), I took up the matter with Mr Beazley as a result of Senator Jessop ‘s inquiry. The Minister for Education has advised me that when the former Government made grants concerning libraries it made offers in some cases in an ambiguous manner. At the outset of the letter there appeared to be a firm promise. Subsequently the promise was made contingent on the decisions of a future Parliament. The Minister for Education has advised that there is no legal obligation on the Government to meet these promises but he is concerned that a moral commitment may be involved. The Karmel Committee report recommended that an amount of $ 1.28m be made available to meet their shortfall in grants, and this amount has been paid out on the recommendation of State non-government priority committees. The Minister for Education further advised that it is understood that the Schools Commission will be recommending on this matter for the coming triennium. At any rate it is free to do so. If it does so, the recommendation will no doubt be incorporated in the legislation of Parliament as the original letters of the LiberalCountry Party Government suggested that it might. In the case of the Somerton Park Sacred Heart College- the school to which Senator Jessop made reference- the letter of the former Liberal Minister concluded with words that the headmaster has not quoted in correspondence to the Minister for Education. The then Minister for Education wrote to the school on 4 August 1970, I am told, in the following terms:

Ultimately we propose to pay the whole cost of an approved building project provided that the cost is agreed by us to be reasonable and to assist you with the purchase of library books, furniture and equipment to the extent recommended by the Libraries Committee. I cannot say when further assistance can be given, however, because that depends on the availability of funds, the priority recommended for your school, and Parliament agreeing to the extension of the scheme beyond the current triennium.

That is all the information that I can provide to Senator Jessop in regard to the query that he raised concerning the Sacred Heart school at Somerton Park.

Senator Young raised the question of arts and cultural grants being made by the Department of Tourism and Recreation. As Senator Young will appreciate, I represent the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) in this chamber. Senator Young raised the question of the Paddington centre complex before a meeting of Estimates Committee C which I, as the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, attended, and subsequently the Department provided an answer with the information sought by Senator Young. The Department said that it provides grants for capital assistance for leisure facilities from moneys appropriated for that purpose under division 939.01. On 23 March this year capital grants for arts and cultural projects were announced for the first time as part of this capital assistance program by the Minister for. Tourism and Recreation and included in those grants was an amount of $153,860 towards the capital cost of the Paddington centre complex project. No commitment for further funding for this project has been made by the Minister, nor is it envisaged.

Senator Young, I think quite fairly:

asked why grants of what one might call a cultural nature are being made available by the Department of Tourism and Recreation or by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation when there is an independent statutory authority, the Australia Council, which was formerly the Australian Council for the Arts. This is an independent statutory body which was established by the Government to make grants of this nature. I am advised by the Department of Tourism and Recreation that it has a general overall program of capital assistance for recreational facilities and these forms of assistance are divided into 3 categories. Firstly, there is a community sporting and recreation facilities category. Applications under that heading are received from local government organisations, local organisations and State authorities. Strictly commercial or private organisations are not eligible for assistance under that category. The second category relates to capital assistance for international standard sporting facilities and project developers under this heading might be State or local government authorities or non-profit bodies that have been established for a specific purpose. The specialist facilities must meet certain technical standards that are required for top level participation in the sports involved. I understand the standards are set by the Department.

The third category, the one under which assistance to the Paddington complex was given, covers capital assistance for arts and cultural facilities. Under this category applications may be submitted by State or local government authorities or non-profit organisations in this field. When applications are received by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation from State or local government authorities or non-profit organisations the Minister receives advice from the Australia Council, the independent cultural body to which I referred earlier, as to how these projects should be assessed. Applications are in fact forwarded to the Australia Council in the first instance with a copy going to the Department of Tourism and Recreation. The projects considered in this section of the program must be primarily for artistic and cultural activities. So whilst the funding for this type of operation comes within the category of tourism and recreationI am sure the honourable senator will appreciate that certainly a number of arts and cultural activities can come within both categories of tourism and/or recreation- nonetheless when the applications are received they are received in the first instance by the Australia Council, the independent statutory body, which culls them, assesses them and then makes recommendations to the Minister. I understand it was in that vein and by that process that the amount involved was made available to the Paddington complex. Grants are basically made available to nonprofit community groups and I am told that the Department certainly would not give a grant to people who might be engaged principally in the art of making money.

That brings me to the remarks which Senator Young made concerning my Department and aspects of my Department. Firstly, let me speak about this so-called vast propaganda machine to which Senator Young made reference. I mentioned this morning, I think in reply to Senator Martin, that prior to this Government assuming office there was the Australian News and Information Bureau centered in the backwater of the old Department of the Interior. The Bureau was charged with the responsibility of tendering and providing information abroad about Australia. Since this Government came into this office and since that Bureau has been transformed from a bureau into a section of my Department it has been modernised, upgraded and updated. Frankly, with great respect to Senator Young, I believe that the Australian Information Service consists of very highly dedicated officers of the Australian Public Service. I do not regard them as propagandists for or on behalf of any government. I regard them as information officers serving the betterment and interests of Australian people either in Australia or abroad.

Senator Young:

– I made no reference to the Australian Information Service, but to the Australian Government Liaison Service.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was about to say that the Australian Government Liaison Service is an adjunct of the Australian Information Service. They are inter-related, one with the other. The Australian Government Liaison Service has been established principally on the premise- (Extension of time granted). I am indebted to Senator Cotton. I shall be brief. The Australian Government Liaison Service has been established on the premise and on the principle that the Australian people have a right to know what is going on in a democracy. There is nothing involved like brainwashing them. It is a service that has been established to give them information. Frankly, when I became Minister for the Media and saw what went on about the old way in which ministerial and departmental Press releases and Press handouts were given and saw how they were sent out here, there and everywhere I thought it was a shocking waste of money with little result. I told my Department that the publication had to be modernised and updated. The Department set out to issue the publication on a quarterly basis.

Senator Greenwood:

– How many millions of dollars did it cost?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am about to tell the honourable senator. We set out to issue the publication on a quarterly basis and we called it a ‘Quarterly Digest’. We went out and found subscribers to the Digest. In fact we found about 8000 subscribers. Certainly when it was a quarterly digest, the amounts of subscriptions were just about covering the cost of the publication and distribution. But we also found that quarterly digests were becoming obsolete. Times were moving so quickly that something which was put out 3 months ago was old hat or stale news. The Digest has now been refurbished on a weekly basis. The publication is now sent to every media organisation throughout Australia. There is no propaganda involved. Every member of the Opposition, every member of the Australian Parliament receives a copy of it. It is based principally on the premise that the Australian people have a right to know. We have heard a lot about Medibank, we have heard a lot about legal aid and we have heard a lot about a prospective campaign about inflation. Again the Government is working on the basis that there is open government, that people have a right to know the things that are going on in government. They are entitled to know their rights and entitlements as citizens. Certainly I make no apology as the Minister for the Media for giving them this information.

Senator Young referred to access radio and referred to 5 VU Adelaide. That is one of the stations that has been opened up by this Government since we came into office. There had been no new stations established in Melbourne for 40 years until this Government came into office. No new station had been established in Sydney for 30 years, I think, until this Government came into office. Radio Station 5 VU Adelaide, which was operating on a small basis as an educational station, was opened up on an experimental basis by the Australian Government as an educational and access station. At the time, the station was told that the licence would be issued to it with no additional commitment as to funds being made by the Government at that stage. Mr Warburton willingly accepted the extension of the frequency. I believe he is doing an excellent job. I suggested to him that the station should make an application to the Universities Commission for financial assistance. I hope that it does make an application to the Universities Commission for financial assistance. I also hope that the Film Radio and Television Board of the Australian Council, the independent statutory body, would consider sympathetically any application that might be made for funds. But all of these radio stations which have been opened up have been opened up because in the past there has been a locking up of the airwaves of this country. We have opened them up on the principle that there has to be participatory democracy in the use of the airwaves of this country. That is why the Government is engaging in public broadcasting. This will be one of the few countries in the world which will have a national broadcasting service, a commercial broadcasting service and a public broadcasting service. If there are any other matters to which I should have referred in reply to Senator Jessop and Senator Young, I shall be happy to do so.

Senator Young:

– What about the other 2 access or ethnic radio stations in Sydney or Melbourne?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The 2 proposed ethnic access community stations, as I understand it, will be licensed on a 3-monthly basis on the recommendation of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The licences will be issued in the name of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Immigration.

Senator Young:

– Who will run the programs?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-So far as I know, it will be organised by the Department of Labor and Immigration in consultation with Mr Grassby ‘s office. From what I know, and I know very little about the programming arrangements -

Senator Greenwood:

– That is just a departmental station.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Does the honourable senator want ethnic broadcasting or not? If it is to be done, it has to be done firstly on an experimental basis -

Senator Young:

– I asked the Minister if he would get the details of who will be in charge of programming.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The latest information I had was that a Miss Clare

Dunne would be one who would be responsible for making arrangements for programming and contacting the various community groups. Again I say that this is for a 3-monthly basis. We want to see how the system works because we want to encourage an opening up of the airwaves of this country so that all people may have an involvement in community affairs.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is a curious lack of cohesion, an odd absence of a constant theme, in what we have heard from the Opposition this afternoon. For example, I thought for a while that what Opposition members objected to most about this Government is that we are spending too much money. But then speaker after speaker rose to complain that we were not spending enough money. Senator Jessop had a complaint that we were not giving $46,000 to some school in South Australia. Senator Missen wanted to know why we were not spending money on air conditioning in this place. It is as though these people live in a wilderness of single instances, all unrelated to the other. I should like them to spell out just what is their complaint about this Government. Are we spending too much, or are we not spending enough? I think it was left to Senator Greenwood to go a little bit further than any of the other speakers in distortion and misrepresentation. I refer especially to what has become one of his pet obsessions at the moment. I refer to what he said about the structural assistance scheme. Among the phrases that he used about the scheme was that it was ‘wide open for patronage’. I should like to tell him a few things that perhaps those on his side of politics have not told him. I have received personal representations for a piece of this patronage from none other than his Leader, Mr Malcolm Fraser, his ex-Leader, Mr Snedden, his present Deputy Leader, Mr Lynch, and a South Australian member named Mr Giles. I think Senator Young will recall that he has asked me to use my offices to advance some representations for somebody in South Australia.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is the system you have set up.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If it is so awful, why does the honourable senator not boycott it?

Senator Young:

– I am still waiting for an answer from you, Mr Minister.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator acknowledges that he is also interested in what Senator Greenwood chooses to call the ‘pork barrel’. I might mention that Mr Lynch was successful in his representations on behalf of a business in his electorate for a grant, as was Mr Giles. These gentlemen, in making their representations to me, did not express any horror -

Senator Young:

– I did not ask for a grant for a business, Mr Minister; it was done in regard to another matter.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– All right, but in the other cases they were representations for grants under the various structural assistance schemes sponsored by the Government. As I said last night, I made a rough total the other day as to how the money had been handed out under one of these loathed schemes, the SANMA scheme. SANMA is an acronym for Special Assistance to Non-Metropolitan Areas. I came up with the figures that 69 per cent of the money distributed in these grants has gone to electorates held by Opposition members and 3 1 per cent to enterprises in electorates held by Labor members. So if there is any patronage in these grants, it seems that it is going mostly to our political opponents. As I have just illustrated, they are most anxious to get on any gravy train that may be around. Of course, as I also said last night, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Fraser, went out of his way publicly to rebuke a member of his Party, Mr Wentworth, for complaining about this Government’s generosity to the State of Tasmania. Mr Fraser said in a special Press release that he repudiated and dissociated himself from any suggestion that the Australian Government should not be giving special grants to the State of Tasmania. So much for the sincerity of the claims by the Opposition that there is something furtive, secret or reeking of patronage in this scheme.

Insofar as Senator Greenwood did have a point, it was that when we did not introduce these schemes under the umbrella of some special legislation we in some way were depriving the Opposition or the people of Australia of the benefits of accountability. But there is nothing secret about anything that we do. All of these matters will appear in appropriation Bills. Members of the Opposition will be able to ask questions about them. Details of every payment made under the Regional Employment Development scheme, for instance, will be available to any members of the Opposition when the time comes to be querying the manner in which the Government has expended its money. In other words, we are, as we always have claimed to be, an open Government which will account to the Parliament and to the people for everything we spend.

The proposition that we do not need some sort of structural assistance scheme is tantamount to condemning this country forever to an antiquated system of protection which grew up ad hoc over the years under a series of LiberalCountry Party governments. We believe that there is a need for tariff reform and for a revision of our protection system in this country. As anybody knows, such measures hurt somebody. If we are to say that a government has to avoid the political flak which inevitably results from closing down certain plants and from putting people out of work, that is another way of saying that the status quo has to last forever because governments cannot afford to take the political pain involved in the sort of changes I am talking about. If we are to have the sort of structural change that I am advocating we also have to have assistance for people and companies hurt by such a program.

The fact that we have to have schemes such as the RED scheme is a measure, I confess, of the fact that the economy is in difficulties; but I do not see any reason to apologise for the RED scheme. Here again we get this sort of inconsistency from our opponents. We get the constant complaint that we are rearing a generation that does not know work and that will never want to work, because we are over-generous with our social security payments. On the other hand, when we come up with a scheme that involves people working if they want to get paid, which is the essence of the RED scheme, there also is something wrong with that. Obviously there is no way in which this Government can please the Opposition. Every scheme we come up with will displease Senator Greenwood. He will say that it is secret when it is open. He will complain that it is not covered by legislation when in effect it will appear in an appropriation Bill.

Of course, there are even some on the Opposition side who seem to misapprehend our schemes altogether, such as Senator Scott who suggested that the RED scheme in some way ignored the needs of local councils. If he examined the RED scheme a little more he would know that many of the grants under it- in fact a majority of them- are made to local councils. We, of course, claim the right to specify that the sort of use that will be made of the funds we make available under the RED scheme will have a high labour content. Is there anything sinister in that in a period when people are out of work? The suggestion that in some way we are bypassing the local government bodies because of some mad desire to exercise all the power from Canberra just will not stand up.

If we are having this wide ranging survey of what the Government’s economic policies are about instead of directing our minds to what we should be considering in these Supply Bills, I would like to leave those few thoughts with honourable senators opposite. We would be greatly assisted if they would develop some theme in their debate and if they would, above all else, tell us whether we are doing too much, whether we are spending too much, or whether we are spending too little. Above all, I ask them to come up with some positive schemes as to how we should better deploy our resources, instead of engaging in this destructive, negative, non-stop attempt to drag down everything that the Government is trying to do. We would appreciate a little bit of thought from the Senator Greenwoods and the Senator Wrights as to how they would propose to cure the ills of this country. We would love to know Senator Wright’s view on the cure for inflation, for example; but all we get from him is a series of grumbles that do not advance the debate any further. So I suggest to honourable senators opposite that we would be better employed in our continued discussion of these Supply Bills if we were to be given a little of the benefit of their wisdom as well.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-The Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) took exception to our delaying the Bills in question. I want to draw his attention to the statistics relating to all the money Bills which have been dealt with by the Senate in this session. I refer him to the fact that in the committees of the Senate the Bills occupied attention for 28 hours and 40 minutes- an average of about 4 hours in each of the Senate estimates committees. We have spent some 3 hours today discussing these Supply Bills. I ask him to accept that when we are dealing with Bills totalling some $5 billion that is not an inappropriate amount of time for consideration by the Senate.

Before the Minister closes the debate and before Senator Cotton moves his amendment, I want to mention again the questions I raised when I was speaking for a few moments earlier this afternoon. I referred to the estimates for the Department of Social Security, divisions 596 and 598. I sought some explanation about these divisions because they are unusual to us inasmuch as the amounts are not based on the experience of 5 months of a previous year’s appropriation. These sums relate to new items in the sense that they concern a new program which is to be introduced on 1 July this year. Division 596.1 refers to the payment of $22.7m to the Health Insurance Commission. The appropriate amount for a year would be some $54m. I would like to know what that division includes. I take it that the money is for the running expenses of the Health Insurance Commission.

I seek some explanation also of the amount of $335m in division 598. This is sought for payment to the Health Insurance Fund established by the Health Insurance Act of 1973. I assume that that sum represents 5 months supply for the introduction of the national health program. I would like some advice as to whether it covers medical benefits and to what extent, and whether it covers hospital benefits and to what extent. Does it include arrangements that have been made with regard to agents who are to be paid for acting on behalf of the Health Insurance Fund? I seek the sort of information that would be of interest to an Opposition which is asked to pass an appropriation of $335m when it is not based on experience of the amount required for a previous year but is a new item to provide for the introduction of a new scheme. I would be grateful if the Minister in charge of the Bill would answer the inquiries I have made relating in particular to the Health Insurance Commission in the Department of Social Security.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– When this debate began at a quarter past two or half past two it was the intention to consider in Committee Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2). Of course, it is legitimate for any member of the Senate to rise and to question matters concerning expenditure items contained in those 2 Bills. But it was made apparent from the beginning that Senator Cotton would be moving an amendment in relation to the Advance to the Treasurer. Senator Cotton put his points succinctly. I am not saying that I agree with them, but at least he stated his case and the case for the Opposition. Following that we heard a tedious repetition by several members of the Opposition of the points made by Senator Cotton. There were really only 2 honourable senators who introduced new material into the debate, namely Senator Guilfoyle and Senator Missen. The remainder of the debate was simply a stalling operation when there was no need whatsoever for a repetition of what Senator Cotton had said.

If we on this side of the House appear to be glum, as we are accused of being, I can assure the honourable senator who made that remark- I think from memory it was Senator Greenwood who now has a very big smile on his face for a change- that we were not glum, we were bored.

We were bored because we were having to listen to the same things over and over again, in spite of the fact that I had indicated in my earlier remarks the basic reasons for the increase in the Treasurer’s Advance and the fact that the Government was prepared to accept the proposition that the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) may be prepared to give additional information as to the composition of the Treasurer’s Advance. I regret very much that time has been wasted this afternoon in listening to these so-called contributions from most of the honourable senators opposite.

I can only repeat what I said earlier this afternoon, and that is that the provision of the Treasurer’s Advance is not a matter of misconception; it is, as always, what may be termed a sum of uncertainties. Because of the very nature of the Treasurer’s Advance it is always a sum of uncertainties. Of course, the provision this year is greater than previously. It is greater this year because the Government is spending more this year. I was glad that my colleague, Senator James McClelland, who spoke in the debate before I rose, highlighted the point that all of the time the Government is being told that it is not spending enough and then in the next breath members of the Opposition will instance cases where we are spending too much. So it goes on all the time. Despite challenges which have been issued by this Government to the Opposition to tell us in what areas we are spending too much and to tell us the areas in which we ought to reduce our spending, the Opposition will not commit itself. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who was specifically challenged to do this recently, refused to say in what areas he would cut these items of expenditure that we have increased. We have increased them in the areas in which it is necessary to increase them, such as education’, social security, health, and urban and regional development.

I am appalled that Senator Scott, for example, rubbished the Regional Employment Development scheme. Does he think that the help that has been given under this scheme to 40 000 people and to the municipalities in the regional areas of Australia should not have been given and that we should not go on giving that help? The same thing applies to the structural adjustment arrangements to which Senator James McClelland also referred. Why should we see companies such as the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Limited or the zinc works in Tasmania suddenly go out of existence because we are frightened to support them through a time of economic stress through which they are going, not because of the policies of this Government but mainly because of the falling markets for their products in overseas countries? These are the things which we have been prepared to do by means of expanding our expenditure in various areas, to ensure that we can maintain the stability not only of companies but also of economies generally.

Senator Greenwood always seems to find some ulterior motive in everything that this Government does. In his view the Government is always guilty of deceit or concealment, or it has taken some action which must be treated with the utmost suspicion. That, of course, has always been the line that he has pursued. I presume that he would advocate again, as he did this afternoon, that we should disband the National Employment and Training scheme under which it is possible for people to be re-trained and to work in occupations in which they are needed. Senator Greenwood would wipe out all that. Senator Scott would wipe out the Regional and Employment Development scheme. That is the direction in which their thinking is leading them because they cannot rationally think all the way through what they say ought to be done. They will not nominate anything other than the schemes which the Government has implemented- and because the Government has implemented them, therefore they must be wrong.

The only specific comments of anyone on the Opposition side to which I intend to reply are those of Senator Guilfoyle. She asked for some clarification of divisions 596 and 598 which are related to funds for the Health Insurance Commission. These appropriations are estimates of requirements for the 5 months to 30 November. As all honourable senators know, and as they realise, this is the first occasion on which the Health Insurance Commission has had to make an estimate of its requirements, and the Government does not know precisely what demands are to be made upon it for payments under the scheme. This is an example of one of the uncertainties that have been taken into account when making a judgment on the level of the Advance to the Treasurer. One cannot put a figure on uncertainties. The same principle applies, of course, to natural disasters. We do not know at any time when this country, which is particularly subject to natural disasters, may be struck by the various elements, and it is necessary for a government immediately to come to the aid of people who are affected. Such people should not have to wait until such time as someone sees fit to determine whether or not they shall be given aid. These are the sorts of uncertainties which this

Government has got to consider in its programs and when it is determining the Advance to the Treasurer.

The debate this afternoon has highlighted the fact that no government- neither this Government nor any future government- can be sure what level of Advances to the Treasurer may be required. But I regret that, having given the undertaking as first Government speaker in this debate this afternoon that I would seek from the Treasurer his views on this matter, we have unfortunately seen most of the afternoon wasted. The time has been dissipated by repetitive debate on this issue.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I shall be extremely brief. I just wish to refer to a couple of things that were said by Senator Douglas McClelland. I think that he should have remembered his own experience as an honourable senator. If he had he would know that the Supply Bills as such are never available for debate or discussion in a Senate Estimates Committee. They have to be dealt with by the Senate sitting as the Committee of the Whole, which is what is now being done. I specifically was concerned about the Treasurer’s Advance expansion within the broad climate of a massive expansion in total government expenditure when we hear promises to the effect that any expansion will be at a lower rate. But, on the evidence we have in a Supply Bill, we are being asked to agree to a rate of increase which, compared to last year, is 63 per cent.

I think that Senator Douglas McClelland would be the first to agree that he was mistaken when he said that Parliament is not entitled to seek explanations and to come to understandings of issues by inquiry and investigation, because we, like him, are great believers in open government and the necessity of the Parliament to be both responsible and sensible. For it to do that it often needs to have access to facts. Of course, the problem really is one for a Minister in a government, and I understand their reluctance to give a lot of time to this matter. However, the total sum of money is extremely massive. We are looking here in the total quantum at a sum of $3,800m at this stage, which indicates a sum in the order of about $9,300m for a year. Such a sum ought not to pass lightly through any responsible chamber of the Parliament, particularly when one bears in mind that the Supply Bills are concerned with the year which begins on 1 July 1 975. The Appropriation Bills, which provide money for the period between now and 30 June, have been passed by the Senate. Accordingly, I move:

Question put:

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 25

Majority . …… 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In the Senate

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That the report of the Committee be adopted.

Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed:

That the Committee have leave to sit again on Tuesday 20 May to provide time for the Treasurer to provide answers to questions asked this day in connection with Division 680- Advance to the Treasurer- $ 120m.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

- Mr President, may I just indicate that the Government opposes the motion, but in view of the result of the division which was taken on the previous question I see no point in dividing on this question.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1426

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1975-76

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 April, on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– Because of reasons indicated earlier, and to save time, I move:

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I indicate on behalf of the Government our opposition to Senator Cotton’s proposal. Again I do not think the need is there to divide.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In the Senate

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-Mr President, I have to report that the Committee has considered the Bill, made progress and asks for leave to sit again on Tuesday, 20 May, to provide time for the Treasurer to provide answers to questions asked this day in connection with division 970- Advance to the Treasurer- $ 120m.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Temporary Chairman has reported to me.

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That the report of the Committee be adopted.

Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed:

That the Committee have leave to sit again on Tuesday, 20 May, to provide time for the Treasurer to provide answers to questions asked this day in connection with division 970-Advance to the Treasurer-$ 1 20m.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I indicate the Government’s opposition. Again I do not call for a division.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

page 1427

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Consideration resumed from 13 May.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This matter came to the Senate recently by way of message from the House of Representatives. It was sent here on 23 April shortly before the Senate rose prior to Anzac Day. At that stage the Government and the members of the Senate had not had an opportunity to peruse the matter. The Government, having perused it now, supports the proposition. I move:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 261 of the House of Representatives, viz.:

That paragraph (12) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament be omitted and that the following paragraph be substituted:

  1. That the committee report within the shortest reasonable period, not later than 30 September 197S, and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report. ‘.
  2. That the foregoing Resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by Message.
Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

-As an Opposition member of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament, I support the motion. I point out that when the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) introduced the original motion to set up the Committee it contained the words ‘within 90 days’ which, if my memory serves me correctly, means 29 May. Any senator who has been on a joint select committee of the Parliament inquiring into such an important aspect of parliamentary life as this would know that the Committee could not possibly do all its work thoroughly and prepare a report and have it printed within 90 days. We tried hard. Our Chairman, Mr Riordan from the other place, worked us very hard and members and senators co-operated. One must realise that to advertise for witnesses, to decide what witnesses would make submissions, to give them time to prepare their submissions, to get in all the questionnaires that we sent out, to have them, our research documents and our evidence analysed and to prepare a draft report, could not possibly be done in 90 days.

So I believe that we have made this request quite fairly, knowing that there is to be a winter recess and that we can make some headway during that recess before Parliament meets and give the Government Printer time to have a report ready for presentation on or before 30 September. Somehow or other in the original motion peculiar language was used to the effect that the Committee report within 90 days and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report. The motion before the Senate at the moment repeats that language in giving an extension of time. There is still the ability for any senator or member to dissent from the report. I am certain that the Senate and the Government would want a good and thoroughly thought out and analysed report. Therefore, I hope that the Senate will agree to the motion.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– There are one or two matters in connection with this motion which I would like to have clarified. They concern future sittings of the Committee. The Committee had what I suppose the Senate and the public would know is a most unexpected result. As a result of the setting up of this Committee and its sittings and as a result of it hearing evidence of the type which it admitted, the case of Senator Webster has been sent to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. That case concerned a challenge to his qualifications to sit as a senator. Mr President, you have sent us a letter informing us that you have transmitted to the High Court the resolution which was passed by the Senate. You have added other details in your role of informing the High Court of the decision of the Senate.

Since then other matters concerning members of Parliament have been raised by the Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Bryant, in a letter which he wrote to all members concerning members’ accommodation. He started his letter by saying that ‘members will have noticed the criticism of government accommodation being allocated to Ministers and others in Canberra ‘. So the subject has been taken further by a Government Minister, in addition to the issue of Senator Webster’s trial, if one can use that term, by the Court of Disputed Returns regarding his qualifications. I have endeavoured to bring to the notice of the correct authorities what I believe to be a contravention of the Constitution by the Deputy Prime Minister of the country, Dr Cairns.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I remind the Senate while we are on this matter that the reference to the High Court of the letter and the evidence from the Committee and the debate that ensued in the Senate when the matter was referred to the Senate are a matter for the Court and perhaps for a special judicial committee which may be set up by the Senate. I ask honourable senators to bear that very closely in mind during the course of this debate. I will take quite a firm line so that we will not go over the borderline of being very discreet on this controversial, yet very sensitive matter that affects one of our colleagues and the setting of terribly important precedents in the interpretation of the Constitution of this country.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, of course, I accept your ruling that the content and detail of any subject matter referring to Senator Webster would be sub judice. I do not accept that anything to do with Dr Cairns is sub judice, and neither would any court of law or any other body in this community. The precedent about which I am concerned and about which I voiced concern previously is the precedent of the Committee sitting to hear evidence which has resulted in a referral to the Senate, but apparently refusing to sit and hear evidence which will affect another member in another place. The precedent to which I object is the fact that one member may be subject to evidence which is against his qualifications to sit in Parliament and another member may not be subject to such allegations and evidence.

I have written to the chairman of the Committee which is the subject of this motion, asking that I be able to give further evidence in relation to the general principle of members’ pecuniary interests in their accommodation in Canberra. A great fog has descended on the matter. There has been a great obscuration, or whatever the word may be. My legal friends would know it better than I do. I think they understand my meaning. It is difficult to get through; it is impossible to get through.

Senator Greenwood:

– Have you had a reply?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I have received a reply, which says:

The Chairman has asked me to acknowledge your letter of 23 April 1 975. It will be brought to the attention of the members at the next committee meeting.

My staff made inquiries about when the next committee meeting would be held and was told that no date had been fixed. The question was then put: ‘Would it be likely to be in June?’ The answer was: ‘Probably not’. It is quite obvious that there is no intention to have a committee meeting at which I will be able to give evidence. I should like to have assurance from the members of the Committee who are present- I think Senator Georges, Senator Marriott and Senator James McClelland, who are present, are members of the Committee- that the Committee will meet to hear further evidence and that it will not set a precedent of one man being affected by the evidence to the exclusion of others.

I remind you, Mr President, that in the letter you sent referring to the transmittal that you made to the Court of Disputed Returns you did not, of course, claim anything against Senator Webster’s character or qualifications. All you did was transmit- and you transmitted quite correctly in my view, and as I hope every member will agree. You said it was claimed; you did not say it was proven. You also went on to say that Senator Webster denied the claim. On that rather frail evidence in the sense of nothing being proven, Senator Webster was sent off, the court was set upon him, or whatever way you may put it. He is to be tested. Yet other members, who I believe are in at least as significant a contravention of the Constitution or, may I personally say, a more significant contravention of the Constitution, are to be sheltered. That of course is not good enough, especially for a government that claims to be so even-handed in all that it does. I am seeking justice on this matter. I should like to give evidence to the Committee. I suppose events can prevent me from giving evidence to the Committee. Looking beyond that which I hope will not happen I have consulted my legal advisers and they tell me that there is no difficulty in taking this matter directly to the High Court.

Senator Georges:

– Why do you not take it to the High Court?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Senator Georges, I had hoped that in the case of any member or any other members the situation would have been dealt with in the same way as with Senator Webster. I can see no way to deal differently. It would be a far more pleasant and honest thing for Parliament to do if it used the same standard for every member. I resent the fact, if it is to be the fact, that I may be sent to the High Court with my legal advisers to do what ought to be done at this level. My advisers have told me that we can approach the High Court and that we will be successful. So, we will have to set out on that course if we are denied the ordinary justice of the vote in this House, or the intention of the Committee. That course is now before us. Either we can do something here now to ensure that the Committee will hear similar evidence in relation to other members as it has with Senator Webster or we can set in train other events which will lead to action before the High Court, probably sitting as the High Court and not as the Court of Disputed Returns. As I have said, my legal advisers are confident that the case will be successful. But I find it a far less desirable course personally and a far less desirable course for this House. It will reflect very badly indeed on this House if it causes action to be taken in that way.

I should like to have the members of the Committee give an assurance that it will meet again and that it will accede to a most respectful application which I have made to the Committee. I have the letter I wrote to the Committee Chairman. I said:

Dear Mr Riordan,

My attention has been drawn to an interest which a number of members of Parliament have with the Commonwealth Government in relation to housing in the A.C.T. I believe this presents another perspective to your inquiry into the possibility of the declaration and registration of interests of members of Parliament. I would be grateful if your Committee could allocate a short period of time at one of its future meetings to hear my views in relation to services which are provided by the Government to members as distinct from those which are provided to the Government by members. In view of your Committee’s terms of reference requiring it to report by May 29 1 would be happy to appear before it at your earliest convenience.

Of course this motion is to extend that time and not to make urgent the appearance of anyone else before the Committee.

Senator Greenwood:

– When Senator Webster’s case was alleged before the Committee the Chairman said it could not receive that sort of material and it sort of just slipped in. Might the Committee not say that it cannot hear you?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It could be, Mr President. I believe that if the Committee is comprised of fair men -

Senator Marriott:

- Mr President -

Senator STEELE HALL:

-They will have to prove it or disprove it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Marriott:

– It is offensive to me that Senator Hall -

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you wishing to take a point of order?

Senator Marriott:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is your point of order?

Senator Marriott:

– It is offensive to me for Senator Hall to say in this House: ‘If the Committee is comprised of fair men’. I am a member of the Committee. I do not want my veracity and fairness doubted by Senator Hall of all people.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I will rephrase my remarks in deference to Senator Marriott for whom I have a great deal of personal respect. I say that in the event -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Marriott, is it suitable to you for Senator Steele Hall to rephrase his remarks?

Senator Marriott:

– It is.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– In the event that the Committee is fair about this matter it will allow the same sort of evidence to come before it as it has in the past. It will, of course, if it receives evidence such as that which concerns Senator Webster, not make any judgment itself; in fact it would not be proper for it to do so. It would take the same course as it did with Senator Webster and refer the case directly to the House of the member concerned. The Committee would not adjudicate. It would not say that the man was qualified or disqualified. It would simply say: ‘It is not our concern, but the relevant standing order which applies to us as a parliamentary committee means that we refer the case to the House of the member concerned’. That is the way the Committee would handle any such evidence, as it has in the past. I say to the members of the Committee that I expect them to be fair in the future as they have been in the past. I hope that satisfies Senator Marriott. I repeat that I have a great deal of personal respect for Senator Marriott and do not accuse him of any personal factors here. I talk of the Committee’s direction in total.

This matter is not to be put aside and will not be put aside by those who would cloud the issue and would protect those who possibly stand equally in the same light as Senator Webster. I promise the members who would make it so that there will not be a witch hunt of one man. Therefore I should like the members of the Committee, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) or the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) to give me an assurance that the Committee will meet again and that it will hear evidence according to a reasonable application which I have made and which I have read to the Senate. To give the Government time and to give members of the Committee time to come to that sort of decision I ask leave to continue my remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No.

Senator Georges:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you, Mr President. I take the point, if I have not been given leave -

Senator Georges:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, you are on your feet. Do you wish to take a point of order.

Senator Georges:

– I am on my feet and I wish to speak -

The PRESIDENT:

– For what purpose?

Senator Georges:

– I wish to specify -

Senator Steele Hall:

– On a point of order -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Steele Hall, will you please take your seat. Senator Georges, do you wish to take a point of order?

Senator Georges:

– I do not wish to take a point of order. I wish to continue -

The PRESIDENT:

– Please do not interrupt the honourable senator’s speech.

Senator Steele Hall:

– On a point of order -

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order now. Senator Hall made his remarks and then used the device of seeking leave to continue his remarks which, if agreed to, would have prevented me or any other honourable senator, especially members of the Committee, from replying to the charges he has made. Senator Hall sat down; leave was not granted. I was on my feet at that stage. I claim that I had the right to speak in this debate.

Senator Steele Hall:

– May I speak to the point of order, Mr President?

The PRESIDENT:

– On the point of order I call Senator Withers.

Senator Withers:

– On the point of order I submit that Senator Hall, having asked for leave to continue his remarks and having been refused leave, is entitled to continue speaking as he has the call from the Chair. He then has the option to conclude his speech, again seek leave to continue his remarks or, if he so desires, to move that the debate be adjourned. I submit to you, Sir, that Senator Georges cannot have the call until Senator Hall resumes his seat.

The PRESIDENT:

– On that point of order, I have already ruled in that way. I called Senator Hall and Senator Georges took a point of order. I rule that Senator Hall is entitled to continue his remarks.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you, Mr President. I should have thought that Senator Georges, who was the one who denied me the right to continue my remarks, would have recognised that I had an obligation to continue my remarks. I am, of course, disappointed that a member of the Committee obviously is being unco-operative in relation to this matter of being fair. Obviously the Government does not intend either to allow an assurance to be given or to give an assurance that further evidence will be heard.

Senator Withers:

– Move the adjournment.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-No. I can only say to the members of the Committee and to the Senate that I have taken every logical step to present the evidence which I believe should be presented. A member of the House of Representatives has endeavoured to formulate a petition for presentation in that House but that petition is not in order because of its contents. It would obviously not be in order for a petition to be presented in the Senate concerning the material with which I have been dealing. Apparently one is now to be denied the opportunity of giving evidence to the Committee from which all of this came. So step by step the issue is being closed. But it will not be closed to the High Court of Australia because of the relevant section of the Constitution. I say that it is a great reflection on this House that it should say that we should go in one direction in relation to the evidence concerning one man but that the matter should be obscured and made more difficult- in fact prohibitedin relation to any other man. That is not the sort of fairness that I would have expected from any House, however partisan it may be, about great issues of the day. It is not fair treatment for individual members of Parliament. I have no alternative but to move an amendment to the proposed variation of the resolution of appointment asking this House to request the Committee or instruct the Committee- the amendment will have to receive the concurrence of the other place, of course, as it is a Joint Committeethat it shall take evidence. If we cannot get an assurance from the members of the Committee or the Government on this matter we will have to have a vote on it.

Senator Marriott:

– You are not giving anyone much of a chance, are you?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-One can speak of chances. What chances have some people had so far?

Senator Georges:

– Sit down and give us a chance.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I would like a bit of decorum in the chamber. Senator Steele Hall has the call.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you, Mr President. I was replying to an interjection by an honourable senator who said that I am not giving anyone much of a chance. I suspect that I have been fairly logical in trying to place my case before the relevant authority. I have just detailed the blockages in the system. I say to Senator Marriott that I am proceeding along a current course of events and I have now reached the stage when I am about to move an amendment. I do not know whether copies of the amendment have been distributed. I have a few copies of it in front of me which I will be pleased to distribute. I move:

Honourable senators will find if they fit that amendment into the original motion moved by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that it will quite logically say that the Committee shall hear further evidence if requested by an honourable member or senator. I believe that that is the only fair proposition that can be put in the face of the events which have transpired in the fruits of the setting up of this Committee. The fruits of the flowering of this Committee have been of the most serious consequence. Instead of being simply a committee to report on the perhaps important but somewhat academic matter of what registration or other factors there should be of the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament, the very setting up of this Committee has resulted in the utmost seriousness of the case of one member of Parliament being placed before the Court of Disputed Returns. In the face of a further reference by the Minister for the Capital Territory in which he has raised all of these issues again in a letter dated 8 May- he specifically raised the question of the accommodation of members of Parliament, which is the subject of further evidence which could be given- it is said that the Committee is to be closed. Never did -

Senator Marriott:

– Have you read the terms of reference of the Committee?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Let me say that when the terms of reference of the Committee were framed it was never envisaged that as a result of its setting up the case of one member of Parliament would be brought before the Court of Disputed Returns. The concept of the Committee’s investigations has been entirely altered. It is an entirely different body. By the very fact of its reference under the Standing Orders it has become a type of inquisition. But that is to be reserved for only 1 member of Parliament. Therefore I have put this matter before the Senate in very practical terms. Let us be blunt about it. I have raised the issue of the Deputy Prime Minister’s agreement with the Commonwealth. It is undisputed. It has been admitted in the public statements he has made that he has signed an agreement with the Commonwealth Public Service that involves a pecuniary interest. I invite every member of this House to re-read his copy of the Constitution. If anyone says that that is not a violation of the Constitution he does not understand it. I suggest that the High Court will understand it. It must. I ask that the matter not be taken to that length and that the Committee do the same thing in other cases as it has done in the earlier one. For that reason I have moved this amendment. I hope that the Senate will not engage in a covering up of the facts which exist and which have been admitted. I hope that it will not say that it has already agreed to set up another committee to look at the general aspects because I have no doubt at all that if it does it will not look at the particular aspects.

Senator Wright:

– Do you have copies of your amendment?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am sorry that I do not have many copies but I certainly have sufficient to provide one to the honourable senator. I have no belief, and I do not think that the members of this chamber who supported the proposition had any belief, that the judicial committee which was proposed to be set up to look at the general question would look at particular instances.

Senator Georges:

– Why not?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am sure that we are not talking about the same thing. I am also sure that the majority of the members of this House would not expect it to do so. The general tenor of the debate so far has been that it would not be expected to look into particular instances. In the general belief that it would not do so one has no other avenue to follow but to agree to a cover up or to agree to a proper functioning of the Committee by making use of the extension of time which is, of course, what the original motion is all about. It is about an extension of time. The Committee is to be given time that would enable it to do what I ask of it. Therefore I ask those honourable senators who are members of it and the Government to agree to my amendment, which is a test of the fairness of the House and the application of the work of the Committee.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is the amendment proposed by Senator Steele Hall seconded?

Senator BUNTON:
New South Wales

– I second the amendment, Mr President. It is my opinion that a senator of this House made a normal request and it would appear that this request has been refused. I think it is entirely wrong that this request should be refused in view of the first hearing of this matter, as a result of which this Senate took certain action. At that time reference was made by Senator Hall to the fact that there could have been other breaches of the Constitution and he stated that they should be heard. I think Senator Hall has gone about this matter in the right way and that his request should have been accepted and the normal action taken. It is purely a matter of formality. Unfortunately, his request has not been viewed in that light. I consider a direction from this Senate should be given and can be given if this amendment is carried.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-In his attempt to pursue a particular person, in this case the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns), Senator Hall has led himself into grave error. His determination not to understand what happened in the debate when the Senate set up the Judicial Committee of Inquiry is such that it rather clouds and diminishes his record in this place. I am astounded that a man of such ability and intelligence should become a victim of such a manoeuvre. He has attacked the Joint Committee on the Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament, which has been carrying out its duties with all care to ensure that every person who comes before it is properly heard. The Committee has done its best to hear evidence in accordance with its terms of reference which were, briefly, to inquire into the desirability of setting up a register of the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. During the inquiry, when the Committee demanded evidence of a nature which would show that certain sections of the Constitution were not sufficient to protect the integrity of members, quite by accident- Senator Hall knows that it was by accident- the Committee was faced with evidence brought before it which involved Senator Webster. The matter was immediately referred to the Senate, as the

Committee was required to do under the Standing Orders. The evidence was then dealt with by the Senate and a certain course taken. To ensure that Senator Webster was not alone in having to go to the High Court and have his position in this place tested, it was decided by the Senate- Senator Hall should not deny this, nor should he endeavour to confuse it- that a Judicial Committee should be set up to hear any other evidence of a similar nature which might disqualify a senator. The place for Senator Hall to take the evidence that he has is that Judicial Committee and no other place.

Let me inform Senator Hall that the Committee has sought and been granted additional time in which to sit for the purpose of further carrying out its work in view of revelations which have been made. Senator Hall is not the first person to make an approach to the Committee to place evidence before it. Senator Webster himself approached the Committee and said that he wanted to put evidence before it concerning 1 7 other members of Parliament. So Senator Hall is not the first; Senator Webster himself endeavoured to bring forward evidence which he felt would place 17 other members of this Parliament in a position similar to his own. The Committee considered that evidence and, in view of the fact that the Senate had set up the Judicial Committee, it considered that the evidence should be placed before that Committee, in line with the decision of the Senate. Senator Hall ought to go to that Judicial Committee and to no other place. His charge against the Pecuniary Interests Committee that it did not respond to his request does not seem to tally with the message I have received from the Secretary of the Committee indicating that he did not receive the phone call to which Senator Steele Hall refers. In fact, the message that Senator Hall said he received in return and the discourtesy which he claims was shown to him was unknown to the Secretary of the Committee. That seems to me to fit in with what the situation would be. No Committee of this Senate would deny a courtesy to any senators in a matter of correspondence and, to my knowledge, this Committee could not possibly have advised that no further evidence was to be heard. The Committee has not yet considered Senator Hall’s letter. It will be considered and it is possible that the same advice that was given to Senator Webster will be given to Senator Steele Hall, and rightly so. When Senator Hall stands in this place and insults the Committee, when he insults his fellow senators, he diminishes himself and places in jeopardy the very case he wants to put tonight.

If he has determined that there are other members of Parliament who are in breach of the Constitution, then he should search out other members as well as Dr Cairns, but it seems that in order to support his case he is now engaged in a vendetta against Dr Cairns. When I spoke previously in the Senate I said that I felt there were several other members who were more in breach of the Constitution than the member in the case Senator Hall has presented, but the place for me to put that view, when I so desire, will be before the Judicial Committee, and justly so. I believe, with Senator Steele Hall, that Senator Webster should not stand alone, but the procedures will have to be followed. It is quite possible that Senator Webster will not stand alone. Neither Senator Steele Hall nor anyone else in this place would deny that the Committee did as much as it possibly could to assist Senator Webster in his predicament, and I believe it is disgraceful that Senator Steele Hall has raised this matter in this way. For that reason, in order that this matter can be fully discussed and the Pecuniary Interests Committee can meet in the meantime to discuss the charge made against it by Senator Steele Hall tonight, I propose to move that the debate be adjourned.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Standing Orders provide that Senator Georges may move to continue his remarks but he cannot move for an adjournment after having spoken. Senator Georges, do you wish to move in that direction?

Senator GEORGES:

– I leave it in the hands of the Leader of the House (Senator Wriedt), Mr President.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 1433

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (IMPACT OF PROPOSALS) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to accept amendments which were proposed by the Opposition in this chamber when the original Bill was being debated late last year. At the time the amendments were acceptable to the Government, but if it had agreed to implement them then the Bill would have had to come back to the Parliament early this year. Both sides in the debate agreed that it would be wise to have the original Bill agreed to and assented to on the condition that the Government brought in the amendments at a later stage.

This Bill brings in the amendments. One amendment relates to the insertion of the word direct’ before the word ‘financial’ to clarify the form of financial assistance suggested. The other amendment relates to the powers of the Commissioners to enter properties for the purposes of their inquiries. It was thought by the Opposition that in the way the original Bill was worded its potential was too far-reaching; hence the amendment. I commend the Bill.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Opposition concurs in the reasons for this Bill, which have been set out by the Minister. Its purpose is to carry into effect amendments which were originally proposed by the Opposition. The Opposition therefore supports the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1433

ELECTORAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1974 [No. 2] (1975)

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 2 1 April.

Clause 40.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

This amendment is consequential upon amendment No. 28 on the list which has been circulated. That amendment opposed clause 39 by which the Government attempted to reduce the hours of polling from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. If honourable senators look at page 20 of the Bill they will see the words ‘6 o’clock’ in clause 40 (5) (b). As amendment No. 28 was carried, this amendment is really consequential, as I recall the matter. It is in line with the earlier decision that polling booths should close at 8 p.m. and not 6 p.m.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I disagree with the words uttered by Senator Withers to the effect that this amendment is consequential upon the earlier amendment. The argument that he and his colleagues used in supporting the deletion of clause 39, which provided for the closure of polling booths at 6 p.m. instead of 8 p.m., was that people would have more time to get to the place of polling; but in the case of this amendment the people are already at the place of polling because they are inmates of hospitals. So the argument that Senator Withers used in respect of the earlier amendment is not valid in this case. I think that in fairness to the hospital staff we ought to pass the clause as it is set out in the Bill. By reducing the hours of polling we will not inconvenience anybody. As a matter of fact, we will help the hospital staff. If the amendment moved by Senator Withers is carried the staff at hospitals will be asked to stay on duty for those extra hours to cope with votes which in my opinion will probably already have been cast because the people in charge of the mobile polling booths will ensure that the votes are cast. The only people who may be affected by reducing the polling hours are the latecomers who would be accident victims or midwifery cases admitted to hospital after 6 p.m. I think it could be said that those people would be incapable of voting anyway. I cannot agree with Senator Withers that this amendment is consequential upon the earlier amendment relating to polling hours which was successful in deleting clause 39.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– It seems to me to be quite ludicrous to suggest that we can have 2 different sets of polling hours for different places. If one thing is necessary in an electoral Bill in regard to polling hours and also other things, it is consistency. In respect of people who may be in hospital, it should be borne in mind that if they are taken out for the day they can vote at any time up to 8 o’clock somewhere else, but if they are in hospital on polling day under this clause they may vote only up to 6 p.m. This is adding confusion in the minds of people who are sometimes in a position of weakness and who will not realise that their rights vary in this way. It is consequential, as Senator Withers has said; but, apart from that, it is common sense to have the one set of hours for polling for the whole of the Commonwealth.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In reply to what Senator Missen said, I think the argument that he has used completely verifies what I said. He referred to people in a position of weakness and also to people who were taken out of a hospital for the day. People who are in a state of weakness are not going to be taken out of a hospital on polling day; they are already inmates. So the honourable senator’s argument again is not valid.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– One side of the argument has been put by Senator McLaren and the other side has been put by Senator Withers and Senator Missen. It is true that this Committee accepted an earlier Opposition amendment that the closing of polling booths should remain at 8 p.m. Clause 40 is a new clause in respect of electoral considerations in Australia. We have not previously had mobile polling booth facilities at hospitals. I have always thought that this was long overdue. It does not seem to me that it is necessary to have the same polling hours at a hospital as we have at polling booths. Senator McLaren has pointed out that at hospitals the voters are already there as patients. Mobile polling booths will go around and visit the hospitals. Obviously the voting will be under the control of the returning officers, which is quite the opposite of the situation at a normal polling booth. There the flow of voting cannot be regulated because it is a matter of people just turning up at the desks; but in a hospital it is in the hands of the electoral officers.

Senator Missen has said that there should be consistency. Maybe it is fine to have consistency, but I do not think it is necessary to be absolutely consistent in this respect. We would insist that this clause stand, in spite of the fact that the Committee has retained the old polling booth hours by agreeing to an earlier amendment to delete clause 39. It is consequential in a sense because the Committee has already put 6 p.m. in one clause and it should go in another part of the Bill; but, because it is new and because it deals with a special type of people- sick people who are unable to go to polling booths- I do not think there would be any harm at all in leaving the closing hour at 6 p.m.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41 agreed to.

Clause 42.

Section 1 IS of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections ( 1 ) and (2) and substituting the following subsections:

  1. The presiding officer-

    1. shall put to every person claiming to vote (not being an elector enrolled by virtue of section 41A) the following questions:
    1. Is your real place of living within the Division of ( here state the name of the Division in respect of which the elector claims to vote)?
    2. (if the question numbered (i) is answered in the negative)- Was your real place of living at any time within the last 3 months within the Division of (here state name of the Division in respect of which the elector claims to vote)? and

    3. may, and at the request of any scrutineer shall, also put to any person claiming to vote all or any of the following questions: (iti) Have you already voted either here or elsewhere in this election (or in these elections, as the case requires)?
    1. Are you of the full age of 1 8 years?
    2. Have you the status of a British subject?
    3. Are you qualified to vote? and
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I have an amendment to clause 42. If those honourable senators who have a copy of the present Commonwealth Electoral Act before them look at section 1 15 they will see that there are 3 mandatory questions which the presiding officer at a booth is obliged to put to each elector. There are 3 optional questions which he may then put and there are further questions which he may also put to each elector. The interesting thing is that, as provided in section 1 1 5 of the principal Act, the first mandatory question to be put to each elector is:

Have you already voted either here or elsewhere in this election?

I leave out the qualification if it is plural. In clause 42 of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill now before the chamber, for a reason which completely escapes me, it is the Government’s intention to cease to have that question as a mandatory question and to make it an optional question. There are 2 other mandatory questions in section 115 apart from: ‘Have you already voted?’- I put it in the colloquial sense- the second mandatory question being:

Is your real place of living within the Division . . .

If that question is answered in the negative, the presiding officer asks another question. For some reason which, as I say, completely escapes me, the mandatory question: ‘Have you already voted?’, to put it in those terms, which I imagine is what the presiding officers says, is to cease to be a mandatory question and become an optional question, and leaving the mandatory question- ‘Is your real place of living within the

Division?’ If that is answered in the negative, the presiding officer asks the other mandatory question. I put it to the Committee that surely the most important question to be put is: ‘Have you already voted in this election?’

I know that I came in for some comment and some criticism during the Joint Sitting of the Parliament last year when I said that in my youth I was brought up to believe in the slogan ‘Vote early and vote often’. We had a lot of fun about that, but this has been a real problem in some countries. I do not say that it is a problem in Australia. We do not vote the graveyards in this country, as I know they do in some countries. But the question as to whether a person has already voted is still the most important question, not whether a person lives within a certain division or what is his real place of living. Surely the $64 question the presiding officer asks an elector when he comes up to the table is the first mandatory question in section 115: ‘Have you already voted either here or elsewhere in this election?’ I cannot imagine any more important question that ought to be asked of any elector. Our proposed amendment- I do not think it is something which the Government ought to object to- to clause 42, paragraph (b) of sub-section 1 is to move sub-paragraph (iii) out of paragraph (b) as an optional question, that is ‘Have you already voted either here or elsewhere in this election . . .?’, and move it to become subparagraph (iii) of the mandatory questions. I think that is a fair thing. I doubt whether anybody could mount an argument that that is not the most important question that an elector should be asked when he comes before a presiding officer. Section 1 14 provides that:

Every person claiming to vote at any polling booth shall state his christian name and surname, and, if so desired by the presiding officer, for the purpose of identifying the name under which the vote is claimed, any other particulars necessary to be stated in the roll.

That is a sensible thing to ask every elector. If the presiding officer asks me: ‘What is your name?’ I say ‘Withers, Reginald Grieve’. I state my name and address and occupation. The presiding officer then looks me up on the roll. I put to the Committee that surely the most important question then to be asked is not whether I live within the division, but: ‘Have you already voted in this election?’. We are not claiming that the question ought to be the first question asked of an elector. The Government wishes to alter the order in which these questions ought to be asked; we do not take exception to that. But we do say that the question ‘Have you already voted either here or elsewhere in this election . . .?’ ought to be a mandatory one.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Mulvihill:
NEW SOUTH WALES

- Senator Withers, before you resume your seat do you intend moving amendment 3 1 with amendment 30 or do you intend to move them separately?

Senator WITHERS:

-By the leave of the Committee, and if the Minister does not object, I shall move amendments 30 and 3 1 together because I think they run together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-Is the

Minister happy with that?

Senator Willesee:

– Yes, they may be taken together.

Senator WITHERS:

-With the concurrence of the Committee, I move:

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I should like to query one matter. I agree with what Senator Withers has said that the first mandatory question that ought to be asked by the presiding officer is the first question appearing in the Act as it now stands. It seems to me that logically it should be the first question to be asked. A person should be asked whether he has voted anywhere else and then he should be asked whether he lives within a particular electorate. The amendment actually makes it the third question to be asked. I think that that is unwise, if it is to be put back into the mandatory group of questions, as I believe it should be. I think that logically it should be the first question as it now is in the present Act. I invite Senator Withers’ consideration of that matter.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– My original thought was that the whole clause should be opposed, but I think that that is taking a rather negative attitude. I assume that the Government and the Electoral Office had some reason for requiring an elector to state his christian name and surname and any other particulars. There may be an administrative reason for asking: ‘Is your real place of living within the Division?’. It may be to establish whether or not the person is entitled to be on the roll. I can understand that that perhaps ought to be the threshold question rather than: ‘Have you already voted?’. I can understand the logic of that. That may not be the reason but I assume that there may be a reason for asking that as a threshold question. But surely, having established that, the next mandatory question ought to be: ‘Have you already voted?’ I assume, without checking with the Electoral Office, that the Office would have some reason for still wanting the first question: ‘Is your real place of living within the division?’. There must be a real reason for having that as a mandatory question. I assume it is to establish the bona fides of an elector and whether or not he ought to be on the roll. I invite the Minister to advise the Senate of the true position.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– The question as to a person’s place of living relates to the section that a person must have resided in the area for 3 months. Senator Withers is right, it is part of the qualification. The reason we want to take this question out of the mandatory section is that when a person goes in to vote, someone confronts him and says: ‘Have you already voted either here or elsewhere today?’ There is a lot of resentment about this. The situation is that if a person were deliberately trying to vote twice, if his morality were such that he would vote twice, I doubt whether he would answer truthfully anyway. If he is asked, ‘Have you voted earlier?’, and if he is a rogue, he is hardly likely to answer: Yes, sir, I have, ‘ and will not vote again. He will not put himself in that situation. The whole point of the question falls down. The Electoral Office advised me that people resent this question. I put two points. One is that to make the question mandatory is to make mandatory something which upsets people. People can be sensitive on this point. Secondly, if a person is a rogue he is not going to tell the truth anyway. If a person connives at one crime he certainly is going to connive at another. Of course, after an election, as honourable senators know, the rolls are combed through to find the people who did not vote. If somebody appears to have voted twice the matter is more carefully checked than ever.

If honourable senators opposite think about this matter a bit I think they will not persist with their amendment. Think about it. Firstly, everybody is confronted with what I think is a bit of an insulting question. There seems to be an inference that you are the type of person who might have done what is suggested. Secondly, it is a pretty useless sort of a question because a person who is going to do what is suggested is not going to tell the truth when asked about it. So I must insist that the clause remains as it is. I think no harm will be done. If there is some suspicious circumstance it will come out in following up the other questions. The electoral officer concerned can still pursue the matter if in his view somebody is acting in a suspicious manner.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Withers ‘) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator J. A. Mulvihill)

AYES: 27

NOES: 26

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 43 and 44- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 45 (Marking of votes in Senate election).

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I suggest that clauses 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 be taken together. If my memory serves me correctly they all revolve around optional preference voting and are consequential upon amendment No. 24 which was moved.

Senator Willesee:

– I would suggest not.

Senator WITHERS:

-You want to deal with them clause by clause?

Senator Willesee:

– Some clauses relate to the Senate and others to the House of Representatives. I think it would be better to keep them separate.

Senator WITHERS:

-A11 right. The Opposition will vote against clause 45. The purpose of clause 45, as I understand it, is to omit portion of section 123 of the principal Act and substitute a new paragraph (a) in sub-section (1). Section 123 ( 1) (a) of the principal Act states that when an elector has a ballot paper for a Senate election he shall place the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom he votes as his first preference, and shall place the numbers, 2, 3, 4 and so on as the case requires in the squares opposite the names of all the remaining candidates so as to indicate the order of his preference for them. Clause 45 of the Bill seeks to replace that provision with the following provision:

  1. where his ballot-paper is a ballot-paper in accordance with Form E in the schedule or, in pursuance of sub-section (2) of section 104 . . .

The effect of that provision will be that in a Senate election an elector needs to mark the ballot paper only up to the number of candidates required, which in effect is optional preferential voting. The distinction is that section 123 of the principal Act provides for full preferential voting and the purpose of clause 45 is to introduce into Senate elections optional preferential voting. We could debate for a very long time the merits and demerits of optional preferential voting as against full preferential voting. But I put it to the Committee that a case has yet to be made out to justify the claim that optional preferential voting brings about any better result than the present full preferential voting system.

We have heard that many of the amendments proposed to the principal Act have been introduced because in the State of New South Wales there were 72 or 73 candidates for the Senate in the last double dissolution election. The argument is that in that election the number of informal votes was excessive. That argument can apply to all sorts of elections. I do not believe that the high informal vote necessarily was brought about merely because of the large number of candidates. I will quote to honourable senators the number of informal votes cast at various elections since proportional representation was introduced in 1949. At the conjoint House of Representatives-Senate election held on 10 December 1949- I admit there was a large number of candidates because the Senate was being expanded from 36 members to 60 members -

Senator Willesee:

– It was a very good election.

Senator WITHERS:

-It brought into the Parliament some very distinguished people. The informal vote at that election was 10.76 per cent. At the election held on 28 April 1951 the informal vote was 7.13 per cent. When a separate Senate election was held on 9 April 1953 the informal vote dropped to 4.56 per cent, which was quite a dramatic drop. At the conjoint election on 10 December 1 955 the informal vote rose to 9.63 per cent. At the conjoint election on 22 November 1958 it was 10.29 per cent. At the conjoint election on 9 December 1961 it was 10.62 per cent. At the separate Senate election on 5 December 1964 in fell to 6.98 per cent. At the separate Senate election on 25 November 1967 it was 6. 1 per cent. At the separate election on 2 1 November 1970, for some reason which is not explained, it rose to 9.41 per cent.

Senator Willesee:

– You should have left that one out.

Senator WITHERS:

-No. When a conjoint election was held in the form of a double dissolution in an attempt to elect 10 candidates, again the informal vote rose to 10.77 per cent. Another interesting point is that the informal vote at House of Representatives elections has remained almost constant, varying between a low of, say, 1.9 per cent and a high of 3.1 per cent, which is hardly any enormous variation.

There has been a lot of interesting folk law in regard to informal votes. I was able to do only a limited amount of research into this matter, but what I did discover was that the safer the seat for the Party the higher the informal vote, and the closer the result in any electorate the lower the informal vote. That applied both to the House of Representatives and to the Senate. I know it has been said that in safe Labor held seats the informal vote tends to be higher. It is also true that in safe Liberal held seats the informal vote tends to be higher than in marginal seats. I did not have sufficient time to take out figures on the 127 electorates in Australia, but it would appear that in marginal seats- marginal for either the Government or the Opposition- where the electoral campaign is more intense and where the electoral fight is harder, the informal vote falls. But in those electorates which are safe for either side the electors tend to be a bit sloppy. They know that good old candidate X or good old candidate Y, to whichever Party he belongs, is going to be elected and they tend to be somewhat careless in marking their ballot papers for House of Representatives elections and certainly for Senate elections.

I suppose it does not do much for our egos in this place but, after all, many people tend to regard polling day at a conjoint election as the occasion on which to elect a government rather than individual members of the House of Representatives. Having cast their vote for one Party or the other via a candidate, they seem to think either that it has fixed the Government or it has fixed the Opposition. Quite truthfully, I think that much of the carelessness arises because the electors feel that they have then done their duty.

I suppose if one looked around for theoretical reasons for the oddity of the vote on 21 November 1970 one would realise that it was a peculiar election for a number of reasons. It saw a fall in the votes of both the major parties which were then in government and in Opposition and quite an unusual rise in the votes of the minor parties and the Independents. Honourable senators will recall that that election produced 3 Democratic Labor Party senators, which was somewhat unusual, and that 2 of them obtained quotas in their own right. Due to the grateful mistake of the Labor Party in New South Wales it produced the oddity of a DLP senator from that State. It produced that most interesting senator from Western Australia, Senator Negus. It led, of course, to the coming to the Parliament of Senator Townley from Tasmania. I think honourable senators will recall that some educational group in South Australia- I do not think it was the Council for the Defence of Government Schools- obtained quite an extraordinarly high vote. That was the election at which both major parties were basically rejected by the electorate and at which the Independents had a pretty free run. For all that theorising is worth, I think that may well account for the rise in the informal vote to 9.41 per cent in that odd separate Senate election in 1 970.

During the second reading debate and I think when the Committee met previously we on this side of the chamber put the argument that the Australian electoral system has 3 elements. It has had 3 elements for some 50 years. It has the element of compulsory enrolment, which is unusual in the world. It has the element of compulsory voting, and again that is unusual in what one might call Western style democracies. It has the third element of full preferential voting, and again that is unusual. To talk of importing other considerations tends, I think, to be somewhat irrelevant. We have a sort of trinity and I think it is has served the electorate well. It is said that it leads to informal voting. One could extend that argument and say that there are too many informal votes which are not counted. If people do not have enough intelligence to be able to mark a ballot paper properly, why should their vote be counted anyhow? Are the major parties to be elected to office or sent into opposition on the votes of the least intelligent in the communitythose who need mark the ballot paper with only the number 1 in a House of Representatives election and with the numbers 1 to 5 when voting in a Senate election? I do not believe it ought to be beyond the wit of the reasonably sensible person to mark a ballot paper with the numbers of 1 to 5.

I do not know whether any real evidence has been produced as to the cause of informal votes. I would not attempt to put a percentage on the number, but I believe that quite a number of informal votes are deliberately informal. Those of us who have scrutineered at elections have seen written across ballot papers rude words referring to both parties and candidates. We have seen religious texts written across them. We have seen completely unmarked ballot papers put in the box. We have seen names crossed out. We have seen crosses put in. I do not know what the percentage runs to. Then there is the other informal vote- the person who votes 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, and 5 because he becomes confused. There are a vast number of reasons. I do not think there is any real evidence as to what causes the informal votes.

Optional preferential voting certainly will not speed up the count. A lot of arguments advanced earlier were that a 6 p.m. cut off at the poll and an earlier cut off for the return of postal ballot papers would speed up the counting of the poll. I put it quite frankly that optional preferential voting in a proportional voting system is slower to count than a full preferential voting system because when the quotas have been fixed one must make certain how one takes out the exhausted votes. To count optional preferences in a proportional system is slower than counting in a full preferential system. I think that was certainly the experience in the Austraiian Capital Territory when the Legislative Assembly was elected on an optional preferential basis in a proportional system.

During the period when there was optional preferential voting at Senate elections- I think it was in the late 1920s or the early 1930s- the percentage of the informal vote was approximately the same as it has been since. I do not have the figures with me, but it was no lower or no higher than it has been for full preferential voting. I assume the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) has access to those figures. I have seen them. The percentage of informal votes cast at

Senate elections since about 1900 runs almost at the same level. Even when we had that odd system by which we voted 1, 2 and 3 and got all in or none in, even when we had the short period in which there was a form of optional preferences, whether one was electing 3 candidates when the total number of senators was 36 or 5 candidates now that the total number of senators is 60, no matter which system was used, since about 190 1 the informal vote has run constantly somewhere between 6 per cent and 10 per cent. Therefore I cannot understand any argument which is put forward for optional preferential voting. It does not speed up the poll, nor will it reduce the number of informal votes.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I support the clause. I wish to recall again to the minds of honourable senators that since we have been in government we have put through this Parliament 2 Bills which provided optional preferential voting for the Legislative Assemblies of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. They were not opposed by the Opposition. No objection was raised at that time. At elections for both those Assemblies the optional preferential system worked quite satisfactorily and was much easier for the people who went to the polls than the full preferential system was. Senator Withers said that the people who vote should have enough intelligence to cast a formal vote. The people on whose behalf I want to speak are the unfortunate people who did not have the opportunity to get a good education, people with failing eyesight and people getting on in years. Many of the polling booths in Australia today are very poorly lit. It is very hard for people with failing eyesight to cast a formal vote. That was particularly so in the case of the last Senate election in New South Wales where the ballot paper was a mile long, to use a fishing term. I think we would have had a lot more formal votes if the people who were compelled to go to the polls had to vote only for the number of candidates required to fill the vacant positions.

I have taken out some figures of the informal votes at the Senate election in May last year. The figures are:

The total number of informal votes for the whole of Australia was 788 126.

Senator Baume:

– Could you give us the percentages?

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not have the percentages. I have not had time to work them out. I think it goes without saying that if the people of Australia had been asked to vote only for the number of candidates required that informal vote could quite easily have been halved.

Another group of people about whom I am concerned are the people who have come to this country as new Australians and who have been used to voting in their country for only the number of candidates required. I will speak in more detail about this matter when we are debating clause 46 because I have evidence from my personal investigations of House of Representatives or State elections. These new Australians have been used to voting by marking a cross or by voting for the number of candidates required. They are very confused when they find they have to put a number against each candidate. There are a lot of people in our community today who, unfortunately, cannot count to the numbers required at the last Senate election in New South Wales. I think it is most unfortunate that because of our education system in years gone by and because of other circumstances these unfortunate people cannot vote. They did not complete their schooling. They had to go out to work. In some cases they were living too far from schools to get even a primary education. Those people are inhabitants of this country. They are taxpayers. They serve this country well. They are deprived of the right to cast a formal vote because of their low standard of education. I think the best we can do for those people is to simplify the ballot paper so that they at least know the people for whom they wish to vote. They cannot put in all the figures on the ballot paper. So we are depriving those people of the right to cast a vote to elect the candidates of their choice in the respective States. I think this clause ought to stand.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– In discussing this clause I would remind Senator Willesee that when I spoke last year and I adverted to it he quite correctly took me to task for asking questions during a second reading debate which would be better reserved for a Committee debate. Now we have the chance to ask questions relating to this matter of optional preferential voting. I return to Senator Withers’ point. What is the purpose of it? What is it expected to achieve? If the Government wants to introduce this voting change it is up to the Government to establish a clear case on what the measure will do and why it will do so. I have tried to find the aim of the clause. I am indebted to Senator McLaren who told us that it will reduce the number of informal votes. He did not tell us how. He did not make out a good case. Senator Willesee, when delivering the second reading speech on 26 November, referred to exhaustive preferential voting as ‘meaningless, undemocratic’. He stated that it was a requirement which led to a situation in which many electors either intentionally or unintentionally disfranchised themselves’. I would presume that this is the reason behind the Government’s desire for optional preferential voting. I am supported in my belief by an article which appeared in the Sydney ‘Morning Herald’ of 20 September 1974. The article quoted Mr Daly as having said that the optional preferential system was needed to avoid a repetition of the Senate elections in which 10.7 per cent of the vote was informal. I trust that that is the reasoning behind the Government’s desire to introduce this measure, but it has totally failed to demonstrate to us how this will be achieved. If we look at the results of Senate elections we have no great reason to expect that it will be achieved. In table 1 which was attached to the second reading speech on the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill we find the figures for all the Senate elections held in Australia since 1 949. Senator Withers has already referred to some of those figures.

What is interesting is if one looks at the figures for New South Wales one finds that in 1 974 the rate of informality was 12.31 per cent and that at that election there were 73 candidates. An examination of earlier elections reveals that on 3 previous occasions the informality rate exceeded 12 per cent and that on two of those occasions it was greater than it was in 1974. In 1949 the informality rate was 12.04 per cent and on that occasion there were only 23 candidates. In 1958 the rate was 12.46 per cent and there were 21 candidates. In 1961 the rate was 12.75 per cent and there were 25 candidates. I put it to the Senate that the rate of 1 2.3 1 per cent in 1 974 with 73 candidates does not bear out at all the contention that the requirement to write a smaller set of numbers will have any effect upon the rate of informal voting. It is the Government’s job to prove that its proposal will be effective.

The same kind of figures apply if we look at the figures for Victoria. In 1 974 the informal rate was 11.13 per cent with 48 candidates, but we can look back to a higher informal rate in 1 970 of 1 1.41 per cent when there were only 25 candidates, and in 1955 the informal rate was 13.49 per cent with only 15 candidates. So the requirement to write a greater or lesser series of numbers does not seem to affect the informality rate as one would expect if the Labor argument had any validity. The same thing applies in most of the other States of the Commonwealth. I ask the Minister: Where is the documentary proof that will give us some reason for expecting that the requirement to write fewer numbers will lead to a smaller informal vote? We can look at other experience. We can look at the Advisory Council elections in the Australian Capital Territory where optional preferential voting was introduced in 1959. 1 remind the Senate that the rate of informal voting did not drop when the voting method was changed from exhaustive preferential to optional preferential. For the Labor case to have any validity the Government must be able to show us an example where a voting alteration has led to an alteration in the result- a smaller number of informal votes. Before 1959 the informal rate for the Advisory Council varied from 5 per cent to 4 per cent to 6 per cent to 9 per cent and to 10 per cent. Following the change to optional preferential voting it was 9 per cent, 1 1 per cent, 8 per cent and 8 per cent. So there was no change. If we look at the results that have been obtained around Australia it appears that it is not the number of candidates or the exhaustive preferential system which affects the rate of informal votes. There must be other factors. Senator Withers has referred to some of them. I remind the Senate that in 1974 there was an unprecedented campaign to educate the Australian electorate. I submit that this act of education may have assisted significantly to produce the relatively good results obtained with such mammoth ballot papers and under trying conditions. I suggest that the answer lies not in destroying the voting system but in working on this aspect of education and information. I am sure that Senator Willesee would agree that access to information is vital for all citizens. The proper casting of votes is a road to power.

I ask the Minister to help me with another question which concerns me. What does the Government intend to do to overcome the problem of exhausted votes? I am sure that the Minister will agree that wherever optional preferential voting has been used and wherever there has been a quota for the election of senators- even going back to the New South Wales experience in the 1920s- exhausted votes have meant that quotas could no longer be met for the later candidates to be elected. I want to know what the

Government’s plan is to cope with the problem of exhausted votes and inadequately filled quotas. Until these points can be cleared up the Government has made no case for optional preferential voting and for changing the system, as it now proposes.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I wish to make one or two comments on this clause. I support Senator Withers in opposing it. It seems to me somewhat surprising that the Australian Labor Party in government should be concerning itself with this matter because I understand that it has, as most of us have, a very high regard for the preferential system of voting when it comes to electing executives within its own organisation. It seems strange that a system which is suitable in that area is seen not to be suitable for electing a national government. It seems strange also that the Government should be proposing to make this alteration to the electoral laws at this time in view of the fact that on 11 April 1974 the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) gave an undertaking that there would be no changes in the procedures of electoral laws in the life of the Parliament which was at that time about to be elected.

Senator Poyser:

– He did not give that undertaking.

Senator SCOTT:

– The understanding I have is that he made that statement at a Press conference on 1 1 April.

Senator Poyser:

– He said that there would be no first past the post. You are misleading the Senate.

Senator SCOTT:

– I am interested that Senator Poyser has mentioned first past the post voting because I was going to suggest that perhaps the optional preferential system is commonly held to be the thin end of the wedge in the introduction of first past the post voting.

Senator Missen:

– Not commonly.

Senator SCOTT:

– In the majority of circumstances it is held to be the thin end of the wedge. The first past the post voting system produces situations in which minorities may well, and in fact often do, govern. It produces circumstances such as those in Great Britain in which 36 per cent of the votes provided a government.

Senator McLaren:

– It happens in Queensland.

Senator SCOTT:

- Senator McLaren mentions Queensland. The optional preferential system was tried in Queensland once upon a time and on that occasion, if my memory serves me correctly, approximately 5 1 per cent of the votes produced 66 per cent of the seats. That is not a reasonable or proper result.

I suggest that it is essential if we are to remain and maintain ourselves as a meaningful democracy that we have in our voting laws and in our voting system a capacity to determine that everything is not necessarily black or white. That is what this entire argument is about. Things are not purely and simply black and white. In any democratic circumstance it is essential that the voting laws are such that those people who have certain preferences are able to and indeed must exhibit those preferences if, in fact, 50 per centplus of the people are to be represented. That is the essential point that is referable to the argument in which we are involved tonight. With those few words I indicate my support of Senator Withers and the Opposition in opposing the introduction of optional preferential voting in this circumstance.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– We have just heard again Senator Scott’s tiresome thin end of the wedge argument which he has used for every electoral Bill that has been before the Parliament since I have been a member. Senator Scott persistently says that a Bill which provides for certain changes to be made will, if passed, inevitably lead to other changes being introduced for which the Bill does not provide. I have yet to hear the reason behind that assertion that Senator Scott is so fond of making. Of course, the thin end of the wedge argument is one that has long been popular with the conservative political parties in Australia and is persistently used as a substitute for a valid argument when they are opposing changes in legislation which is proposed by antiConservative political parties.

I am sufficiently objective about the question of voting systems to recognise that there are valid arguments against the first past the post voting system as there are valid arguments against the preferential system, and for precisely the same reasons. It is true that in a first past the post system it is possible for a candidate to be elected who is not wanted by more than half of the electors. It is also possible under a preferential system for this to happen. I will demonstrate how. Let us assume that candidate A receives 45 per cent of the votes, candidate B receives 30 per cent and candidate C receives 25 per cent. Under the standard preferential system the preferences of candidate C will be distributed. If more than 90 per cent flow to candidate B he is elected. However, the 45 per cent of the people who voted for candidate A may prefer candidate C to candidate B. In fact it is feasible that candidate B is not wanted by 75 per cent of the electorate. Although that is a hypothetical example it has happened in practice. It happened at an election which I personally contested in 1969. It was ultimately won by the Country Party which gained just over 30 per cent of the votes.

Senator Baume:

– Primary votes.

Senator WALSH:

-Of the primary vote. The Liberal Party polled just under 30 per cent of the vote and the Labor Party polled just over 42 per cent of the vote. The preference of the Labor Party was for the Liberal candidate. If asked to choose between the Liberal and the Country Party candidate the preference of the Labor Party was for the Liberal candidate. Notwithstanding the fact the the Country Party candidate was not wanted by the 29 per cent of the people who voted Liberal, or by the overwhelming majority of the 42 per cent of the people who voted Labor, the Country Party candidate won.

Senator Withers:

– If you are to count the second preference for Labor you must be honest and count the second preference for Liberal. At least be consistent.

Senator WALSH:

– I am not arguing, Senator Withers, that the Labor Party should have won the election. I suggest the honourable senator open his mind on this question and listen to the point I am making, which is that the second preferences of the people who voted for the third candidate are counted but the second preferences of the people who voted for the candidate who tops the primary count are not counted. That is an injustice.

Senator Missen:

– Can I put it to you that none of the systems discussed tonight would influence the result -

Senator WALSH:

-I will not get sidetracked with that. I recognise the first past the post system has anomalies within it, as does the preferential system. I have yet to hear a valid argument against the optional preferential system, and I certainly have not heard one tonight.

Senator Baume:

– We are waiting to hear your argument.

Senator WALSH:

– The honourable senator will hear one in a minute. It is arguable, of course, as to precisely what causes variations in the proportion of informal vote, although one fairly clear conclusion which can be drawn from the figures which Senator Withers has presented is that the informal vote rises with the number of candidates. There is a fairly clear correlation between an increase in the number of candidates and an increase in the informal vote. I did not note all of the figures which Senator Withers cited for the Senate, but I think there was a 10 per cent informal vote in half of the States. The informal vote for the House of Representatives varied between 1.9 per cent and 3.1 per cent. At least it is fairly clear that there is a correlation between the number of candidates and the number of informal votes. Of course it is fairly obvious that if people have to vote for an increased number of candidates there will be an increase in the informal vote. Despite Senator Baume ‘s argument, he still cited figures which proved that the informal vote was highest in New South Wales in 1974 when people had to vote for 73 candidates.

There is, of course, another reason. I am surprised it has not occurred to members of the Opposition. Throughout the second reading debate on this issue we heard from members of the Opposition of their intense desire to maximise the options which are available to the electors. They wanted to maximise the electors’ freedom of choice, where they would vote, how they would vote and so on. I am surprised it has not occurred to members of the Opposition that one of the reasons for introducing an optional preferential system is that people will still be able to record a valid vote without being compelled to number their preferences all the way down to number 73 and to record quite meaningless votes or be forced to record quite meaningless preferences when they have no real preference at all between candidates No. 46 and No. 52 and candidates No. 38 and No. 73. I am surprised it has not occurred to members of the Opposition that one of the reasons for the introduction of this measure is to maximise the range of options which are available to the electorate. Yet again we find on this issue that the difference between word and deed, the difference between the Opposition’s self-proclaimed objectives and its actions, is something like 1 80 degrees.

During the second reading debate I was interested to hear Senator Scott claim that he believed that the electorate or the electors- and I quote- ‘have sufficient responsibility and intelligence to understand the questions that are put before them’. He made that comment with reference to the 4 referendum proposals which were put conjointly with the 1974 elections. I leave aside for the moment the question whether the electors are sufficiently responsible and intelligent to understand those 4 questions. If that is so they are far more responsible and intelligent than at least one of the candidates who was endorsed by Senator Scott’s Party for the 1 974 election. I refer to what was the Country

Party and which called itself the National Alliance at this particular time and which now calls itself the National Country Party of Australia. I think that is the current alias by which it is known. This Country Party-cum-National Alliance-cum-National Country Party candidate at a public meeting which I attended- we spoke from the same platform- expressed in very trenchant terms his complete opposition to the 4 referendum questions which were being presented by the Government. It was very trenchant opposition indeed. He was then asked to name what the questions were. He was unable to name any of them, which I suppose underlines once again the not uncommon observation that members of the Country Party-cum-National PartycumNational Country Party have a very strong propensity to be as long on prejudice as they are short on facts.

I noted with a great deal of satisfaction that, in his contribution to the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill, Senator Missen said in effect that the optional preferential system was probably a good idea but his Party was opposed to it and he was bound by the Party’s decision. I recognise the difficulties that people face with Party discipline. I commend Senator Missen for having acknowledged that the proposed change has a great deal to be said for it. But- let us cut out all the sophistry and all the humbug- the real reason why the Opposition is opposing this change is that it is afraid that the preference swaps between the Liberal Party and Country Party will be less effective under an optional preferential system than under a compulsory preferential system. So honourable senators opposite are going to compel the electors, irrespective of whether the electors want to do so, to record a preference for every candidate on the ballot paper if the electors wish to record a valid vote. They realise that if the preference exchanges were less effective when people were given the freedom of choice as to whether they would exercise a preference down to the last candidate they would then have to come to a mutual arrangement as to whether Liberal Party candidates would contest a particular seat and Country Party candidates would contest another seat and which Party’s candidates would contest which particular seats. It is not hard to see the Pandora’s Box that would open and the bloodbath that would ensue between the two uneasy partners in the Opposition if they had to come to that sort of an arrangement before an election. I notice that Senator Withers is amused. I remind Senator Withers of certain events that took place in Victoria prior to the 1974 election when the

State President of the Liberal Party resigned because he was not prepared to cop the deal which had been made in the centralist city of Canberra.

Senator Withers:

– He did not resign.

Senator WALSH:

-The State President of the Liberal Party threatened to resign because he was not prepared to cop the deal which had been made between the wheeler-dealers of the Liberal Party and the wheeler-dealers of the Country Party in Canberra. This is the real reason why the Opposition is opposing this measure: It wants to limit the freedom of choice that is available to the electorate; it wants to compel electors to continue to have to vote for every candidate; and it is frightened to embrace any change because that would reduce the effectiveness of its vote and lead to an almighty squabble between the two Opposition parties.

The final point I make concerns people like Senator Townley, who is not present in the chamber, who put forward the argument that any political party which seeks to change an electoral system should be viewed with great suspicion and distrust. I remind Senator Townley and those who hold a similar view that we once had first-past-the-post voting in Australia and that that system was changed iri, I think, 1919 or 1920. Why was it changed? It was changed for the most sordid of political reasons. It was changed because the Country Party then, as it is doing now, was holding a gun at the head of the Liberal Party and demanding the introduction of preferential voting at the next federal election as a pre-condition to the Country Party not standing candidates against the Liberal Party in an election. That is the reason why the electoral laws were changed at that time. They were changed to gain political advantage for the Liberal and Country Parties. That is why the Opposition is now opposing the introduction of optional preferential voting, which increases the range of options, the range of choice and the freedom of the electors. I commend the clause as proposed.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-Senator Walsh has brought my name into the debate and has leant so heavily on me that I regret that I have to do him the discourtesy of saying that I am not terribly happy with the leaning. I feel that a few words should be said by me on this subject. I have already spoken in the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill and made my views clear. They are that I do not agree entirely with, for example, the views of my colleague Senator Scott in that I do not see this system of optional preferential voting as necessarily leading to another system. In that respect we have a difference of opinion. At the same time I see some advantage in the idea of the introduction of optional preferential voting on the simple view that if people do not have to keep choosing artificially beyond the desires they have for candidates there is much in the theory and much in the merit of their being able to stop at a certain stage.

I have been impressed with the argument for this point of view not by what has been said in this chamber- certainly not by what has been said in this chamber by the Government because it has been curiously very silent. Senator Willesee is now laughing. If one looks at his second reading speech one will see that there is in it one page of padding in which he advocates this system but that there is no evidence of a material study of this system. There has been no refutal of the material which Senator Baume has put forward which suggests curiously enough that the introduction of such a system will not have a great effect, if any, on the informal voting. Those are serious questions that ought to be raised. I assure Senator Walsh that, having my own views on this subject and having endeavoured in certain ways to convince my colleagues of the merit of them, if I am not successful in convincing my colleagues of their merit I do not act as a type of veto of my colleagues but accept the judgment of my colleagues. I will accordingly vote with my colleagues on this subject. I will not find that difficult to do because we belong to a party system in which the combined judgment of one’s party is the one that must prevail, except in the exceptional circumstances of a matter of conscience.

So far as this matter is concerned, I repeat that the onus is on the Government to satisfy the people. A point that I do not think has been mentioned tonight is what would happen in the States if we were to introduce a new system like this one. We still have State elections in which one must vote for every person on the ballot paper. What would happen if we were to have a federal election in which one had to vote for only some of the candidates? It may well be argued- I am not suggesting that I have any proof on the subject- that this would result in informal voting occurring in the State elections and in other ways. If we are changing a system like this we must change it throughout our voting systems, State and federally, otherwise there will be unfortunate effects. One must take all of these matters into account when considering whether there should be a change. I say that a lot of work needs to be done in convincing the people and those authorities that determine the holding of elections in the States that this is a desirable scheme. I have risen just to say that, insofar as Senator Walsh is concerned, I would not like to be regarded as in any way accepting the type of arguments that he sought to advance in this debate. Regrettably the Government obviously has not done its homework on this subject.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I intend to support the clause and oppose the Opposition’s amendment. In so doing I want to make my support of the preferential system of voting for Lower House elections quite clear. I am in support of the idea of limited preferences under this optional system of voting only because there is a very distinct overload on the type of voting at present, as was demonstrated at the last Senate election. In the rather dynamic political scene that exists in Australia we can perhaps expect more elections to occur in the future- in the mid-term- in which a large number of candidates may very well present themselves for selection to the Senate. I believe that we should endeavour to make formal as many votes as possible and I believe that the Government’s move will have the effect of making more votes formal. It adopts the compromise that there is a sufficient number of preferences allocated to make at least theoretically valid the respective second choices of electors. Having stated my support in those terms, I want to dissociate myself in all ways from Senator Walsh. I do not attack the preferential system; I support it. I can see nothing wrong with the concern of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party or any other party about the possible loss of preferences through an alteration of the system. I believe that anything but a preferential system, where it can be worked, is a denial of the final choice of the electors. I want to make it quite clear that I do not join in any movement towards dismantling the preferential system by agreeing to a limited preferential type of voting procedure because of the overload on the system. I want to put that on record.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise only to correct a statement made by Senator Missen which was incorrect, and he may not be aware of that. He said that if the Government’s amendment were carried it would cause confusion in the States and that in the States a vote has to be cast for every candidate on the ballot paper. I should like to advise Senator Missen that in South Australia the Electoral Act has been altered to provide for the list system for the election of members of the upper House. That amendment was carried with the support of the Liberal Party members of that House. Under that system a vote is cast for the number of candidates required. A person may vote for all candidates if he wishes but to cast a formal vote it is only necessary to vote for the number required. That system will apply at the next South Australian State elections in about March of next year.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I intervene in this debate a second time because the Committee may remember that when I spoke originally I said that I had some figures relating to what had happened in the past. I have now obtained those figures. It is rather interesting to note that since 1901 four voting systems have been used for Senate elections. Between 1901 and 1917 there was first past the post voting; between 1919 and 1939 there was a form of optional preference voting, namely, voting for twice the number of candidates plus one, which in those days meant seven candidates. Optional preference voting for the Senate these days would mean voting for five candidates. We then had full preferential voting between 1934 and 1946 and proportional representation from 1949 to 1974. I do not remember when compulsory voting came into effect; I think it was at some time in the twenties, but I would stand corrected on that. The figures are not available for the Senate for 1 90 1 , or I was not able to obtain them, but in 1903 under first past the post voluntary voting there was an informal vote of 3.6 1 per cent, in 1906 the figure was 6.36 per cent, in 1910 4.6 per cent, in 1913 5.65 per cent, in 1914 4.98 per cent and in 1917 3.9 per cent. I understand that in those times there was first past the post voting, and I think that for some of that period there was voluntary voting. There may well have been voluntary enrolment, although I cannot recall that. In 1919, as I understand it, the first year in which there was a form of optional preference voting, namely, twice the number of candidates plus one, a person had to vote only from one to seven- not a difficult task. In this amendment the Government is asking for one to five. Under that system, in 1919 the informal vote rose to 8.61 per cent, in 1922 it rose to 9.44 per cent, in 1925 to 6.96 per cent, in 1928 to 9.88 per cent and in 1 93 1 to 9.6 per cent, under a system where voting was required only from one to seven.

As I understand it, the Government’s argument is that, because of the high number of candidates, under the optional preference system where one votes only from one to five the amount of the informal vote will fall. I put it to the Committee that the experience in the Australian electorate in Senate voting between 1919 and 1931, when there were 5 Senate elections, shows that the informal vote was 8 per cent, 9 per cent, 6 per cent, 9 per cent and 9 per cent respectively. It was a very high figure, and one had to vote only one to seven. I put it to the Committee that if the optional preference system is introduced the informal vote is still going to sit around 8 per cent or 9 per cent; it will not fall. I understand that a reduction in informal votes has been the Government’s principal argument for the introduction of preferential voting. I give those figures to the Committee for information. I cannot vouch to the Committee as to their source. I think that they came from the parliamentary research service but there is no indication of that on this paper. I do not wish to state that that is the source in case that is not so.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I cannot win tonight, Mr Chairman. The Opposition chided me for not saying anything when I have been sitting here giving everybody else an opportunity to speak on what is the most important clause in the Bill. Senator Baume said that I chided him on one occasion. I was correct. I chide him again. He was looking at the amendments relating to the counting of votes. If he looks at clause 48 of the Bill, it is a very simple amendment explaining what the situation is. It is not a difficult clause to read. There are one or two matters I wish to raise before I launch into the main part of my remarks. Firstly, I intend to refer to a set of figures- I am in the queue to give figures tonight- but they are figures relating to one year. Senator Baume made great play of the fact that, in relation to informal votes, although there had been 74 candidates on one occasion, there had been previous years when the number of informal votes was higher. He argued very forcibly along those lines for a long time. Then at the conclusion of his speech he said that a tremendous campaign had been waged by the Electoral Office at that time which had a bearing on the matter. Senator Baume is completely correct. There was a very vigorous campaign conducted by the Electoral Office and I think that campaign held down the figure for informal votes to 12 per cent or so.

On the question of speed, although I do not think that speed should override everything, it is irritating to have to wait for a result. In fact, it is more than irritating because the work of government can be held up. Speed is a consideration, but I agree that the Act should not be altered radically merely for that reason. The Opposition has asked for proof that this amendment will speed up counting. I ask where is the Opposition’s proof that the amendment will not speed it up? There are no electronic scanners available to check the validity of a ballot paper. That must be done by the old one mug-power engine with 2 eyes. If one has to check from one to seventy-five, or even from one to fifty or sixty, it has to be done by counting one, two, three and so on down the ballot paper to make sure that it is a valid vote. I suggest that that is very much slower than checking from one to ten, as would have been the case in the election that was referred to, or from one to five if it had been a normal year in which there was not a double dissolution. I put it to the Committee, in all fairness, that it must be faster to check the tens of thousands of votes in New South Wales by checking from one to five than it is to check from one to seventy-four- and there is no guarantee that the number of candidates will be held down to seventy-four, in view of the amendments that the Opposition has thrown out. I suggest that, prima facie at least, there is a case to say that this would be a very much faster method than checking right through the ballot paper.

Another matter has been raised by Senator Walsh. He said that the number of candidates does not bring about an increase in the informal vote. Why is it that in elections for the House of Representatives, when there are always only two, three, four or five candidates, invariably the informal vote is markedly lower than it is in the Senate?

Senator Missen:

– It may be a lack of interest, Senator.

Senator WILLESEE:

- Senator Missen says that it may be a lack of interest, but I put it that year after year when the number of candidates for the House of Representatives has been two, three or four as against twenty-seven to seventy-five candidates for the Senate, the informal vote in the House of Representatives elections has been consistently so much lower. Senator Missen says that it may be lack of interest. Neither he nor I can look into the minds of electors, but if I concede to him that there may be something in lack of interest then he certainly should concede to me that the number of candidates appears to play a part.

This clause proposes an amendment to section 123 of the principal Act, which deals with the method of marking of votes at a Senate election. In the Government’s proposed amendment, optional preferential marking of the ballot papers will be substituted for full preferential marking. If that clause is omitted the effect will be that the present unwieldy system for the marking of Senate ballot papers will continue. Surely nobody will argue that it is not a very unwieldy system. Under the optional preferential system of voting which is proposed, although it is mandatory to vote only for the number of persons to be elected- one in the case of a House of Representatives election and five in the case of a normal periodical Senate election- every voter has the option of indicating further preferences for some or all of the remaining candidates. That is where the optional part comes in. Insofar as such additional preferences were needed to determine the result, they would, of course, be counted. An important aspect of the system is that voters, while having the right to show preferences for all candidates should they so desire, are not compelled to do so and therefore are not compelled to vote for candidates for whom they have no preference at all.

Senator Withers said that it should not be beyond the wit of people to mark a ballot paper from No. 1 to No. 74, from No. 1 to No. 57, or whatever it might be. What I put to the Committee is this: Why should any elector be compelled to try to carry out an impossibility? I suggest to the Committee that it is quite impossible when an elector goes beyond the first few candidates for him to say to himself honestly: ‘I want Joe Blow as No. 73 ahead of Fred Nurk as No. 74’. The only way a full preferential voting system will work is when the elector has perfect knowledge. When a person has to vote for only two or three people in a very small committee, he can honestly say that he prefers A over B and B over C. Even in our own party rooms where we vote for people with whom we work all the year round, people who have the same ideology and people who have the same types of friendships and all the rest of it, we cannot conscientiously say after we get up into double figures that we want Joe Blow as No. 17 ahead of Fred Nurk as No. 1 8. It is just an impossibility.

Compare our position with that of the ordinary elector who goes along and votes for senators. Pardon me if I upset the ego of honourable senators opposite on this matter. The ordinary elector is voting for somebody whom he has never seen and has rarely heard of. He may know a couple of the sitting senators, but he does not know them personally. He has not heard the candidates take part in debate. He knows very little about them. Yet he has to put the candidates in order conscientiously- not No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, but from No. 1 to No. 73, as in the case of the Senate election for New South Wales, or whatever the number of candidates might be. Often the number is 27, 35, 46 and so on. The people are being compelled to do something which is quite beyond their wit, something which is quite beyond their ability. I certainly could not do it, and I have been interested in politics for a year or two now. I may know the sitting senators; but I have never seen or heard a television appearance or a radio broadcast or addresses at public meetings by my opponents or, if I am not involved in the election, by the people in whom I am interested, because generally I have been out campaigning. How could I honestly say that I would prefer someone as No. 27 ahead of someone as No. 28?

The suggestion is that we should say to the people: ‘If you vote for one person in the case of the House of Representatives, if that is what you conscientiously want, that vote will be counted ‘. What is wrong with that? In the case of a Senate election the number to be elected is five. So, to make the system workable, the elector has to go further than voting for one person. We say: ‘All right, you vote for the 5 people that you want elected’. He will not have to go on- unless he wants to- with the ridiculous procedure of going right down the list in an attempt to give a percentage point to somebody for whom the electors wants to vote. I repeat that the only way the full preferential voting system can work is if an elector has perfect knowledge. He can have that perfect knowledge only if there is a small number of candidates and he is intimately associated with them and knows their work.

Let me refer to the experience of the 1 974 Senate election in New South Wales. This is the one that has been mentioned so many times. There were 73 candidates on the ballot paper. That election highlights the absurdity of requiring voters to indicate a preference for all candidates. It would be a mammoth task indeed for any personthis is my point- even if he knew the individual candidates, to work out and to show the consecutive order. I know that ‘how to vote’ cards are used and that many people follow them as best they can. They certainly help them in respect of the formality of voting. But again one can hardly say that electors are exercising great knowledge in an endeavour to get this percentage point over some other candidate. There is no doubt that the greater the number of candidates the more likely it is that people will fall into error in marking the ballot paper. That is just a question of mechanics. The more one has to go through a ballot paper, the more chance there is that one will make a mistake. This may occur at a stage of marking a preference which might never be counted, but the consequence is that the whole ballot paper is invalid.

It is clear that under a full preferential voting system there is a relationship between the number of candidates on the ballot paper and informality, simply because there are a number of voters who fall into error at each consecutive preference. I know that the 1974 Senate election was an example of this relationship. I think we all hope, if we are sincere about this, that this will not occur again. The results of the 1 974 Senate election, including the concurrent holding of a House of Representatives election and 4 referendums, may be of interest to honourable senators. These are the figures for the last election. Senator Withers conceded earlier that when one is looking at figures all sorts of things have to be considered. I hesitate to argue or to draw conclusions on his latest figures because they go back to 50 and 60 years ago. It is pretty difficult to ascertain the feeling which obtained in the situation which existed at that time. In the 1974 Senate election in New South Wales, with 73 candidates, the informal vote reached 12.3 per cent or a staggering 332 818 ballot papers. The percentage was 12.3 or about 1 V4 quotas. In Victoria, where there were 48 candidates, there were 230 474 informal ballot papers, representing 11.13 per cent, which again was well over a quota. In Queensland, with 25 candidates, the number of informal ballot papers was 65 941, or 6 per cent. In South Australia, with 38 candidates, informal ballot papers totalled 82 191, or 11.38 per cent. In Western Australia, where there were 29 candidates, the informal figure was 60 136, or 10.39 per cent. In Tasmania, with 32 candidates, there were 26 666 informal ballot papers, representing 1 1 .2 1 per cent. The overall percentage was 10.77 per cent, which accounted for 798 126 Senate ballot papers being wasted at the 1974 Senate elections.

There is a correlation between the number of candidates and the number of informal votes. I have given the figures for one election. There would be the same sort of atmosphere in the States other than New South Wales, where there was a high publicity drive which did hold down the informal vote to 12.3 per cent; but even in that State there is a correlation between the number of candidates and the informal votes.

Senator Withers:

– How do you explain the result in Queensland?

Senator WILLESEE:

– Queensland is sui generis. Nobody quite knows why, but it happens consistently.

Senator Withers:

– I think you said that informal ballot papers represented 6 per cent.

Senator WILLESEE:

-Yes. It happens consistently in Queensland. There is just no explanation. A further example might be seen by taking the 1970 Senate election which was held alone. In New South Wales there were 1 9 Senate candidates and the percentage of informal votes was 10.08 per cent. In Victoria there were 25 candidates and informality was 11.41 per cent. Queensland had 15 candidates, with an informal vote of 1 7.9 per cent. South Australia had 1 3 candidates, with 6.94 per cent informality. Western Australia had 15 candidates, with 7.59 per cent informality. Tasmania had 14 candidates, with 6.2 per cent informality.

The proposed optional preferential system, which allows for optional marking of preferences beyond the number of candidates to be elected, is fair and it eases the burden on the voters. The Government believes that this system would be welcomed by the majority of electors, particularly after their experience at the 1974 Senate elections when they were required to indicate preferences for an unprecedented number of candidates in most States. The elimination of the need compulsorily to show a preference for every candidate, including candidates towards whom the voter may even be quite hostile is, we believe, a welcome innovation. It is for these reasons that we oppose the Opposition’s amendment.

I can remember looking at ballot papers with a whole slate left out. Sometimes the unmarked positions were those of Democratic Labor Party candidates and sometimes of Communist Party candidates. People would say that they were not going to vote for those people. We in this chamber have had a good deal of experience. How often do we find that people do not vote because they say to themselves: ‘We have to vote for every one of the 50 candidates’. Actually they vote for only 5 candidates in a Senate election, but in order to make the vote formal they have to fill in the whole of the ballot paper. I put it to the Committee that this is an absurd situation. I think that the proposal in the Bill will speed up counting. I think the proposal no doubt will ease the burden on the elector. But, above all, it is ridiculous to demand by law that an elector will go into a ballot box and attempt conscientiously to do something which is quite impossible. By this amendment the Opposition is asking him to carry out an impossibility.

Question put:

That clause 45 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator G. S. Davidson)

AYES: 27

NOES: 27

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause -46 (Marking of votes in House of Representatives election).

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I indicate to the Committee that the Opposition will oppose clause 46. As I understand clause 46, it relates to the introduction of optional preferential voting for House of Representatives elections. We have had a long enough debate on this matter, and I think the issues have been clearly defined between the 2 sides of the Parliament. If there ever was an argument for optional preferential voting, surely it ought to be for the Senate rather than the House of Representatives. I do not think that I ought to delay the Committee any further. I think our side of the chamber has put down the arguments in sufficient detail for tonight. I indicate that we will be voting against clause 46.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Clause 46 deals with optional preferential voting for the House of Representatives. If this clause were to be omitted from the Bill the effect would be that full preferential voting as presently enforced for House of Representatives elections would be retained. It is true of course that far fewer candidates generally stand at House of Representatives elections than at Senate elections. But nevertheless the principle of compelling persons to vote for candiates for whom they have no preference still applies. Under the proposed optional preferential system the voter at a House of Representatives election must indicate his first preference for one candidate and may indicate his further preferences for some or all of the remaining candidates as he so desires. Where it is necessary to count such preferences as are shown to determine the result, they are of course counted.

The important thing is that a vote is not rejected outright because a voter failed by inadvertence or otherwise to indicate an order of preference for all candidates as is the case under the full preferential system, despite the fact that the majority of House of Representatives seats are decided on the count of first preferences. Under the optional preferential system, to the extent that preferences beyond the first are required to be counted, each ballot paper in the count is counted so far as the voter wishes to indicate a preference. I put it to honourable senators: What could be fairer than that? I believe the clause should remain in the Bill. Even though there is a slightly different argument with regard to the Senate, the principle remains the samethe principle whereby people are forced to number their preferences right down to 3, 4 or 5, trying to decide one against the other and sometimes are forced to vote for somebody for whom they have no time and would not want to vote for under any circumstances.

Question put:

That clause 46 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator G. S. Davidson)

AYES: 26

NOES: 28

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 47 (Informal ballot-papers).

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition will oppose clause 47. I understand this clause is consequential upon clauses 45 and 46.I think that clauses 47 and 48 would be necessary if the previous 2 clauses had been passed- I think I am correct- because they deal with the informality of ballot papers as a result of optional preference voting. Because we are opposed to optional preference voting we also will be opposing clauses 47 and 48.I think that clause 49 also is part and parcel of the optional preference counting system. I think clauses 45 and 46 were related to the voting and that clauses 47, 48 and 49 relate to optional preference counting. I think I am correct in that regard. Therefore it would be rather ridiculous to have an optional preference counting system if full preferential voting remains in the Act. The Opposition will oppose the next 3 clauses.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Clause 47 relates to the Senate counting. It would have been necessary had the other two clauses been carried. It deals only with the Senate. The Government will seek to have it included but we will not divide the Committee because it is a consequential amendment relating to a decision made by the Committee in respect of the previous 2 clauses.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 48 and 49 negatived.

Clause 50 (Scrutiny prior to receipt of absent voters’ ballot-papers, etc.).

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I indicate that the Opposition will oppose clauses 50, 51 and 52. I deal with them in a series because I understand they are consequential upon amendment No. 24 in respect of clause 30. Clauses 50, 51 and 52 deal with postal votes and they are consequential upon clause 30 and we voted against clause 30. It is all about postal votes being delivered to the returning officers before a certain time prior to the close of the ballot whereas at the moment they may be returned at a later date. As we opposed clause 30 of the Bill we will have to oppose clauses 50, 51 and 52 which relate to scrutiny prior to receipt of absent voters’ ballot papers, the return of writs for the election of senators and the return of writs for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Clause 50 of the Bill proposes to omit paragraph (d) of section 136A which refers to postal ballot papers posted or delivered to any divisional returning officer or any assistant returning officer or presiding officer in pursuance of sub-section (2) of section 92 of the Act. This proposed omission accords with the proposed omission of section 92 (2) of the Act by clause 30 of the Bill and is in line with the Government’s proposition that completed postal votes be transmitted to the divisional returning officer or the division concerned rather than being posted or delivered to another official for onwards transmission. We seek to have the clause retained in the Bill. The amendment it proposes is consequential on clause 30 which was dealt with now so long ago. We will not seek to divide the Senate on the clause.

Clause negatived.

Clause 51 (Return of writ for election of Senators).

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of section 141 of the Act refers, inter alia, to sub-section (2) of section 92 of the Act. Accordingly, in consequence of the Government’s proposed omission of that sub-section, clause 51 proposes to omit the words ‘or posted or delivered to any Divisional Returning Officer or any Assistant Returning Officer or Presiding Officer in pursuance of sub-section (2) of section ninety-two of this Act’. Again the amendment is consequential. We will vote for it but we will not insist on a division.

Clause negatived.

Clause 52 negatived.

Clauses 53 to 56- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 57.

  1. by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) the word “or”; and
  2. by inserting after paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) the following paragraph: (aa) an article, report, letter or other matter, if the issue of the newspaper in which it appears contains a statement to the effect that the editor or proprietor of the newspaper accepts responsibility for the views expressed in the article, report, letter or matter; or’.
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I seek leave of the Committee to divide clause 57 into 2 parts, because the Opposition supports sub-clauses (a) and (b) which are both very sensible and long overdue amendments but is opposed to subclauses (c) and (d).

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

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

Sub-clauses (a) and (b) agreed to.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

The proposed omission of sub-clause (c) is consequential. It is a drafting matter. In relation to sub-clause (d), I think that all honourable senators would know that at the present moment under section 164 of the principal Act there is an obligation that newspaper articles, dodgers, pamphlets and various things written between the issue of the writ and the poll- previously it was between the issue of the writ and the return of the writ but now that sub-clauses (a) and (b) have been passed it is between the issue of the writ and the close of the poll- shall be signed by the author or authors giving his or their true name and address or names and addresses, and so on. Sub-clause (d) seeks to insert a paragraph (aa) after paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of section 164. Sub-section (3) of section 164 states:

This section shall not apply to the. publication in a newspaper of-

a leading article; . . .

It is proposed to insert in that sub-section another paragraph exempting a person from the necessity of adding his name to an article, report, letter or other matter if the issue of the newspaper in which it appears contains a statement to the effect that the editor or proprietor of the newspaper accepts responsibility for the views expressed in the article, report, letter or matter. We take the view that between the issue of the writ and the close of the poll those people who wish to write articles for newspapers and write letters to the newspapers ought to disclose their identity. As I understand it, if this subclause is passed we could have the situation of nom de plumes appearing at the end of letters in the newspaper if the editor so desired, providing it was published in each day’s issue of the newspaper that the editor or proprietor of the newspaper, as the clause says, accepts responsibility for the views expressed in the article, report, letter or matter.

I think it has been one of the distinguishing features of Australian politics that those who wish to say things during the period of the election campaign are known, and I think they ought to be known. We have all had the occasional experience of somebody leaving off the authorisation on a pamphlet, a tree sign or a how-to-vote card, and we know of the flurry that results in order to ensure that the proper authorisation is put on by the printer. I think that is right. People who read election material between the issue of the writ and polling day ought to know the author of that material, ought to know the address of that author and certainly ought to know who the printer is. For those reasons we oppose both sub-clauses (c) and (d). It is a matter of exposing those who write these things. It is always one of the problems that a large number of things appear in the Press day by day and nobody knows who is the author, whether it is a mass of journalists, one particular journalist, or anybody else. That is fair enough in the day to day affairs of the nation, but, as we all know, during an election period quite often serious allegations are made against all of us either as individuals or as candidates. I believe that it is only fair to candidates who offer themselves publicly that this provision should be inserted. To some extent they become Aunt Sallys not only for members of the Opposition and ourselves but also for the public at large. But when those people who have the capacity to put their views through the mass media in this country- they are quite within their rights to throw brickbats at us all- at least we ought to know who they are rather than them having a capacity to have anonymity during this period.

Senator McLaren:

– You are going to expose the modest member.

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not think that that would expose the modest member. I think it is fair enough that those who wish to throw brickbats at political candidates ought to be exposed.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Section 164 ( 1 ) of the principal Act reads:

On and after the date of issue and before the return of any writ for the election of a member of the Senate, or of the House of Representatives, or for the taking of any referendum vote, every article report, letter or other matter commenting upon any candidate, or political party, or the issues being submitted to the electors, printed and published in any newspaper, circular, pamphlet, or ‘dodger’ shall be signed by the author or authors, giving his or their true name and address or names and addresses at the end of the said article, report, letter, or other matter, or where part only of the article, report, letter, or other matter . . . appears in any issue of a newspaper, circular, pamphlet, or ‘dodger’, at the end of that part.

The sub-section then states the penalty attached. Sub-section (3) reads:

This section shall not apply to the publication in a newspaper of-

a leading article; or

an article in a newspaper which consists solely of a report of a meeting and does not contain any comment . . . upon any candidate, or political party, or the issues being submitted to the electors.

If the speaker himself makes a comment it could be reported. Sub-clause (d) of clause 57 seeks to insert after paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) the following paragraph: (aa) an article, report, letter or other matter, if the issue of the newspaper in which it appears contains a statement to the effect that the editor or proprietor of the newspaper accepts responsibility for the views expressed in the article, report, letter or matter;

The reason for this is that newspaper editors have complained from time to time that the strict application of the provision that every article, report, letter or other matter of political content printed or published during the specified period must be signed by the authors can prevent the publication of some articles, particularly those transmitted from other States. In an endeavour to overcome the problem, there have been instances in which statements have been published in newspapers that, for example, the editor accepts responsibility for all matters of political content appearing therein. In some ways the clause is validating a practice. It is a new provision which we are attempting to insert in the Act. We will vote for it. Like all new things, I expect that somebody will oppose it.

Question put:

That clause 37 parts (c) and (d) stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator G. J. Davidson)

AYES: 25

NOES: 29

Majority……. _ _

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 58 to 60- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 6 1 (Electoral Offences).

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– There has been circulated on behalf of the Opposition a series of proposed amendments. Proposed amendments 41 and 42, which relate to clause 61, and proposed amendments 45, 46 and 47 relate to fines being levied, with an alternative of imprisonment. Might I indicate quite quickly my thinking on these proposed amendments. The imprisonment as an alternative to the fine in each case is one month. I will not move the amendments, nor will I press them, but I take this opportunity to bring to the Government’s attention the fact that most modern writers on penology say that people should not be imprisoned for a month. All that does is clutter up the gaols. It does not inflict a penalty on them. They get a one-third remission. It upsets a man’s whole home life. It puts him in gaol for 15 or 16 days. It is rather ridiculous. If one believes that the purpose of gaoling people is to reform them and to rehabilitate them, they should be under the control of the rehabilitation authorities for a sufficiently lengthy period for the rehabilitation to have some chance of taking effect. I make the plea to the Government and to those on the other side who are interested in the rehabilitation of those who fall foul of the law to look at this proposition.

The Bill will be returned to the House of Representatives. One of the problems of overcrowding with a lot of the prisons which has led to an incapacity on the part of prisons and reform institutions to do something for prisoners is the fact that not only have the prisons been cluttered up with all sorts of people who ought to be somewhere else being treated for alcoholism and other problems but also they have been cluttered up with a quite large number of people who are in there for a very short time. I put it to the Government that unless a person is imprisoned for a reasonably lengthy time, say 6 months or more, so that he can be properly rehabilitated, the penalty should be a fine. I use this clause as a vehicle to indicate that point of view.

Clause agreed to.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

– In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Clauses 62 to 64- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 65.

The Schedule to the Principal Act is amended by omitting Forms A to F (inclusive) and substituting the following forms: -

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I have amendments to proposed forms E and F in clause 65. They are consequential upon the fact that the optional preferential voting clause was deleted from the Bill. Form E is the proposed ballot paper for Senate elections. It sets out how one votes under optional preferential voting. Form F is for House of Representatives elections. It would be rather futile to have in a Bill ballot papers for a system which is not in the Bill. The amendments are consequential to the previous amendments. I move:

In proposed Form E, leave out-

Your vote must be made by placing consecutive numbers, beginning with the number 1, in the squares opposite the names of candidates so as to indicate the candidates for whom you vote and the order of your preferences for them. You must indicate the order of your preference for at least [here to be printed number of candidates to be elected] candidates. You may, if you wish, indicate the order of your preference for an additional candidate or candidates.

This means that you must use all the numbers [here to be printed 1 , 2 and so on up to the number of candidates to be elected] but may use additional consecutive numbers. ‘, insert-

Mark your vote on this ballot-paper by placing the numbers [here insert 1 , 2 and so on, as the case requires] in the squares immediately to the left of the names of the respective candidates so as to indicate the order of your preference for them. ‘.

In proposed Form F, leave out-

Your vote must be made by placing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom you vote as your first preference.

If you so desire, you may, in addition, indicate the order of your preference for an additional candidate or candidates by using other numbers in numerical order beginning with the number 2. [To be included only where there are more than two candidates].’, insert-

Mark your vote on this ballot-paper by placing the numbers [here insert ‘ 1 and 2 ‘ where there are two candidates, ‘1,2 and 3 ‘ where there are three candidates, ‘1,2,3 and 4’ where there are four candidates, and so on as the case requires] in the squares respectively opposite the names of the candidates so as to indicate the order of your preference for them. ‘.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– Do I understand that Senator Withers is moving his amendments Nos. 43 and 44 together and is substituting the clauses headed ‘insert’ for the clauses headed ‘leave out’?

Senator Withers:

– It is making the ballot paper conform with the Bill.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you. I raise a very small point, but I think it is a matter involving some style in what is being done. I would like to see the word ‘please ‘ put in front of the word ‘mark’. If Senator Withers looks at the clause that he is proposing to leave out he will see that it is less abrupt to say ‘your vote must be made ‘ than simply to say ‘ mark your vote ‘. Quite frankly, I do not think it hurts to extend some little courtesy in the demands that we make. We are dealing with some compulsion in voting, although the compulsion may not be observer if a person wishes to vote informally.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You could put the words thank you ‘ on the bottom.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-One might get more results that way. I remember an occasion long ago in South Australia when the railways department decided not to give change to people who came to buy tickets. The department put a sign outside ticket sales offices which said: Present correct change here’. After a small lonehanded battle, I got that altered to read: ‘Please present correct change here’. It is a very small point, but it is a very small matter to change the wording here when we are amending the Act. I will move an amendment, or if Senator Withers would like to incorporate it in his amendment I would be happy for him to do so.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– Basically, I was returning to the form in the present Act. The Government’s intention was to have the words your vote must be made by placing consecutive numbers’, whereas I have just lifted the words mark your vote on this ballot paper’ out of the principal Act. I hesitate to play around with the old Act. I do not know how the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) feels.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I seek some clarification of Senator Withers’ amendment. He has spoken of lifting a certain section out of the old Act and in his amendment saying:

Mark your vote on this ballot-paper by placing the numbers ( here insert 1, 2, and so on, as the case requires) in the squares immediately to the left of the names . . .

The original Act says:

Mark your vote on this ballot paper by placing the numbers … in the squares respectively opposite the names of the candidates.

In my experience as a scrutineer there are some electors who do mark the ballot paper immediately to the left of the names; they mark it to the right. That has been classed as a formal vote. So I think there will be a few more informal votes if this amendment is insisted upon in those words.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I am substituting the words in the present Act for the words in the Bill. What the Bill does is take out what I am putting back. It is consequential on the previous amendments. I did not attempt to draft new forms. I thought that the old forms ought to be left as they were. That is all my amendment is attempting to do. The present forms are being left as they are.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– The Opposition’s amendment numbered 43 on the list proposes to leave out of the proposed Senate ballot paper, Form E, the directions to the voter which are appropriate to optional preferential voting for a Senate election and to reinsert directions for full preferential marking. Similarly, the Opposition’s amendment numbered 44 proposes to leave out of the proposed House of Representatives ballot paper, Form F, directions which are appropriate to optional preferential voting for the House of Representatives and to reinsert directions for full preferential voting. This is in line with the Opposition’s objection to the optional preferential system which, for reasons already enunciated, the Government desires to introduce for both Senate and House of Representatives elections. It is consequential on what the Senate has decided. The Government will vote to have it retained but will not divide the Committee.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I understand that the procedure is that Senator Withers has moved the amendments on the list which has been supplied to us. In that case I wish to move a further amendment to his amendment. I move:

In support of that I say that there has been a lot of talk about encouraging people to vote. This is a very minor part but I believe that it is simply good manners to add it.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– May I suggest to Senator Hall that, as I am only representing the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) in this chamber, the point will be brought to the Minister’s attention. The situation now is that the Bill has been pretty badly mutilated. The Senate does not have the final say on it. The Bill must go back to the House of Representatives. Rather than Senator Hall persisting with his amendment, which the Government would have to vote against, simple though it is, I suggest that we take note of it and let the House of Representatives take it into cognisance when the Bill is returned to that House.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I appreciate the conciliatory attitude of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) towards my amendment but I do not find it satisfactory. As he said, the Bill has been mutilated and must go back to the other House. It is of little consequence to the future of the Bill or to its possibilities of success or otherwise as an amending Bill to the main Electoral Act whether it has one more alteration. On that basis I persist with my amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

– The question is:

That the amendment moved by Senator Steele Hall be agreed to.

Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary no’. I think the noes have it.

Senator Steele Hall:
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I need to hear 2 voices for a division.

Senator Steele Hall:

– Yes, I have a mate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question is resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is:

That the amendment moved by Senator Withers be agreed to.

Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary no ‘. I think the noes have it.

Senator Steele Hall:

– On a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman, I take it that my amendment will now lapse as Senator Withers’ amendment is defeated.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I will put the question again. The question is:

That the amendment moved by Senator Withers be agreed to.

Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary no’. I think the ayes have it.

Senator Steele Hall:

– On a point of order, what happened to my amendment?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Your amendment was negatived.

Senator Steele Hall:

– On a point of order, I still cannot hear from this quarter of the House. I do ask for some clarification as to what happened. We in this part of the House have not heard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Hall, I gave a decision against your amendment. You remember that you called for a division. I asked for 2 voices to call for a division. At that stage I did not hear 2 voices so a division was not called.

Senator Steele Hall:

– I thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. I do not find it satisfactory but I thank you.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– As I indicated earlier I will not proceed with the balance of my amendments but I trust the Government will take on board my comments about the futility of short imprisonment.

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

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

The amendments which the Opposition has succeeded in having passed in this chamber are mainly those proposed by the Opposition without success in the House of Representatives when the Bill was debated in that House on 10 April last. Apart from provisions concerning mobile polling booths, hospitals and institutions practically none of the Government’s major electoral reforms contained in this Bill has been supported by the Opposition in this chamber. Examples would be optional preferential voting, Party affiliations on ballot papers and an earlier close off time for the receipt of postal votes. Although the Opposition has accepted quite a number of the less important provisions of the Bill its amendments strip the Bill of vital measures required to bring about the Government’s program of electoral reform. I remind honourable senators that this is the second time this Bill has been before this chamber. On the first occasion on 28 November 1974 the Senate rejected the Bill in total. On this second occasion substantial amendments have been passed. I do not intend to forecast what action the House of Representatives will take when the Bill is returned to that House with the amendments, but I can say that the Bill in its amended form can only be regarded as unacceptable by the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Senate adjourned at 11.14 p.m.

page 1457

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Tertiary Education Assistance

Care of Aged and Chronically 111

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 May 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750514_senate_29_s64/>.