View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
29 October 1975

29^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITIONS
- Income Tax
- Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills
- Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills
- Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills
- Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills
- Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills
- Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills
- Budget Bills
- Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills
- Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills
QUESTION
- NOTICES OF MOTION
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE APPROPRIATION BILLS
QUESTION
- PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL
QUESTION
- BUDGET BRIEFING
QUESTION
- PAPUA NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- RIVER MURRAY: FLOODS
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS DUTY ON IMPORTED BAGS AND SACKS
QUESTION
- SUBSCRIPTIONS TO COMMONWEALTH LOAN
QUESTION
- DOCTORS’ FEES
QUESTION
- EXCISE DUTY ON PETROL
QUESTION
- RED TELEPHONES
QUESTION
- TIMOR
QUESTION
- CONCESSIONAL RATES FOR TRUNK LINE CALLS
QUESTION
- SOUTH VIETNAMESE REFUGEES
QUESTION
- PORTUGUESE TIMOR
QUESTION
- BRIEFING ON BUDGET DETAILS
QUESTION
- TOOSE REPORT
QUESTION
- RESIGNATIONS FROM DEFENCE SERVICES
QUESTION
- AVIATION FUEL
QUESTION
- HOUSING FOR ABORIGINES
QUESTION
- WOOL MARKET
QUESTION
- BUDGET BRIEFINGS
QUESTION
- MISSING SUBMAKINE
QUESTION
- TRADE UNIONS: ATTITUDE TO MIGRANTS
QUESTION
- PRINTING OF AWARDS AND SALARY REGULATIONS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES
QUESTION
- POTATOES
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF ITEMS OF APPAREL
QUESTION
- WHITLAM MINISTRY
QUESTION
- STATE OF FEDERAL OPPOSITION
QUESTION
- RADIO AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- BUDGET DISCLOSURE
QUESTION
- EXCISE DUTY ON PETROL
QUESTION
- COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS
AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY
CITIES COMMISSION
RANGER URANIUM MINING PROJECT
APPROPRIATION BILLS 1975-76
APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1975-76
TIMES OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 649)
- Government Grants (Question No. 719)
- Research and Public Relations (Question No. 80S)
- Education: Literacy (Question No. 834)
- Institute of Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 887)
- Aborigines: Grants (Question No. 897)

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne), took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1523

PETITIONS

Income Tax

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 14 citizens of Australia:

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

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

be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and

find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary fro m State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same: and

Require.; citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator GIETZELT:

– I present the following petition from. 109 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:

That we are fearful that any further delay by the Senate of the Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills will bring Australia into a constitutional, economic and social crisis, leaving indelible scars on our democractic institutions.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should proceed forthwith to allow passage of these Bills so that the government, legitimately formed by a majority of the members of the people’s House (the House of Representatives) may proceed with its administration without further disruption.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 87 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 shows that we protest at the Opposition’s campaign to force a General Election by their decision to prevent the passage of Supply Bills.

Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Opposition will allow the passage of the Supply Bills and cease their campaign for a General Election forthwith.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 34 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:

That we are fearful that any further delay by the Senate of the Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills will bring Australia into a constitutional, economic and social crisis, leaving indelible scars on our democratic institutions.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should proceed forthwith to allow passage of these Bills so that the government, legitimately formed by a majority of the members of the peoples’ House (the House of- Representatives) may proceed with its administration without further disruption.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Senator McINTOSH:

– I ask that the petition be read. (The petition being read by the Clerk)-

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 87 provides that no reference shall be made in a petition to any debate in Parliament of the same session. The preceding petition which was lodged by Senator Keeffe referred to the Appropriation Bills which are currently before the Senate. They are certainly the subject of debate in the Parliament in this session. The Loan Bill is certainly a Bill which was introduced into the Senate yesterday. I say only that the Standing Orders have a sound basis to them. If petitions of this character are to be permitted, I imagine that the day of the Senate could be taken up with petitions from 30, 40 or 400 people.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You should talk. You are the greatest time waster in the Senate.

Senator Greenwood:

– In response to that interjection, I must say that it is obvious that the Government does not want the truth to come out. That is typical of its tactics. My submission is that the Standing Orders prohibit in their language this type of petition being presented. If the ruling is that they are to be permitted, that is tantamount to inviting petitions of this character to take up the whole day of the Senate, which I am sure is not the intention of the Standing Orders.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I speak to the point of order. I think that the practice has been well established that such petitions are received. In fact, a number of Opposition senators, including Senator Greenwood himself I imagine, have lodged petitions relating to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill, which has been before the Parliament during this session and indeed during this sessional period. The petitions were presented while the Bill was in fact before one or other House of the Parliament. I think that Senator Greenwood himself presented petitions on that very matter. It seems most extraordinary to me that now that the Opposition is in a state of embarrassment, knowing that public feeling is against it, it is attempting to prevent a practice which it followed week after week and day after day in this Senate.

Senator Missen:

– On the point of order, Mr President: It is not the Opposition, it is one senator who raises this point of order. I do not support the point of order. I recall that while the Family Law Bill was before this Parliament it was found incessantly that people presented petitions. I think that nothing should be done to restrict the rights of the people to put their petitions before Parliament. I oppose the point of order.

Senator Everett:

– I speak briefly to the point of order. I suggest it is misconceived within the terms of the standing order upon which Senator Greenwood relied. Standing order 87 states:

No reference shall be made in a Petition to any Debate in Parliament of the same Session.

The prohibition is against referring to the actual debate or part of the debate in relation to the same matter, and I submit that none of these petitions refers to the debate. The petitions refer simply to the Bill, and as other honourable senators have said, the Family Law Bill was for months the subject of petitions, the majority of them, I imagine, emanating from the Opposition side.

Senator Webster:

- Mr President, I think that Senator Greenwood’s reason for raising this matter is to have you make a decision. It is quite right, as has been stated, that the Senate has received petitions on a number of matters which relate to debates in the current session, but members of the Opposition have knowledge that the Government wishes today to use a great deal of the Senate’s time in relation to the presentation of petitions to support its particular argument. It is quite clear in standing order 87 that no reference shall be made in a petition to any debate in Parliament of the same session. There is a great deal of wisdom behind that standing order. I think that that wisdom will be displayed today if and when we hear these petitions presented from the Government side. Government senators have attempted to force onto the Parliament a decision on whether the Senate’s action in rejecting or deferring the Appropriation Bills is unconstitutional. That action is within the Senate’s power. That many petitions on the subject should be received is obviously contrary to the Standing Orders in the context of the debate. I will be most interested in the decision that will be made by you, Mr President, as I realise that we have received petitions relating to family law matters and other matters that have been the subjects of debate during sessions of the Parliament. This is a particularly important matter and your ruling will stand for all time. If petitions are allowed to be presented on this subject, they will be allowed to be presented on any other matter which is the subject of debate in the Parliament.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I want to make brief reference to the matter because the point of order which was taken by Senator Greenwood was directed against a petition which I presented. There are many thousands more signatures coming in on a similarly worded petition.

Senator Rae:

– Well organised, too.

Senator Keeffe:

No reference shall be made in a Petition to any Debate in the Parliament of the same Session.

Previous rulings have been made. I refer to one as far back as 1904 when President Baker ruled that a Bill which is before the other House may be the subject matter of a petition to the Senate and that a petition may set forth reasons why a Bill should not be passed and may quote the debates of a previous session in the other House. I therefore rule that the practice that has been followed in the Senate since 1904 will be continued, and I rule against the point of order raised by Senator Greenwood.

Petition read.

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 52 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:

That we are fearful that any further delay by the Senate of the Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills will bring Australia into a constitutional, economic and social crisis, leaving indelible scars on our democratic institutions.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should proceed forthwith to allow passage of these Bills so that the Government, legitimately formed by a majority of the members of the peoples’ House (the House of Representatives) may proceed with its administration without further disruption.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition from 53 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:

That we are fearful that any further delay by the Senate of the Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills will bring Australia into a constitutional, economic and social crisis, leaving indelible scars on our democratic institutions.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should proceed forthwith to allow passage of these Bills so that the government, legitimately formed by a majority of the members of the peoples’ House (the House of Representatives) may proceed with its administration without further disruption.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 38 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:

That we arc fearful that any further delay by the Senate of the Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills will bring Australia into a constitutional, economic and social crisis, leaving indelible scars on our democratic institutions.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should proceed forthwith to allow passage of these Bills so that the government, legitimately formed by a majority of the members of the peoples’ House (the House of Representatives) may proceed with its administration without further disruption.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Constitution: Power of the Senate over Money Bills

Senator McLAREN:

– I present the following petition from 44 citizens of Australia:

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

The Australian Senate, by deferring Government Appropriation Bills has usurped the ultimate seat of Government and clearly abdicated the functions of a house of review.

Your petitioners, impelled by this fact, humbly pray that honourable members, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to initiate amendment of the Australian Constitution to ensure:

. that the Senate have no power to reject or delay Bills to expend or to raise monies

that the Senate be allowed 30 days to scrutinise fully such Bills, after which time they shall be deemed to pass automatically.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Budget Bills

Senator BUNTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 16 citizens of Australia:

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

The denial of supply has polarised the Australian people and has brought the Australian Parliamentary system into contempt and ridicule both at home and abroad and, if continued, will cause undue hardship to many and cause chaos in significant sectors Qf industry and commerce.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that honourable Senators will grant supply expeditiously.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

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

That we are fearful that any further delay by the Senate of the Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills will bring Australia into a constitutional, economic and social crisis, leaving indelible scars on our democratic institutions.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should proceed forthwith to allow passage of these Bills so that the government, legitimately formed by a majority of the members of the people’s House (the House of Representatives) may proceed with its administration without further disruption.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Mulvihill, Coleman, McLaren, Primmer, Donald Cameron, Grimes, Everett (4 petitions), Walsh, Devitt and Drury.

Petitions received.

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Senate’s delay of the Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills will bring Australia into a constitutional, economic and social crisis, leaving indelible scars on our democratic institutions.

That the Senate should proceed forthwith to allow passage of these Bills so that government, legitimately formed by a majority of the members of the peoples’ House (the House of Representatives) may proceed with its administration without further disruption.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators McLaren, Donald Cameron and Drury.

Petitions received.

page 1526

QUESTION

NOTICES OF MOTION

Overseas Loan Raisings

Senator WITHERS (Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition- I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

1 ) That a select committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report all aspects of the overseas loan raising activities of the Government relating to its dealings both prior to and subsequent to the Executive Council meeting of 13 December 1974 which authorised the Minister for Minerals and Energy to borrow a sum not exceeding $4,000 m in the currency of the United States of America for temporary purposes.
That the Committee consist of 6 Senators, 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one to be nominated by the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia in the Senate. Nominations of members shall be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and shall thereupon take effect.
3 ) That the Committee meet within 4 hours of the passing of this resolution.
That the Commute proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and notwithstanding any vacancy.
That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
That the Committee elect as Deputy-Chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and that the member so elected act as Chairman or the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.
That a quorum of the Committee be three.
That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman, when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament, and to sit during the sittings of the Senate.
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken, and such interim recommendations it may deem fit.
That the Committee have power to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it. A daily Hansard shall be published of such proceedings of the Committee as ta ke place in public.
12) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 1 December 1975.
That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding; anything contained in the Standing Orders.

Cocos (Keeling) Islands

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-I give notice that 10 sitting days after today I shall move:

That the Lands Acquisition Ordinance 1975 as contained in Cocos (Keeling) Islands Ordinance (No. 5) 1975 and made under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955-75 be disallowed.

I should explain that it has become necessary to move this motion in order to afford to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee an opportunity to consider this Ordinance in greater depth than it has so far been possible to do because of the problems of time.

Government Appointments

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for the supervision by the Parliament of appointments by the Government to certain public offices and for other purposes.

– Yes, the decision was a good one because it proves -

Senator Mulvihill:

– A good colour, too.

Senator BISHOP:

– Being an old railway socialist, Senator Mulvihill would be pleased with it. As everybody knows, there was a good deal of controversy years ago when licences were given to private operators to install Red telephones. During the period when I was responsible for the Australian Post Office I recommended that we should take over the Red telephones. Some 20 000 units have now been taken over and they all have been converted to take 10c coinage. In addition, there has been a 5 per cent increase in the demand for Red telephones. As recently as in the last eight or nine months there have been 4000 applications from people who want to have Red telephones.

I suppose that the essential advantage with Red telephones is that they are located in protected positions. The trouble with ordinary public telephones is that they are located in exposed positions and they are subject to much vandalism. The Red telephones have the advantage of being in areas where there are groups of people. It has been a very satisfactory operation.

page 1530

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen reports or received any information relating to statements made by members of a mission to Timor from the Australian Council for Overseas Aid? Has he noted their observation that unless fighting stopped soon there would be serious social upheaval and a risk that urgent humanitarian needs might not be met? Has he also noted their suggestion regarding the possible role of the Australian Government in this situation? What is the Government’s response to these observations?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Regarding the return of bodies, I would think that the next-of-kin would have the prime say on that. These people have gone through a terrible time and, as far as I am concerned, the question of the return of the bodies would be left to them. On the question of the missing newsmen, I had hoped by now to have definitive information on the fate of the 5 missing newsmen but I regret that this information is not yet to hand. I recognise that this is a tragic situation for the next-of-kin, who will not wish to give up hope until the fate of their sons and husbands is confirmed. But I have to say that I have no encouraging words in that regard. All the information we have been able to assemble indicates that the 5 missing journalists were among those killed in the fighting which took place in the town of Balibo on 15 and 16 October. Documents apparently found at the scene of the fighting and which we expect to receive shortly are said to have belonged to the missing newsmen.

The Government recognises that there has been a number of disturbing accounts of the circumstances in which the 5 newsmen may have met their deaths. A Fretilin soldier interviewed by the media in Dili yesterday is reported to have described the entry of the anti-Fretilin forces into Balibo. He spoke in terms of a considerable amount of firing as the anti-Fretilin forces advanced on the town and he described the efforts of the 5 newsmen to signal their neutral status to the advancing forces. Other reports suggest that the 5 newsmen took shelter in a house which was subject to a direct hit by a mortar barrage. That a heavy bombardment of Balibo took place has been confirmed by Fretilin spokesmen. There are also reports that the house in which the newsmen reportedly took shelter and of which photographs appeared in the Press a day or two ago was used to store fuel supplies. This may account for the suggestion that the interior of the house was quickly enveloped by fire. But in fact the Government cannot be certain about any of these reports.

Efforts to have an on the spot investigation carried out have not proved successful. On the one hand, access to Balibo through Dili is not practicable at this time. On the other hand, the Indonesian-Portuguese Timor border has been closed, preventing access through Indonesian Timor. Mr Johnson, the consular officer we have sent to Indonesian Timor, is still in Kupang but thus far has been unable to travel to the border areas. Nor have our efforts to contact the UDT, Apodeti and Kota forces yet yielded a definitive result. One problem is the hostility with which Australia appears to be held by some of the antiFretilin leaders. There appears to be an impression that Australia through its relief program has shown support for the Fretilin forces. Reports given currency by Portuguese sources in Atauro and Macao a week or two ago that Australians were assisting Fretilin forces militarily have also had a damaging effect in this regard. As I indicated in my statement of 1 7 October the Government will continue, of course, its most strenuous efforts to obtain final and authoritative information on the missing newsmen. We are making further efforts to enlist the good offices of the Indonesian Government in allowing Mr Johnson to visit the border area in an effort to make direct contact with the anti-Fretilin leaders. We are trying to ascertain again whether it would be possible to make a direct visit to Balibo. I feel bound to note, however, that as long as the fighting in the border areas continues, and in the absence of direct word from the anti-Fretilin forces, the prospects for an early and final resolution of this matter are not good.

page 1532

QUESTION

BRIEFING ON BUDGET DETAILS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the reason given by the Treasurer for leaking Budget details to Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, namely, to enable Mr Hawke to make a considered comment on Budget night. Did this action give Mr Hawke, the most powerful Australian Labor Party figure outside Parliament, a distinct propaganda start over all other economic and political spokesmen in the community? Was it therefore an action which gave the Government considerable political advantage?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The answer to the honourable senator’s question is no.

page 1533

QUESTION

TOOSE REPORT

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, concerns the long awaited and expected Toose report on the Department of Repatriation and Compensation. Has he seen Press reports, particularly that in the Adelaide Sunday-Mail newspaper of 26 October, alleging that the Government has gone out of its way to prolong the Toose inquiry? Has the Government extended the terms of reference to Mr Justice Toose to inquire into in order to delay his report? When can we expect to see the report after these years of inquiry?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I have seen the statement made by a Mr Hunter of an organisation with an unknown membership which is known as the Ex-services Action Association. Mr Hunter tends to bob up every now and again and make statements about people, including my predecessors of various political persuasions. I must confess that I am a little distressed to find that a journal such as the Adelaide Sunday-Mail has alleged that somehow or other I am prolonging the inquiry by Mr Justice Toose and delaying its conclusion. It is quite true that the inquiry was established in October 1971 by the previous Government and that upon Labor being elected in December 1972 the time was extended for Mr Justice Toose to complete his report. Mr Hunter says that secretly I have been giving additional terms of reference for Mr Justice Toose to inquire into. I can assure honourable senators that I have not been giving Mr Justice Toose anything to inquire into at all other than what was given to him by the previous Government, and 4 years -

Senator Jessop:

page 1535

QUESTION

MISSING SUBMAKINE

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to widespread Press reports concerning a full scale alert which was raised yesterday when a Royal Australian Navy submarine was feared missing. Is the Minister able to provide any information about the incident? What procedures have been developed for search and rescue when such incidents occur?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I have been informed that it is standard practice to initiate a procedure which the Navy calls submiss if at any time there is doubt about the safety of a submarine. The doubt can arise through lack or failure of communications during an exercise. I am advised that such incidents occur occasionally and may be caused by the failure or malfunction of, for example, a grenade signalling device. I am advised also that the safety procedures are well tried and practised and are instituted if there is any doubt as to the safety of a submarine. Senator Drury asked me this morning about this matter but that is as much information as I can give him at this time. I will follow up his question and will see whether there is some other information I can give him in respect of this incident.

page 1535

QUESTION

TRADE UNIONS: ATTITUDE TO MIGRANTS

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I refer to the final report of the Committee on Community Relations recently delivered to the Minister and published by his Department which relates to the position of migrants in the community and in particular to discriminations against migrants in the work force. I ask whether the Minister’s attention has been drawn to the following statement on page 22 of the report:

Generally speaking, trade unions are failing to communicate effectively with non-English speaking migrant workers and cater to their needs. There is also a reluctance to acknowledge that migrants are a particular group of members within unions with special problems. This indifference extends to the ACTU where at its last 3 congresses little mention was made of the specific problems of migrants in industry.

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: In the circumstances of the now daily disclosure of new instances of deception and deceit by this Government, with the sacking of Dr Cairns and Mr Connor, both former Acting Prime Ministers of this country, for lying, with the claims by Dr Cairns that the Prime Minister is a liar and was well aware of the details of the loans affair, with the revelation now that the Treasurer, Mr Hayden, leaked the Budget to the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and with the increasing evidence indicating the Labor Government’s involvement in the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd fraud, will the Minister seek to have the Prime Minister do at least one honourable thing and resign?

page 1538

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1975-76

Restoration to the Notice Paper

Consideration of House of Representatives Message No. 392.

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

- Mr President, in view of message No. 392 received from the House of Representatives, I seek leave to move a motion to restore the Appropriation Bills to the notice paper.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-I move:

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the order of the day for the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No.1 ) 1 975-76 and the order of the day for the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1 975-76 be now restored to the notice paper and that they be orders of the day for a later hour this day.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– We are dealing with a message sent to the Senate from the House of Representatives concerning Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76. It makes assertions which, to say the least, need to be very highly qualified. It makes the assertion that the delaying of the passage of these Bills, of itself, is contrary to the established constitutional convention. This debate is becoming something of a movable feast. Before I deal with the material of this debate I, on behalf of the Opposition, move the following amendment to the message:

Leave out all words after That, insert- the Senate having considered Message No. 392 of the House of Representatives rejects the assertion made in paragraph (a), rejects the allegation made in paragraph (b), and asserts that, as to the matters contained in paragraphs (c) and (d), the true position is given in the Senate Resolution as communicated to the House of Representatives in Message No. 279.

That the foregoing Resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by Message.

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

Senator Withers:

– I second the amendment.

Senator COTTON:

– We are getting ourselves into a situation in which a lot of people are making comments on the Constitution and making claims about their understanding of it. I wish to refer at length to the opinions expressed by 2 eminent Queen’s Counsel, first Mr Edward St John who, having been in the Parliament, might be expected to have added knowledge. Mr St John stated:

The Senate, in which the Opposition has a majority, has now failed to pass the Supply Bills as a means of forcing a general election, a power conferred upon the Senate by the Constitution for that very purpose.

Then there are the further comments:

. the legal power of the Senate to refuse Supply, and the absence of any convention that it shall not do so, are quite clear from the debates of the constitutional conventions . . .

Constitutional convention requires the Prime Minister in these circumstances, to resign and face the electors.

The Prime Minister and his party and trade union followers have decided however to defy convention and to tough it out’ (as they put it) with the avowed intention of smashing the power of the Senate forever, thus destroying the Federal compact, centralising all power in Canberra and effectively robbing us of one of the chiefest safeguards of our constitutional system.

Then there are further comments on the same subject by Mr Laurence Gruzman, Q.C. Mr Gruzman stated:

One of the distinguishing features of parliamentary democracy is the absolute rule of law.

Senator Mulvihill:

– He is a criminal lawyer, not a constitutional lawyer.

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Senator Mulvihill is another constitutional lawyer. I am quite sure that at some time he, too, will have a chance to look at this. I will start again, because I am sure Senator Mulvihill would like to know what Mr Gruzman said. He stated:

One of the distinguishing features of parliamentary democracy is the absolute rule of law. This is the citizens’ protection from arbitrary government acts.

Then he talks about the Queen in Parliament:

The Australian Constitution is written. The British Constitution is unwritten.

This means that there are certain rules in Australia which the Parliament cannot alter. These rules were drawn up for, among other things, the protection of the States who were giving up their absolute sovereignty to the new Federal body and it was therefore most important that the Federal Parliament could not alter these rules without a referendum or the consent of the States.

Subject to the Constitution the Queen in Parliament has supreme power.

The Queen in Parliament means that the Queen (through her representative, the Governor-General) together with both Houses of Parliament have, subject to the Constitution, supreme power and this power is expressed by passing Acts of Parliament through both houses which are then signed by theG-G.

This supreme power can only be exercised with the concurrence of the three parties and subject to the Constitution. The High Court of course rules on a question of whether specific legislation is permitted by the Constitution.

He goes on to state:

Under the Constitution all the money received by the Government has to be paid into a special fund and, as Section 83 of the Constitution says: ‘no money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law’.

This system records in a few words the result of bloody battles over centuries as to who would have supremacy- the King or Parliament.

If the King could impose taxes and use them as he pleased without reference to Parliament he would not need to call Parliament together. The necessity for the Queen or her ministers, that is the present government, to come to Parliament every year to ask for money is the great democratic check which means, and was intended to mean, that if a government has lost the confidence of either House of Parliament it can no longer govern and an election must ensue.

That seems to be a better constitutional position than that which has been given to us by the Government. The Government has made some reference to section 28 of the Constitution, and if one reads that one finds that in reality the Government has had 3 years and therefore its time is up. But the Government does not talk about something else in the Constitution, which can be found under the heading ‘The Parliament’ where it is stated:

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called ‘The Parliament’, or ‘The Parliament of the Commonwealth’.

That seems to establish fairly clearly that the view of the Government, expressed from time to time by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), that the Queen does not really matter because he will tell the Governor-General what to do, that the Senate does not matter because he is going to abolish it, and all that matters is himself and his own House of Representatives, is not founded in fact or reality and is a totally improper and an incorrect proposition. I think we ought to have regard to that in this place where we are safeguarding democracy where we are exercising our proper rights and responsibilities and where we would be totally negligent were we not to do so. A lot of talking has been going on. I have referred to this before and no doubt it will be referred to again by many of my colleagues. These Bills are being deferred and they can be passed immediately the Government takes its proper course of action, having lost the confidence of this House, and takes the House of Representatives to the people.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where is Senator Wood?

Senator COTTON:

-Why does not the Minister go out and ask him? He might buy the Minister a cup of tea. It has been known to happen. He offered to buy me one. I believe that the Government is engaged in a conspiracy to remain in office. In its engagement in that conspiracy it is receiving some very solid assistance from media organisations under its own control. I suppose that one of the most alarming things to happen in the last couple of days has been the revealing of the disclosure to the President of the Australian Labor Party of the facts of the Budget some 6 hours before they were known to the Parliament.

We all know the situation. There is a lock-up arrangement under which the people of the Press who are concerned to know about this matter are locked in and cannot get out until the Treasurer has delivered his speech. Some reference has been made to the fact that the Premiers had access to the Budget documents. This is not a fact. Senator Wriedt very properly laid down the information that the Premiers receive a few hours before the presentation of the Budget. This is very restricted. But to have the president of a political party privy to Budget Speech detail some 6 hours before its presentation is, to say the least, one of the most disgraceful and reprehensible pieces of behaviour of any government in any democracy for quite a long time. 1 hope that all Government senators realise the dreadful position in which this places Mr Hawke. I am glad that I am not in his position. I would not have taken advantage of the opportunity under any circumstances if it were given to me. A person placed in this dreadful position could be accused of having an opportunity to profit against excise, to have made some gains in share transactions on stock exchanges in London, Perth and Tokyo because of the different hours of opening and of profiting from exchange revaluations on the overnight money markets. It was totally improper for Mr Hawke to engage in this situation and equally, I think, unfortunate for his party to place him in it. Any government of probity and integrity would not behave in this fashion. If there were no other reason for the Government to put itself to the people- indeed to resign- it could be found in this circumstance.

Very slight irregularities in the United Kingdom resulted in 2 Treasurers resigning. This happened in almost minimal circumstances. I think that in the case of Dalton or Thomas the resignation came because of a chance observation to a journalist as the Treasurer went into the House of Commons to make his speech at the dispatch box. He was called upon to resign by the Prime Minister and very properly so. To me, this action by the Government is not only shabby but also is extremely sad. I have some regard for Mr Hawke and his ability. I think that he is a man who has tried to do his best in certain areas. I totally disagree with some of the things that he believes in and does. His judgment was odious in allowing himself to be placed in that position. The people who put him in that position should be, to say the least, ashamed of themselves.

Perhaps we are looking also at a small extension of the reasoning as to why these Bills ought to be deferred and as to why the Government ought to go to the people. We have been arguing this for quite a long time. With every day that goes by the facts of our economic arguments and our arguments in regard to the Government’s incompetence and deceit are borne out more and more. For instance, we are looking at a situation in which the economic problems of the Government are coming to a head. We referred to the latest loan result this morning. Again Senator Wriedt gave a completely accurate answer on this matter. The fact of life is that the loan has been filled by the Government printing its own money in a money supply expansion situation. There has been no real money move from traditional savings areas, which are in a state of massive expansion into the government area. This demonstrates above all other things that the people of Australia have no confidence in the ability of the Government to run the country properly and to safeguard their savings. Therefore they are keeping those savings in the safest place. That is a great demonstration of the actual position of the Government.

I referred yesterday to the state of the Government’s overdraft. I said that at the end of September it was standing at around $2,250m. I dealt with the run down of the Government’s cash balances. Its position is one in which at the end of October it raised a loan, in effect, by lending money to itself. This sort of action, without any doubt, will just add to the destruction of confidence in this Government and its ability to handle the affairs of the Australian people.

Added to this position we have the overseas loans matter. The information on this is not yet fully available for us to make total judgments but the position begins to take on increasingly alarming and dangerous trends. When one sets the comments by the Government in answer to questions raised on the Loan Bills- that no overseas loans were going to be raised and that there was no intention to raise them- against the recital of facts it is seen that we simply are faced with a massive conspiracy of deceit. The ACTU-Solo affair has yet to be fully cleared up and ventilated. Again, it has some very shabby overtones.

In fact, I believe that we are seeing in Australia the progressive building up of what I might call a Dreyfus case, and the Australian people are beginning to say: ‘J ‘accuse’. Why would they not? We are looking at expansions of the money supply by the Government which are getting to dangerous levels. By doing this the Government is going to add further to inflationary pressures which will add to unemployment. I believe that we really have a monstrous Government. It is incapable, yet it is determined to hang on to office at any possible cost. I do not think Australia will see any real recovery or any real remedy until this Government goes to the people and is removed. We have a supreme contest in the Government between the untruth area, the deception area and the dismissal area. But these things are known to all honourable senators. Nobody would question that the Labor Party has within its ranks some very fine and some very good people. They must be feeling very sad for the Government for which they had such high hopes when they elected it. I think there is a responsibility upon the Senate, clearly part of the Australian Parliament- very clearly that, and not to be dismissed or set aside by some Prime Minister who has delusions of grandeur- to persist in its endeavour to send this Government to the people. The Government has a like responsibility to go to the people.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The longer that this constitutional crisis persists the deeper and more permanent will be the wounds that it inflicts on the fragile system of parliamentary democracy. I repeat what I have said and what other speakers on this side of the Senate have said throughout this crisis: The issue is not the economy; the issue is the survival of parliamentary democracy. No matter how Senator Cotton or the lawyers whom he quotes may try to twist the words of the Constitution there is no doubt that it was not contemplated that a government in a moment of unpopularity could be thrown out by an unrepresentative Senate. Let me repeat again that this Senate is an unrepresentative House compared with the House of Representatives. It is necessary to contemplate only one simple point, and that is that 10 senators come here from the State of Tasmania which has 400 000 inhabitants and 10 senators come here from the State of New South Wales which has 5 million inhabitants. So it is certainly stretching all of the known concepts of democracy to suggest that this is a House which is as representative of the will of the people as is the House of Representatives.

Senator Cotton said that people on this side of the Senate must be sad to witness what is going on. I confess to being sad; I am sad to see the deterioration in the conduct and level of debate from among others, figures such as Senator Cotton himself. I say with respect that Senator Cotton is a man whom I have always admired and in fact still admire. I do not want to give him the kiss of death, by saying that. But I say quite seriously that Senator Cotton’s contribution to this debate gets- I have to say it- more and more unworthy of him as the debate proceeds. I understand that the gurus who were behind this move- the ones who tipped Mr Fraser over the edge of the abyss- were Senator Carrick, Senator Cotton and Mr Ellicott. Of course the mistaken advice which Mr Fraser received from these gurus was compounded by the advice which he got from the hill-billies of Senator Webster’s Party. They, of course, are always intent on grabbing for power because they have never been able to resign themselves to the fact that their snouts were pulled out of the pig trough. They think it is about time that they were back there getting the handouts which they consider to be their just deserts.

Senator Cotton today, unfortunately, I was disappointed, seemed to think that he could reduce this matter to which the whole of Australia is paying attention to a contest between lawyers. With less than admirable selectivity he chose a couple of lawyers who happened to support his side. It was odd to hear an orthodox Liberal praising Mr St John. Nonetheless, he chose to do so this morning. He used extravagant language to suggest that what the Government is trying to do is to smash the power of the Senate. This reminds me of nothing more than a rapist accusing his victim of the crime. After all, we know where this matter was initiated. Why is it that money is not being supplied for essential services? Is it due to anything that this Government has done? I am afraid that if Senator Cotton and other honourable senators on the Opposition side have not got the message yet from the grass roots, they will soon get it. The public outside do not regard this as a matter of what one lawyer says about the constitutionality of the matter and what another lawyer says about the unconstitutionality of the matter. I suggest that Senator Cotton have a look at the gallup poll which is published in today’s Bulletin.

Senator Withers:

– Who is in front?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Opposition is in front. I suggest, though, that honourable senators opposite are going out backwards. They do not want to look just at the figures for today. They want to have a look at the movements of figures. That is the only significance which gallup polls have. If we accept this gallup poll- I take it that the Opposition accepts the validity of these gallup polls- it shows that from a high of 60 per cent in July the Opposition is now down to 50 per cent. In the same period the Government’s popularity has risen from its low point of 33 per cent to 43 per cent. That is in a period of two or three months. What is the explanation for this? The economy has not improved in that time. Every day we hear from the Opposition that the economy is getting worse. Yet we get this significant movement. If we take the personal popularity of the 2 Leaders we note that Mr Whitlam ‘s popularity has risen to a figure of 37 per cent and that Mr Fraser’s has declined from a figure of 52 per cent on the weekends of 6 and 1 3 September to 34 per cent.

I do not ask the Opposition to take my word for the proposition that what it is doing is unpopular with the electorate. These figures speak for themselves. In a period when there has been no real uplift in the economy, when, according to the Opposition, the economy has declined, its standing and its Leader’s standing in the community has deteriorated to that extent. This should be a clear warning to the Opposition that if this situation which it has engineered is allowed to persist it will be only a matter of a few weeks before we are ahead on the polls. The net result of the Opposition’s gambit will have been to have turned around the political situation in this country most dramatically. If this is what the Opposition is seeking to do, so be it. I suggest that the Opposition has been taken completely by surprise by the feelings which have been expressed by the Australian people about its unprecedented and immoral conduct.

If we are to have a contest of lawyers, I point out that another lawyer cited by Senator Cotton was a certain Mr Gruzman. I can only assume that Senator Cotton thinks that the man one would hire to defend one on a murder charge is the man who is best qualified to construe the Constitution. As any lawyer will tell the honourable senator, Mr Gruzman is noted more as counsel for the financial desperado Alexander Barton than for any performance in the field of constitutional law. I have been similarly saddened at the progressive deterioration of another man for whom I have always had a great deal of respect, and that is Mr Ellicott. Mr Ellicott came into this Parliament with excellent credentials. He had been a leading barrister and a SolicitorGeneral of the Commonwealth and I had thought of him always as a man of temperate, moderate and sensible views. However, ever since this contest has blown up he has deteriorated not only as a parliamentarian but also as a lawyer. He took it upon himself to issue gratuitous advice to the Governor-General which was out of tune with anything I have read from any constitutional lawyer and which does not stand up to examination in the light of the sections of the Constitution which he was attempting to construe.

He says in effect that if Mr Whitlam refuses to hold a double dissolution, the Governor-General should dismiss Mr Whitlam from office. This is turning the clock back to the times before we had representative and responsible government. This is an assertion of a power in the Crown which has long been ceded. If we are to turn this into a contest of lawyers, though I suggest that this is a most unreal way to approach it and if the Opposition persists in that approach it will lead to its ruin, then I suggest that we should look at the opinions of all lawyers. Senator Greenwood embarked on a smear of the professors who had written expressing their views a little earlier. He attempted to depict this as something which had been engineered by the Government. It was a false statement and one for which I suggest he has no evidence at all. If we are to look at the opinions of lawyers, why not look at what Sir Richard Eggleston had to say? Any lawyer in this House knows that Sir Richard Eggleston is easily the most distinguished lawyer, and I include Sir Robert Menzies, who has bought into this argument. Sir Richard Eggleston in a most closely reasoned statement which appeared in the Melbourne Age this week expressed the opinion that what has been done by this Senate in deferringthe Opposition does not like the word ‘reject’these Bills is unconstitutional.

Senator Wright:

– He did not quote any constitutional opinion to support that whatever.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I suggest that if we are to have the benefit of all the lawyers’ lucubrations we should have a contribution from Senator Wright in his own right a little later rather than have him try to convert the Senate by interjection. So if Senator Wright will bear with me I will proceed with my argument and will look forward to hearing from him a little later. Mr Ellicott in his lust for power, in his desire to get off the back bench and get a guernsey as a Minister as soon as possible, has deteriorated even as a politician. We saw him in the ludicrous situation yesterday saying about the Khemlani papers in the middle of the day that they did not provide any ground for imputing that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had been involved in any misleading of the Senate or had taken any part in any attempted loan raisings since 20 May and then coming back to Canberra, being dressed down by his leader, eating his own words and, presumably without having seen any other documents, giving a totally contrary view of the situation. If there is any victim of this crisis it surely is Mr Ellicott. His reputation is in ruins and, I regret, that is something that does make me sad. I suggest that the sooner Mr Ellicott reverts to the previous high standards he set both as a lawyer and as a politician for which he won the respect of the people of this country the better it will be for his reputation, the better it will be for his Party and the better it will be for the country.

Evidently, as far as I could gather from Senator Cotton today, the ground has changed since the last deferral of these Bills. On that occasion we heard a great deal about the scandal of the loans matter. That was the real casus belli. That was the ground that the Opposition had for saying that this was a disreputable and reprehensible Government. Honourable senators will recall the orchestration of the previous arrival of Mr Khemlani. Much was made at that time about the great disclosures that were to be expected from him. It was against that background that the Opposition took this extraordinary step. But today we did not hear much about Mr Khemlani. I think his name was mentioned once. Instead it was suggested that the new reprehensible conduct was that of Mr Hayden in allowing a briefing of Mr Hawke before the Budget was announced.

Senator Webster:

– Do you support that?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-No, I do not. I think that that was a mistake. I think it was an honest mistake. If honourable senators study the comment in the newspapers around this country, which have not been notably kind to this Government during the period of this crisis, I think they will find that most of them have taken the same view. They upbraid Mr Hayden for what he has done and they disapprove of it, but they have the position in perspective. None of the newspapers- not even the most rabid newspaper- that I have read, including the Sydney Morning Herald’s editorial this morning, has suggested that what Mr Hayden did was reprehensible enough to ground the conduct which the Senate is indulging in at the present time.

An attempt has also been made to get a new reprehensible circumstance in the facts of the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd deal, but try as it may the Opposition has not been able to get any mileage out of this matter. It makes one wonder why, if the Opposition really wants to get to the bottom of the matter, it does not apply to the Royal Commission which is sitting at present and offer what evidence, as against the vituperation, it has to offer to clear up this matter. It is being used shamelessly as an attempt to smear this Government and I predict that after a while it will turn out to be a fizzer, as the Khemlani matter has turned out to be a fizzer. If one is going to be sad, if one is going to use the word sad ‘, it is too obvious to need stressing that there is a great sadness in the ranks of the Opposition today at having fallen on its face over the Khemlani matter. There was a great fanfare and beating of drums at the end of last week when it was known that Mr Khemlani was to arrive with the goods. This was to be the clincher to prove that the Prime Minister has misled the Parliament, that he had been up to his ears in loan raisings since 20 May. In other words, the Opposition was going to pin him to the mast.

Of course, so sure were we that nothing of the kind would eventuate that when I received a request from Mr Khemlani ‘s attorneys in New York on Friday night to give him a visa to come here I had no hesitation in telling them that he could have a visa. He chose to arrive without one but the Government did not take any steps to throw him out. We have given the Opposition abundant time to call him. The legal experts of the Opposition have been closeted with him for hours and have examined the contents of the suitcases that he brought. Mr Ellicott, in his more open moment, was obliged to confess that he had come away empty-handed. What do we have left out of the great Khemlani scandal? The Leader of the Opposition in this place had been inviting

Mr Khemlani to appear before the Senate and had repeatedly said last week: ‘We will offer him the facilities of the Senate. He will have every opportunity to tell the Senate what he has got’. What did we see from Senator Withers today? We saw a most despicable backdown. We saw that he was not proposing to call Mr Khemlani. All he has put down is a face-saving formula about a select committee, which he hinted at the same time is to be nothing more than a facesaving formula about which we will probably hear very little more.

I suggest to the Opposition that it is not too late for it to turn back. I suggest that, among other things, it should read an excellent letter which appeared in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald from Sir Norman Cowper, for whom I would suggest that any man in New South Wales could not have anything but the greatest respect. He is not a socialist. He is not a radical. He was the best known and most respected lawyer in New South Wales for many years as the head of one of our leading firms of solicitors. He was a most active man. I should not use the word ‘was’ because fortunately he is still with us. He is a man who has taken a keen interest in public affairs. He was the Director of the Australian Institute of Political Science. He has written a letter which appeared in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald which I commend to all honest members opposite. He is not a man whom one would expect to be putting an argument in favour of the Government. He discussed the possibilities facing the country at present. I am not suggesting that what I am about to quote is exhaustive. If anybody wants me to table a copy of the letter, I will. He said:

The Executive Council minute purporting to authorise the borrowing of a huge sum for 20 years for grandiose schemes of long term mineral developments as being a borrowing ‘ for temporary purposes ‘ was a flagrant breach of the Financial Agreement which is part of the Constitution. In my view, however, this does not by itself satisfy condition (a) above. .

That is, it does not constitute grounds upon which the Prime Minister should be called upon to resign. After examining in a calm and dispassionate way the provisions of the Constitution and the possibilities now open to the Parliament, Sir Norman said:

1 2 ) Other possibilities are:
1. That the Prime Minister, believing that the refusal of Supply has caused a revulsion of opinion in favour of the Government, will himself advise a dissolution;
2. That the Opposition, deciding that revulsion of opinion has prejudiced its chances at an election -

In this regard I refer the Opposition to the gallup poll and to the movement in the figures- or that the consequences of refusal of Supply are too damaging to the economy or inflict too great hardship on the whole community, decides to pass the Supply Bills; or

That a compromise will be reached.

Once again I commend to honourable senators opposite a careful reading of Sir Norman’s suggestions. I suggest that this will snap them out of the corner into which they appear to have painted themselves and will convince them that it is not too late to pull back. It may be said that to change one’s mind in politics and to confess to error is a humiliating experience, but I suggest that the public is not concerned so much with the face of Mr Whitlam, the face of Mr Fraser or the face of any of us as it is with a sensible solution to the problem. Obviously the public disapproves the Opposition’s action. The figures, the attendances at meetings- no matter how an attempt is made to denigrate what happens at those meetings- and, I am sure, the word of mouth which Opposition senators must hear must convince them that they have made a grievous error which is disapproved by the public, and if they persist in that error they will be harming not only Mr Fraser and their parties but also will be inflicting irreparable damage on the country. I suggest that if they examine all those indices they can form no conclusion but that they are on the wrong path and that they are exacerbating the problems of the economy to which they are constantly pointing. I suggest that it is time for them to take stock of their position, to retreat and to do the sensible thing which the people of Australia expect of them.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– It was encouraging to hear Senator James McClelland say that he abhors the action of the Treasurer (Mr Hayden).

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I said disapprove’.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If you disapprove I hope it will be possible for you to bring the facts to the Senate instead of repeating the constant proposition which is put to the Senate that it is the Opposition which must pursue and bring up the facts. That is one of the problems which has faced the Opposition over past years. These most scurrilous actions- actions which constitute an absolute breach of convention and could be described as constituting a breach of the Constitutionhave been taken illegally. It is notable, I think, that Senator James McClelland, who is a senior Minister, now joins Senator Wriedt today and deplores the actions of the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) in giving special treatment- probably because he is the leader of the Australian Labor

Party- to a company director, a company entrepreneur, a man involved in so many areas of business by advising him of the contents of the Budget in advance.

I agree with Senator James McClelland when he says that there has been some disturbance in the public mind in relation to whether the Opposition has acted correctly in deferring the Appropriation Bills. I must say that I have received a number of telegrams from unions and other groups which, from their names, I recognise as being opposed to anything that the Liberal Party does. Those telegrams have come across my desk, and I would expect that the organisations sending them would oppose the action the Opposition has taken. Along with other members of the Opposition I was impressed by the views expressed by some legal men who wrote to the newspapers and suggested that what the Opposition was doing was unconstitutional. 1 agree that the attitude taken by some sectors of the public, namely that what the Opposition was doing was unconstitutional, was in the first place inflamed by the immediate statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to the effect that the Senate was acting unconstitutionally. That statement was supported by Professor Howard and Gareth Evans, senior lecturer in law at Melbourne University. Only a few legal opinions which found their way into the newspapers said that the Senate was acting unconstitutionally.

I doubt whether today any one of those individuals would echo those words, that the action of the Senate was unconstitutional. Indeed, one or two of those earlier named gentlemen have been diverting a little from that proposition and saying that whilst the Senate may have acted constitutionally there was an impropriety; but that was a political decision. The Prime Minister misled the people, and in the first flush of his statement there was a reaction by the public that the Senate may not have acted constitutionally. That is not a fact. The Senate acted absolutely within its rights. I do not think that anyone today would say that the Senate had acted unconstitutionally. One is able to gain from reading section 53 of the Constitution the understanding thai: quite clearly the Senate in actual fact has the right to defer or reject a money Bill. There is now massive and impeccable authority to support the Senate’s veto power. For example, Quick and Garran in their work on the Constitution state that the Senate has co-ordinate power with the House of Representatives to pass all Bills or to reject all Bills. That is the basic fact of what the Constitution says, and nobody would say otherwise. But it was a political decision.

Senator Button:

– That is not true.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I hear government senators saying: ‘That is not true’. To bear out what I say one only has to refer again to what has been said by that man who changes his collar, changes his coat and changes his attitude so regularly and who misleads the Parliament- the same Mr Whitlam. Mr Whitlam made a statement in the House of Representatives when he was still in Opposition, and honourable senators can find this quotation on page 3495 of Hansard of 12 June 1970. These are the words of the man who has changed his views for political purposes. The public should know that on one occasioneither in 1970 or currently- Mr Whitlam has lied to the public. I quote Mr Whitlam-

Senator Georges:

– I rise to a point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- What is your point of order?

Senator Georges:

– My point of order is that the honourable senator cannot use the term that Mr Whitlam lied.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Your point of order is upheld. I ask Senator Webster to withdraw the word ‘lied’ and use the term misled’.

Senator Georges:

– Wait a moment. I rise to a point of order again. I do not see that what you, Mr Acting Deputy President, are suggesting to Senator Webster is in order. I think that when Senator Webster used the word ‘misled’, as he did previously, he should have been brought to order. He cannot use the term ‘misled’, which he did use, with reference to the Prime Minister, saying that the Prime Minister misled the Parliament. That is a grave reflection against the Prime Minister and a member of the other House, and Senator Webster ought not to be permitted to use such terms.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr Acting Deputy President, may I hurriedly withdraw because the Government again is attempting to take my valuable time while the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast. I say to Senator Georges that the President allowed those words to be used earlier today. Whether I use ‘falsehood’, lying’, ‘prevarication’, ‘mendacity’, ‘fabrication’, ‘falsehood’, ‘deception’, ‘invention’, misrepresentation’, ‘perversion’, ‘suppression’, exaggeration’, ‘equivocation’, ‘evasion’, ‘duplicity’ or ‘double-dealing’, they all apply to that gentleman.

Senator Georges:

– I rise to a point of order. How can Senator Webster possibly use a string of words of that sort and associate those words with the Prime Minister? It is quite contrary to the Standing Orders and he ought not to be permitted to use them.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I understood Senator Webster to withdraw the word ‘lied’ and to add something along the lines: But if I wanted to I could use these words’. He obviously quoted from a list of words that he felt he could use if he wished, but in my view he did not apply them to the Prime Minister because he had withdrawn the word to which objection was taken. The Minister for Labor and Immigration was heard in complete silence except for one interjection, and I say to the Senate, particularly on this day, that as little interruption as possible should be made to speeches. There should be fairness on both sides of the chamber. Speakers should be heard in silence. I call Senator Webster.

Senator Georges:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, are you suggesting -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I am not upholding your point of order.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr Acting Deputy President, I quote what Mr Whitlam said in 1970:

Any government which is defeated by the Parliament on a major taxation Bill should resign. The sooner this Government resigns the sooner the people can elect a government which can make a reasonable financial agreement . . .

He went on to give the reasons why the Government should resign. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate at that time, the former Senator Murphy- he is now Mr Justice Murphy, having been elevated to the High Court because of his knowledge of these things- in a statement which he made in the Senate in 1970 said:

In doing this the Opposition is pursuing a tradition which is well established, but in view of some doubt recently cast on it by this chamber, perhaps I should restate the position. The Senate is entitled and expected to exercise resolutely but with discretion its power to refuse its concurrence to any financial measure, including a tax Bill. There are no limitations on the Senate in the use of its constitutional powers, except the limitations imposed by discretion and reason. The Australian Labor Party has acted consistently in accordance with the tradition that we will oppose in the Senate any tax or money Bill or other financial measure whenever necessary to carry out our principles and policies.

Why did a senior Minister say in this chamber today that the Opposition is acting unconstitutionally? It is the word ‘unconstitutionally’ that concerns me. It is interesting to note that at that time former Senator Murphy listed 168 money Bills against which the Labor Party had voted and, as both the present Prime Minister and Senator Murphy said, they hoped that the Government would resign.

One of the problems facing the Opposition is that this Prime Minister just will not resign when the facts are presented to him that he should do so. That is not a constitutional crisis; it is a political crisis. In this matter I have considered the writing of Sir Richard Eggleston, whom I regard as something of an authority in certain areas of law, although certainly not on constitutional matters. He has influenced a number of my friends on this matter and he is a man held in very high regard. In his comments Sir Richard dealt with messages between the Senate and the House of Representatives, and he did not deal with the theory that Sir Robert Menzies had put forward when he said that the Senate had the absolute power to deny money Bills to the House of Representatives. If ever there was a situation presented to the Opposition that it should deny the Government Supply, surely it is this situation. I support fully the Opposition’s action, and my concern, built up over 3 years of Labor office, is not related purely to the rejection of a money Bill but to the fact that this country is being sold out to a political ideology which I abhor in the context of the Australia that I knew.

An article by Graham Hutton, which I would recommend the public to read, headed ‘The English Disease- and is it Catching?’, indicates well the problems into which Australia is running under a Labor Government. He states that behind Britain’s alarming economic and social malaise are a variety of situations which can be likened to Australia. His article warns Australia that it is already infected with the English disease which, if not arrested, leads to an authoritarian state. He continues: the disease is most marked by inflation, because the State or public sector expands its ‘ take ‘ year by year from the national output faster than its revenues grow (taxes, social security contributions, etc.); so it runs year-to-year deficits . . .

That is the basic problem that has arisen under these Appropriation Bills. Could any person with any skerrick of business ability say that an officer in charge, whether it be an officer of a company or of Mr Hawke ‘s ACTU-Solo business, could come before a board and say: ‘Here is a program under which this year we will have a deficit of $5, $500 or $500’. What would happen if at the end of the year that officer in charge said: ‘We did not achieve those figures. I am afraid that we are in deficit by 5 times that amount. We are in deficit by $2,500m’. What would happen if that same officer were to start the next year by saying:

Our capabilities are nil. Our company is now bankrupt. What we intend to do with this 1 975-76 Budget is to start a year with a proposed deficit of $2.600m’. Within a week of that statement being made by this Government we had the total Budget laid bare and false by the statements of a Minister in this House that unemployment will accelerate to 400 000 in this year with all the problems that go with it. There have been changes in the Budget, withdrawals of certain tax measures, and the application of other costs that have been added. It is the financial proposals of this Government, the crazy, hare-brained schemes of a Labor socialist government, that have put me of the view that this Government should go immediately to the people.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Because if it does not go to the people now, the opportunity to take this Government to the people will not occur for another 18 months. It is stated on the financial pages of every newspaper in the country that business confidence is at a low, that unemployment is growing and that there will be no business recovery. I do not doubt that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh), who interrupted me a moment ago, would wish to see a statement shortly to the effect that because private enterprise cannot cope with unemployment and cannot see to the growth of its business, government enterprise is proposed. We saw an attempt to escalate government enterprise by Mr Connor, the former Minister for Minerals and Energy. That former Minister is now disgraced in the Parliament.

During the hearing of the relevant Senate Estimates Committee we examined the attempted investments and investments of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority on behalf of this country in no liability mining companies. In my view, it has done so illegally. We saw the stupidity of the investment of our money in various companies by the Government to develop mineral proposals. This is the most stupid and idiotic thing that any group of men could do. But today we- the Australian people- are shareholders through our investment in companies such as Mareeba Mining No Liability. I would have thought that there is absolutely no convention or right for the Commonwealth to invest in such a proposal but we have seen that occur. Where else will the Government invest our money? Again, the Government said that it would invest in the development, of minerals and the search for oil by the purchase of the floating oil rig Ocean Endeavour. But we find that the Government’s activities are such that it has removed that opportunity for investment. The owners of that oil rig are now seeking work for it overseas. The reason for the opposition to this measure goes back to the Gair affair, the attempted bribing of a senator, as he was at that time.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, 1 rise to order and I ask for a withdrawal of that statement ‘the attempted bribing of a senator’. I would say that that is highly defamatory of the Ministers at the time. The word ‘bribing’ ought to be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think that the honourable senator was generalising. It is not a very elegant word to use in relation to the affairs of the Parliament. As a matter of fact, I wish to make a comment on this matter. The standard of language in debate recently has got to the stage at which a very drastic check has to be taken. There has been intemperate, extravagant and exaggerated language used during the debates. I will clamp down on it in the future much more than I have in the past. I ask honourable senators to use their good judgment in the choice of language. When the records of the Parliament during this period are read, people will be absolutely surprised at some of the exaggerated language that has been used. I ask the honourable senator to observe the usual practice with regard to his description of other members of the Parliament.

Senator WEBSTER:

-I have attempted to use the words accepted in the Parliament. I certainly agree with you, Mr President, that when the history of the Labor Government is made clear it will be seen that the words used by honourable senators on both sides of the Parliament represented a reflection of what the Labor Government has done. I hope to come to this later in my remarks. We have seen the constant abuse of federalism. We have seen the attacking of the States and the threat to abolish the States and the Senate. We have seen the attempt to take away the off-shore rights of the people of the States as is being done in the Northern Territory at this time. We have seen the regionalisation of local government councils. We have seen the major State development projects that have been abandoned or halted because of Labor policy. We have seen the intrusion by this Federal Labor Government into the traditional State revenue fields. We have heard the statements by Ministers in which they have attempted to set up government offices in the insurance, compensation and transport fields. We have seen the enormous problem presented to the Opposition in its attempt to secure the truth.

For 12 months we have been attempting to secure the truth from Ministers such as Dr Cairns and Mr Connor. What do we find finally? In fact it is the Prime Minister who has to say to his Ministers: ‘You have deceived the Parliament’. Mr President, if this is the type of language that will be looked back upon as being unique in this period of our Parliament, I fully agree with the remarks that you have made. Ministers have stated untruths. None of us likes to hear that.

Sitting suspended from 1 tol p.m.

Prior to the suspension of the Senate for lunch I was referring to the reasons why I, as a member of the Opposition, was taking action to support a deferral of the Appropriation Bills. I indicated that this was a matter supported completely by the Constitution and that those who had suggested that it was unconstitutional- I draw the distinction between that and political wisdomcould not gainsay that the action of the Senate is unconstitutional. As I mentioned, the position is endorsed by Mr Whitlam and even by Senator Murphy, now a Justice, promoted by the Labor Party to the High Court because of his competence in such matters. I came across a comment made by the then Senator Murphy on 3 November 1 970, and I quote from page 2030 of Hansard:

I simply want to say that, in accordance with what we indicated earlier, we propose to vote against the third reading of this Appropriation Bill as an indication of our complete and utter rejection of the Budget.

There is no doubt that the Senate has acted within its rights. Whether we should take the action suggested by Senator Steele Hall is another matter. On 1 6 July of this year Senator Hall stated, as shown at page 2756 of Hansard:

If I were in the Opposition’s position I would adjourn the Senate until I January next year and let the people decide in the meantime. Something will have to be done to find out just where the Government is culpable or where it is blameless, because it will not say.

There are very sound reasons for our taking our action. I referred in my earlier remarks to the economic considerations, the promises made by Labor relating to employment and the newspaper reports that endorse the comments of the Minister, Senator James McClelland, that we are likely to have 400 000 people unemployedthe highest on record. Surely this is of concern to the Government. Surely it recognises that its policies over these years have not worked. Are we as a community to sit down and accept an unemployment situation such as that? It is not good enough for this country. Action is needed. Are we readily going to accept that there will be an inflation rate of 1 5, 20 or 25 per cent after the stability that we had in previous years? Let us not accept that this situation should exist. The policies of this Labor Government have brought it about. They have brought about lack of confidence in the business community and the lack of confidence in those who would attempt to build homes. A news report that I saw today indicates that the average person attempting to buy a home will find that over 50 per cent of his pay packet will be needed for repayments. We know there have been deliberate attempts to sap the confidence of all sectors of the community by massive government domination.

Three matters have taken over the news in the last two or three days. There is the matter of the benefit given by a ministerial decision to ACTUSolo Enterprises Pty Ltd- a basic arm of this Government- to receive millions of dollars at the disadvantage of others in the community. Does allowing Mr Hawke to have a preview of the Budget seem reasonable and fair? Apparently it is approved by the Government. Both those matters are approved by the Government. But I do not think that is good enough for this community. Then there is the third matter- the matter that has the headlines today- the loans arrangement, whereby that most improper, unconstitutional and illegal action was taken by Mr Whitlam and three of his Ministers on 13 December last year when they signed a document which said that they intended to borrow $4,000m for temporary purposes. I believe that by some means they induced the GovernorGeneral to sign that particular document.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You must not refer to the Governor-General in those terms.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Apparently that proposal was made legal on the influence of Mr Whitlam. We know that that loan for temporary purposes was stated to be for a period of 20 years. How could anyone associated with that particular document endorse that as a loan for temporary purposes? I believe we are under a government which has no morality whatsoever. Mr Khemlani is here to try to get justice for himself in respect of the work he had done in attempting to raise loans for the Australian Government. I believe that Mr Whitlam again has stated the situation untruthfully to this Parliament, and the core of that lies in the fact that Mr Whitlam says that all loan negotiations were off as from 20 May. But I quote what the Prime Minister said on 9 July, appearing at page 3596 of Hansard. Remember, Mr President, the Prime Minister made this statement on 9 July 1975, some 2 months after he had suggested that all loan arrangements were off. The Prime Minister stated:

The Australian Government is interested in obtaining loans from that source. We were last year and we still are.

Is it truthful for a Prime Minister to say that, when some 2 months before he had stated that all loan arrangements were off? Of course, that comment was endorsed on the same day by Mr Clyde Cameron who said, at page 3656 of Hansard:

I can tell this House that I am certain that the money is there and I am certain that before very long the Minister for Minerals and Energy will be vindicated; he will be able to come into this House with the $4 billion in his hand, obtained at the rate of interest that I have mentioned. I believe that he will still bring it off.

Those are all matters which say to the Opposition that this Government should certainly go to the people. We previously moved an amendment to the Appropriation Bills which expressed in fairly wide terms the reasons for our disenchantment with this Government. The presentation of this message to the Senate for a third time does not require that we continue with many words. But we reject the assertions that have been put to us by the Government. We say to the people that our action has been constitutional. We say that the facts are there- that this Government must go or this Australia of ours will be brought to the depths of degradation by a government which is totally immoral. I support the stand of the Opposition.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– These Bills have been returned to the Senate because the amendment carried by the Opposition is unacceptable to the House of Representativesthe people’s House. And rightly so. I reckon it would be about the most irresponsible amendment that ever came out of this Senate. The House of Representatives- the people’s House; the only House that can form a government to run this country- has been handed an amendment to the Appropriation Bill that would be the absolute pinnacle of obstruction. This House is getting the name of being a House of obstruction. Two or three of the honourable senators on the opposite side have bragged quite openly that 22 Bills have been rejected and that therefore the Government has the grounds to call for a double dissolution. There is nothing to be proud about in the rejection of those Bills. One Bill that comes to my mind is the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. This Bill, by the way, was to facilitate the amalgamation of trade unions. The trade union movement was in agreement with amalgamation; the Employers’ Federation was in agreement with amalgamation; and indeed a number of the Opposition senators agreed to amalgamation in principle. The Opposition had the numbers and the power to take this Bill into Committee and amend it in any way it saw fit. But it decided to obstruct and not even take the Bill any further. It just disregarded the Bill. It even rejected a move by the Government to impose a levy to pay for Medibank.

The position today is that the Opposition has decided that, if it were to get to the Government benches, it would introduce a levy to pay for Medibank. The Opposition hides behind the letter of the law. It claims that its actions are lawful and proper. I am not qualified to go into the finer points of law and, indeed, I do not intend to do so. That is not the way the people of Australia will judge our actions. However, I do know that should anyone care to enforce a number of laws and Acts in Australia, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory, he would be held up to ridicule by the nation. For example, we have the Gambling Act of 1739, the Witchcraft Act of 1735 and the Murder Act of 175 1. This last Act provides the death penalty for anyone who saves a murderer. Anyone found with his face blackened or wearing felt or other slippers or otherwise disguised can be prosecuted in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator McLaren:

– Some staff were prosecuted under that the other day.

Senator McINTOSH:

– Yes. A lot of people go around in disguise. In the United Kingdom the death penalty is provided for stealing sheep. The United Kingdom has a law to prevent anyone leaving the district on a Sunday. Surely it would be the height of irresponsibility for one to enforce these laws. One of the reasons that nobody would be so stupid as to try to enforce the letter of such laws- quite apart from insulting the intelligence of the people- is that one would not be prepared to reap the wrath or the indignation of the people. I believe that the Opposition, by its actions of blocking Supply and hiding behind what it claims to be a lawful and proper exercise, is inviting the wrath of the people. It is the height of irresponsibility for the Senate to demand an election of the people’s House just because it feels that the popularity poll is in the Opposition’s favour. It is of no use the Opposition saying anything else. That is exactly what it feels.

– Thank you. I hope Hansard recorded that interjection. The letter states:

At the meeting of the South Australia Methodist Conference of Australasia held on October 23, the following resolution was passed-

Senator Bonner:

– We all got a copy of that.

Senator McINTOSH:

– That is too bad. I ask the honourable senator to take some notice of it. The letter continues:

That the following message be sent to the GovernorGeneral and all Federal parliamentarians.

The South Australian Methodist Conference meeting in Adelaide and comprising men and women of differing political party sympathies, believes that there are times when matters of principle and national well-being must clearly be put above party loyalty.

As a Conference we could not give, nor be expected to give unqualified endorsement to the performance of the Government. There is much which gives cause for disquiet.

Senator Jessop:

– That is a significant passage.

Senator McINTOSH:

-Yes. The letter goes on:

Some of us would sympathise with the Opposition’s claim regarding the incompetence of the Government . . .

The ‘some of us’ would be the left wing to which Senator Jessop referred, I suppose. The letter continues:

We believe, that to seek electoral change at this time by using the power of the Senate to effectively block supply is to use that power in a way which threatens the future of stable government in this nation, and bring great hardship upon many people.

We would therefore earnestly plead with all Senators, and especially those from South Australia not to block supply. A strong and responsible decision on your part not to pursue such a course would not only afford a solution to the impasse which threatens our nation, but could only enhance your standing within the Church, the Parliament, and the Community.

I hope Senator Jessop takes note.

Senator McLaren:

– Who are the signatories to that letter?

Senator McINTOSH:

- Mr K. D. Seaman, President of the Conference. Mr President, I seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

METHODIST CHURCH OF AUSTRALASIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA CONFERENCE

24 October 1975

Senator G. D. Mcintosh,

Parliament House,

CANBERRA. A.C.T. 2600

Dear Senator Mcintosh,

At the meeting of the South Australian Methodist Conference of Australasia held on 23 October the following resolution was passed:

That the following message be sent to the GovernorGeneral and all Federal parliamentarians.

The South Australia Methodist Conference meeting in Adelaide and comprising men and women of differing political party sympathies, believes that there are times when matters of principle and national well-being must clearly be put above party loyalty.

As a Conference we could not give, nor be expected to give unqualified endorsement to the performance of the Government. There is much which gives cause for disquiet. Some of us would sympathise with the Opposition ‘s claim regarding the incompetence of the Government, and given opportunity would doubtless be pleased to see a change in Government.

We believe, that to seek electoral change at this time by using the power of the Senate to effectively block supply is to use that power in a way which threatens the future of stable government in this nation, and bring great hardship upon many people.

We would therefore earnestly plead with all Senators, and especially those from South Australia not to block supply. A strong and responsible decision on your part not to pursue such a course would not only afford a solution to the impasse which threatens our nation, but could only enhance your standing within the Church, the Parliament, and the Community.

We assure you, and all the Members of the Parliament, of our genuine concern and interest and of our continuing goodwill and prayerful support at this time, and at all times, as you seek to fulfil the responsible duties which are yours. ‘

The resolution was carried 144 for/41 against.

Yours faithfully,

D. SEAMAN

President of the Conference

K. WATERS

Secretary of the Conference

Senator McINTOSH:

-Mal Fraser, the Leader of the minority Party in the House of Representatives, has, at the behest of Mr Anthony, instructed the Liberal-Country Party Opposition to block Supply and to try to force the democratically elected Government to the polls. This is a sheer abuse of the power which the Opposition thinks it can use at a whim. If the Opposition were more attuned to the realities of life and less to its lust for power, it would realise that the use of that power is resented by the people of Australia. Doug Anthony has put Liberal leader after Liberal leader up for political sacrifice to gain his own. ends. I do not think members of the Liberal Party have woken up to that yet. But Anthony is an honourable man and Liberal senators are honourable senators. As long as the Opposition thinks it has the letter of the law to hide behind, the shrewd boy, the smart politician, the one who keeps putting the Liberal leaders’ heads on the chopping block still rules supreme. He still survives.

Senator Devitt:

– Anthony is a non-man.

Senator McINTOSH:

-I may have the Shakesperian names mixed up but the characters are right. I sincerely hope that the actions of the Senate will not cause violence in the streets of our cities. I believe it is cold comfort to be able to say that our actions are lawful and proper. Of course, the Opposition senators are honourable senators. I have one word of gratitude for the Opposition. Its irresponsible actions over the last 2 or 3 weeks have welded the Australian Labor Party into one good fighting machine. As a matter of fact, the Opposition has taken from the benches of office an arrogance and resentment of the people who now occupy the Government benches in this chamber. Unfortunately, one or two of our members have been almost apologetic about occupying those benches. But now the Opposition has given them a dignity of office. For that I thank the Opposition. When the Senate uses its executive powers to dictate to a democratically elected government, then we can say that the principles embodied in a free constitution are irrevocably lost. I appeal to the Opposition to study the situation and to pass these Bills. I commend the Bills to the House.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– A great deal of argument which surrounds the issues before the Senate today, as it has on earlier occasions, refers to matters of principle. I suppose that to those of us who are involved in any form of public life at all there will always be argument as to whether a principle exists. If it does exist there will be argument as to whether a principle is being upheld or “broken. The Opposition, in electing to defer these Bills, is responding to a situation which, in my view, clearly calls for a decision to be made which reflects a principle or principles. A great deal has been said about allowing a government to run its full term. By some this would be regarded as a principle. By others it would be regarded as something being generally understood. By others again, it would be regarded as a convention. An equal amount has been said about the Senate having certain powers, authorities, rights and principles by which it may abide. It has the power, the authority and the right, among other things, to defer an Appropriation Bill and that authority, that right and that power have been acknowledged and spelled out very clearly and for very clear purposes.

The people who wrote the Constitution around the turn of the century put these provisions in for very good reasons and for very clear purposes because they knew, and this needs to be restated all these years later, that the smaller States- that is, those smaller in populationwould not be in the Federation and would not have voted for Federation unless they had some protection given to them in the Senate. As a result of their representation they received and still have that protection. All members of the Senate are well aware of the words in the Constitution. It says:

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

Further on it says:

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

These provisions within the Constitution plainly establish, and it needs to be repeated again and again that while the Senate of itself may not amend what we understand as money Bills it can pass them, reject them or defer them and it has this right because it is equal in powers with the House of Representatives in respect of such measures. So while the Senate may not amend certain measures it may reject them in the ordinary course of debate or may adjourn or even defer them.

It needs to be said again also that the people who put the Constitution together in those early years did not confer these powers, these authorities and rights upon the Senate for nothing. They did not put them in with some sort of feeling that they might never be exercised, required or used. They put them in so that all people within Australia in their various representations would have the right to prevent the onward course of certain patterns of legislation or patterns of life which the nation regarded as being destructive and not in the best interests of the country.

So if the Senate has that power, that right and that authority it follows that it always has to consider these things together with its duty in all matters, because when the Senate takes its duty into account it has to wrestle with some other matters which might be described as principles. It becomes a question of whether the Party in control of the Senate should exercise that control taking into account the effects which any of its actions can have. It is a question of whether the Party in control does nothing in a given situation or takes its rights, powers and duties into account and does something about that situation. It is something yet to be defined whether when a group, such as a government, does things of very great harm, it is to be allowed to continue and the people in the Senate should sit down, do nothing and let that harm continue. So the first thing to say in this great debate is that not to reject Supply would be to take the easy way out of this situation.

We could very well say: ‘Let the Government continue until its allotted term of office expires. Let it continue for its full term but also let inflation soar; let the level of unemployment rise to 400 000 or 500 000 people; let the shopkeepers go out of business; let the small businesses, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) admitted in this place the other day in reply to a question of mine, continue to go out of business; let the Parliament continue to be misled, and this has not been denied; let the list of unanswered questions continue; let the Ministers continue to be dismissed for misleading the Parliament. Let all these things continue’. Surely no responsible group within the Senate can possibly allow these and other circumstances to continue. The matter of letting these conditions continue becomes especially significant when we are in a position to stop it, to do something about it and to follow in the tradition of all British Parliaments and refer these matters to the ultimate authority in this country, the people of Australia.

If there are any sections of the community which say that we ought to let the Budget pass, I wonder whether they may be offering this kind of encouragement for people to do what they believe to be the right thing for the wrong reason. So we are in a very serious position. We have a power, an authority and a right. We also have a duty and in considering that duty there are many things to be taken into account. There is, as everybody knows, the fine point of deferral as opposed to rejection and I repeat that if rejection were to be persisted with, what guarantee has the Parliament that an election would follow? The Government could very well withhold the holding of an election. It would have its Budget rejected and could leave it rejected until after an election. In short, the Prime Minister would then stand as someone ready and prepared to cause hardship and confusion to hurt people and to cause shortages until he gave an election assurance- and as I am speaking he has not given any assurance- that there would be an election. While we defer the measures, and I use the word ‘defer’ with some emphasis, the fact remains that it is within our power to resurrect those measures the moment the Government indicates that it is prepared in the true tradition of the British parliamentary system, in the conventions of the British parliamentary system and in the conventions of the Australian parliamentary system, to go to the people.

Talking about the conventions of the Westminster system, the Prime Minister of the day is under a very serious charge because when the Government has gone through a process of Ministers resigning, a process of hurt and hardship to people, a process of charges of misleading the Parliament, it is surely the duty of the Prime Minister of the day to say: ‘If you make these charges let the people who put us here decide. Let us go to the people, let us bring on an election and let the judges of the parliamentary system in this country make a determination’. Indeed, the honourable gentleman who holds the office of Prime Minister now is very much on record as subscribing to this point of view. On 25 August 1970, 5 years ago, his words and his intention were quite clear and I shall quote them, as others have quoted them and as others I have no doubt will quote them again. He said:

Let us take this Budget and the Government which produced it to the people themselves.

He was talking about the then Liberal-Country Party Government. He continued:

The Parliament has already voted Supply to the end of November. By that time there can be an election for both Houses. An election therefore would cause no disruption. The only thing that will cause disruption is the continuance of this Government.

Let me remind the Senate again of the other remarks of Mr Whitlam, the then Leader of the Opposition and the man who now is proclaiming in the Parliament the necessity for continuing what he is pleased to call conventions, procedures and traditions. Also on 25 August 1970 Mr Whitlam said:

Let me make it clear at the outset that our opposition to this Budget is no mere formality. We intend to press our opposition by all available means on all related measures in both Houses.

Let me underline and emphasise these words:

Our opposition to this Budget is no mere formality. We intend to press our opposition by all available means -

What does the Prime Minister of this country mean by ‘all available means’- on all related measures in both Houses.

He continued:

If the motion is defeated, we will vote against the Bills here and in the Senate. Our purpose is to destroy this Budget and to destroy the Government which has sponsored it.

Why is he reacting so violently to a similar suggestion now? How can he escape the consequences of his own words when, on 1 October 1970, he said:

We all know that in British parliaments the tradition is that if a Money Bill is defeated … the government goes to the people to seek their endorsement of its policies.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to go to the people again? Is the Prime Minister prepared to go out to Government House with the same speed as he went a little earlier? Not at all. The Prime Minister is well aware of the political mood of this country. He is not prepared to seek an election because he knows perfectly well what the result will be. These are the words of the present Prime Minister. These are the words of the Government. These are the words of Senator Wriedt. These are the words of the Senators McClelland- both James and Douglas. These are the words of Senator Willesee, Senator Cavanagh and Senator Bishop. Yes, they are their words. They have not repudiated them. They have not disowned them. They have not laid them to one side. They have not denied the sentiments of their Leader. By their silence they have agreed to them. Therefore we believe that we have reached the time to take the Government to the people so that the people can decide.

The people should decide whether they want this Government to continue to govern. That is fair enough. Do the Australian people want continuing government interference in their lives? Do the Australian people want an Australian community that is becoming increasingly and totally dependent upon government services? Do the Australian people want an Australian community that is able to express itself or has its expressions made for it? Those are decisions that the people must make and the Government of the day- the Prime Minister in particularshould be courageous and confident enough to take the issues to the people. The Prime Minister should go to the people and ask them whether they want to have a choice of vocation, whether they want to have a choice of education, whether they want to have a choice of health services, whether they want to have a choice of the type of house and place in which they live and whether they want to be able to own their own homes.

Talking about the owning of homes, why is it that the latest edition of the National Bank of Australia’s review has come out with the following heading on its cover: ‘Home ownership- A dilemma or a discretion’? The article under that heading heavily underlines the fact that home construction has decreased sharply during the past year and says that Australians face the dilemma of prohibitive repayments in relation to their housing and their home ownership, if they can secure the finance, or alternatively of resigning themselves to foregoing home ownership. The Australian dream of owning a home has been shattered. We can talk a great deal about housing and homes. I have interposed that reference because home ownership, housing and accommodation are the very basis of the Australian style of life and the Australian quality of life. It is those people who should be given a chance of expressing their view in relation to the incompetence of the present Government.

What about the opportunities available to the low income earner who has been rapidly forced into a state of poverty? What about the worker who has no assets? What about the young people who are anxious to get somewhere? Does the Government not think that they ought to have a chance to express their views on the manner in which they have been treated? All of those people and others have been hurt by the Government. That, coupled with the fact that the Government has continually misled and is continuing to mislead the people, is surely according to convention, principle or duty- call it what you like- a case for making the Prime Minister go to the people and let them decide.

As if that were not enough we have the latest addition to all of this which has come about in connection with the admission by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden)- indeed, it has been more than an admission- relating to the supplying of the Budget Papers to the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I have seen this matter reported. It has not been denied that there has been a sort of deliberate leak because the Treasurer has been afraid that he will be found out. Why has this preferential treatment been given in the releasing of the Budget Papers in this age of what the present Government has been pleased to describe as participatory democracy? Why has one particular person or section been allowed to receive the Budget Papers 6 hours before the rest of the community? Who is the leader of the ACTU in a society in which there is great emphasis on what I will call enforced equality that he is to receive preferment? How does the Government justify the releasing of these papers to the head of the ACTU, to the President of the Australian Labor Party, to an entrepreneur and businessman of some ability and distinction who has not only Australia-wide but also world-wide connections when it is not done under the security arrangements under which other people are placed? Why should he have total access to the Budget Papers some hours before they are released to the Parliament and to the general public? Why can the Employers Federation not have this kind of treatment? Why can the Chamber of Manufactures not have it?

If the Government does not like that sort of reference, what is wrong with the Australian Council of Social Services having entre to it? After all the pensioner leagues and the social services organisations represent an enormous number of people within the Australian community. They have the greatest amount possible to gain or lose by any Budget. Indeed, their opinions are sought by the media almost instantaneously with the release of the Budget. Why, in a society which claims to have open government, are the Budget Papers not released to a wider section of the community so that others can have equality with the leader of the trade union movement and so that others can have equal opportunity, which is something that I seem to have heard repeated on many occasions on the Government side of the chamber. In my view the Treasurer has deliberately misled the Australian people and this constitutes an affront to the Parliament. That is just another reason why the Prime Minister should provide the people of Australia with the opportunity of going to an election.

I wonder whether honourable senators have seen the reference in a Sydney newspaper the other day which concerned Mr Whitlam ‘s mandate to govern and which was written in the following words:

Murphy, ASIO, the Gair Affair, Galston, Morosi, the Loans Affair, dole cheats, Blue Poles, overseas junkets, jobs.fortheboys, the arts, inflation, unemployment, grants, taxes, prices, strikes, business failures, Cope, Cameron, Cairns, Connor, Crean, Barnard. . . .

Now there is to be added to that the Hawke affair. Is it any surprise that the people who have some degree of anxiety for the future of Australia and its democratic and parliamentary procedures speak in strong terms on the measure which is before the Senate today?

Senator BUNTON:
New South Wales

– For the third week in succession I am privileged to speak to the Appropriation Bills. As time has gone on I have become more convinced than ever that the Senate should grant Supply. I do not desire to embark upon repetition, but I would like to say that there is a question to which I have referred previously and to which I again refer which is the main component of this whole discussion. The one question before the House in relation to these Bills is whether Supply will be granted on the authenticity of the Bills themselves. In the whole discussion which took place on the 2 discussions previously and which has taken place so far today very little, if any, reference has been made to the Appropriation Bills and the need to grant Supply. We have had red herrings drawn across the trail in connection with the doings or misdoings of the Government, which is a state of affairs that one would expect to see in the party political arena. Unfortunately we are losing the substance for the shadow.

The question of whether the Senate grants Supply is a matter which should be considered entirely on the merits of the Budget. It is to the credit of members of the Senate, more particularly to those of the Opposition, that the Estimates were gone through with a fine-tooth comb. Questions were asked on them and those questions were answered. It was very evident to me, as a member of one of those Senate committees, that it was necessary to ask those questions. It was also evident to me that the replies received were most satisfactory. When all is said and done, the government of the day recommends policy, the Parliament of the day endorses or rejects that policy, the Minister issues instruction in accordance with the parliamentary decision, and departmental heads implement the scheme. They act irrespective of the government which is in power. So the only thing that matters in connection with policy is what the Parliament has accepted, because funds are required only for that legislation which is accepted by the Parliament. When we realise that the departmental heads have done great credit to themselves in answering all the questions which were asked and that this questioning was extended over a period which was 5, 6 or 7 times greater than in any period previously, it goes to show how very definite members of the Senate were that they should have the truth in connection with the Appropriation Bills. We have it.

The main issue is clouded by things outside the actual Bills which are before the Parliament. My support for the granting of Supply is given because I maintain that the Appropriation Bills, as part of the Budget, are responsible and have borne out the requirements of a very close examination. If we are prepared to refuse the granting of Supply we are creating a breakdown in parliamentary democracy. We are creating a state of affairs which strikes at the very heart of the Constitution, about which we have heard so much, and which strikes at the very heart of the people who have elected folk to Parliament. I was somewhat intrigued when I examined closely the amendment which the Opposition presented previously. 1 have no doubt that, in accordance with the Constitution, the Senate can block Supply. Let me read out some of the phrases contained in the Opposition ‘s previous amendment. It stated:

That the powers of the Senate were expressly conferred on the Senate as part of the Federal Compact which created the Commonwealth of Australia.

That the legislative power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth which consists of the Queen, the Senate and House of Representatives.

That the Senate has the right and duty to exercise its legislative power and to concur or not to concur, as the Senate sees fit, bearing in mind the seriousness and responsibility of its actions, in all proposed laws passed by the House of Representatives.

That there is no convention and never has been any convention that the Senate shall not exercise its constitutional powers.

That the Senate affirms that it has the constitutional right to act as it did and now that there is a disagreement between the Houses of the Parliament and a position may arise where the normal operations of government cannot continue, a remedy is presently available to the Government under section 57 of the Constitution to resolve the deadlock.

Let me refer particularly to one of those paragraphs. I refer to the words ‘bearing in mind the seriousness and responsibility of its actions, in all proposed laws passed by the House of Representatives’. I point out to the Senate that the numbers in the House of Representatives are only slightly in favour of the Government, and the numbers in the Senate are very, very slightly in favour of the Opposition. In view of the closeness of these numbers, and more particularly in view of the fact that a deceased senator’s place is not now occupied- that deceased senator was on the side of the Government- I think it would be only right and reasonable to assume that in this situation the. Opposition would not have played the game as it is playing it. The numbers are so close. If there were big majorities either way I would take an entirely different view of that aspect. I do not base my argument on convention. It has no substance in law. Convention represents an implied arrangement at a specific time and is, and should be, subject to change. There is no doubt in the world about that. The changes in convention of which we have heard so much have been brought about by the new conditions which prevail today, however there cannot be any breakdown in basic fundamentals.

What is the basic fundamental in connection with this issue? Surely the basic fundamental is that the Government must . be permitted to govern and must be supplied with necessary funds. Why should this be so? It is because the Constitution requires a government to be elected every 3 years and because the expressed will of the electors should be observed in a democratic society. The Constitution does not give the Senate the right to demand an election each year. It gives the Senate the right to reject Supply. It gives the Senate the right to reject Bills, but it does not give the Senate the right to force an election at its behest. It is only a matter of party politics that brings that state of affairs into being. As an independent senator I shall raise my voice very loudly in an endeavour to get people to judge these matters on their merits and in accordance with the democratic system.

By refusing Supply the Opposition is abusing a privilege bequeathed by the Constitution. What does the Opposition say? It says, in reality: There is nothing wrong with these Appropriation Bills. We are prepared to pass them’ but only in accordance with the amendment, namely, that the Bills be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people ‘. About 1 7 months ago this Government submitted itself to the judgment of the people as a result of pressure such as that which is now being exerted. The result was that the people confirmed the Government’s actions. It has been proved repeatedly that there is no substitute for the democratic system. That system had its birth in the Parliament of the land, and it must be preserved by the Parliament.

During this debate we have heard many eminent jurists discussed and their opinions given. I take the privilege of introducing into this discussion a new jurist in the person of Mr R. E. McGarvie, Q.C., who wrote a letter which was published in the Melbourne Age yesterday. I agree entirely with the letter. It is headed ‘The great risk is totalitarianism’. I quote from the letter:

I fear that the Opposition’s blocking of Supply in the Senate, if it succeeds in its objective, could bring about changes in political attitudes and assumptions quite capable of leading to totalitarian government within a decade.

I believe parliamentary democracy to be the only acceptable form of government for Australia. Despite the rapid changes of our times it can effectively eliminate injustice and make the necessary reforms. But many who have been troubled by social injustices in the community have questioned the ability of democracy to remedy them. They believed that if a reforming Government actually took determined steps in the interests of the under-privileged, the conservative establishment would soon displace it by changing the ground rules. If the denial of Supply were allowed to lead to the displacement of the Government the number of doubters of democracy would increase alarmingly.

To make the parliamentary system workable all parties, from Federation to 1974, acted so that the party with the House of Representatives majority continued in government for its term. Reliance on the constitutional power to reject Supply misses the point. The continuation of democracy requires political parties to do more than exact their constitutional pound of flesh. It requires restraint so as to comply with the basic assumptions and practices that make democracy workable. It is well to remember that most of what was done by Hitler was done within constitutional power.

That means simply that loyalty, understanding and a love of people is necessary, as opposed to tyranny and oppression under other systems of government. That is the difference between the 2 systems of democracy and totalitarianism. Australia has been very successful in working under the democratic form of government throughout the years, with the 2 political parties in the main respecting each other and accepting the will of the people at the ballot box. Indeed, that is the state of affairs which should apply for all time. It would appear that in the main everything that the Party in government does is condemned by the Opposition, irrespective of which Party is in opposition. I mentioned the other night that in excess of 100 Bills have been passed by the Parliament this year. Some of those Bills have contained some socialistic flavour. Those Bills were passed, and passed unanimously, by the Opposition. Now the Opposition is refusing Supply, and this means that the normal general functioning of Parliament cannot proceed, that things have to come to a standstill, and indeed that legislation which this Parliament passednot only the Government but this Parliamentcannot be carried into effect. I am one of the few members of the Senate who have opposed two or three motions- I have opposed them more or less on my own but with the assistance of one or two members of the Opposition- because I am opposed wholeheartedly to the setting up of commissions, authorities and so on which seek to bring new forms of parliamentary procedure into effect. Such legislation can be, and has been in the past, carried out by officers of the various departments.

To me the position is very clear. If we are to have responsible government we need to have responsible people on both sides of the Parliament- people who are prepared to accept the will of the people. How often we hear people express their opinions. My mail box has been completely full every day for the last 3 weeks. I have received letters from a cross-section of the Australian community. Strange to relate, most of the letters have come from States other than New South Wales. There has been only the odd letter which has not complimented me on the stand that I have taken in connection with the Appropriation Bills. People of all sorts of political persuasions- ex-members of the Liberal Party, ex-members of the Country Party, and of course members of the Labor Party, but also many people of independent thought- have in the first instance complimented me on my independence in relation to this matter. They said that they were proud to be members of my Party because I was prepared to look at this matter in its true light.

I take notice of these letters because it is the inherent right of the people to express themselves and it is the inherent right of people to expect government for the people by the people. For the Opposition to seek a change of government at this time by using the power of the Senate to block Supply is to use that power in a way which threatens the future of stable government and brings great hardship on many people. Let me again say that people expect government for the people by the people. They do not expect to be pushed around by the Party political machine. They desire fair play in parliamentary matters, the same as in other matters. So we find that there is a disquiet amongst the people.

Much has been said about the ineptitude of the Government. All the blame for the depressions, inflation and unemployment has been thrust upon the Government. Through the years depressions have come and gone, inflation has come and gone, and the employment figures rise and fall. I do not give the Government all the credit or the blame for the pluses or for the minuses. Many factors bring about depressions, and many factors can cure them. Governments only have a part to play. I was rather interested to hear Senator Davidson make reference to the changes in the opinions expressed by many people who have been privileged to speak in parliamentary debates. I admit that what he said is very true, but I go so far as to say that that is the legacy of Party politics. Unfortunately Party politicians speak according to the whim and feeling of the Party at the particular moment. They ask: ‘What is going to suit my Party best?’ Neither of the major political parties is immune from that statement. Indeed, if we could look at things from an independent point of view or from a general point of view, in accordance with our democratic system of government, we would find a much better state of affairs developing.

I do not desire to detain the Senate any longer. Suffice to say that there is nothing abnormal about the Appropriation Bills which are before the Parliament. There is nothing abnormal about the priorities which have been extended in those Appropriation Bills. There is nothing abnormal in finding funds to finance the philosophies which have been advanced. We are living in a world of change. We are living at a time when there is plenty for all, and we should have a government to see that that plenty for all is made available to all. I have been accused of being a socialist. Let me tell those who have made that accusation that I am a super-democrat. I am one of those who values greatly indeed the blessings which have been bestowed upon me, upon other honourable gentlemen and upon the Australian community by the system of” democracy. That system of democracy is now at stake. It is unwise to allow that situation to continue. The Opposition has drawn a red herring across the trail by looking for all types of advantages from refusing Supply, instead of looking at the Appropriation Bills according to their merit. The refusal of Supply is entirely unjustified, and this country will be done an immense amount of harm if the Opposition succeeds in its mission.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-Mr President, I rise to support the Opposition’s attitude to the Appropriation Bills, which is to defer them until such time as the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and his Government are prepared to submit themselves to the will of the people; in other words, until they are prepared to face their masters, the electors of this great nation. One thing that I wish to make quite clear at the outset is that I have received some letters of criticism for my stand in this affair. The criticism has been that I am subservient to my Party. I wish to nail that for what it is- a falsehood. I am an Australian, and proudly so; I am an Aborigine, and fiercely proudly so; but I am a thinking Australian and a thinking Aborigine, and I am appalled at what has happened to my nation under this present Government. There are many things for which I believe this Government has to answer to the electors. It must face the people of this country and receive the support of the majority of the people.

Senator McLaren:

– We did in May last year.

Senator BONNER:

– The cackles are coming from the other side of the chamber, and appropriately so.

Senator Bessell:

– You did not learn anything by it, did you.

Senator BONNER:

- Senator McLaren apparently has not learnt the lesson. He is apparently not prepared to face his masters; I and all my colleagues on this side of the chamber are prepared to face our masters. We are not saying to the Government: ‘You alone go to the people’. We are not saying to the members of the House of Representatives: ‘You alone go to the people’. What we are saying is: ‘Let us all go to the people’. Let the Prime Minister bring about a double dissolution so that we all go to the people and let them hand down their judgment on the performance of the Government and of the Opposition during the last 3 years’.

There is, and has been, much said and much written concerning a constitutional crisis. Allow me to raise my voice alongside that of my Leader, Malcolm Fraser, when I state categorically that there is no constitutional crisis. It is quite clear and quite plain in the Constitution that the Senate has the right- it is given to it under that Constitution- to reject any Supply Bill, any money Bill or any Bill whatsoever. So let us have done with that humbug and hypocrisy that we are having a constitutional crisis at the moment; we are not. The crisis that we are having is the crisis concerned with the ineptitude and incompetence of a government that has been sitting on the Government benches for the last 3 years.

I shall quote as other Opposition senators have done just recently. Let us look at the record. Let us examine the record to see what was said by the Prime Minister who now says that we do not have the power to do what we are about to do. He does not care about the irreparable damage that he will cause Australia. He is prepared to sacrifice the welfare of our nation at the altar of his ego. It must surely disturb all honourable senators- even those sitting on the Government benches because I am sure that they must have a guilty conscience- when we look back over what was said by the Prime Minister, which statement they supported. Mr Acting Deputy President, I remind you and all honourable senators of what

Mr Whitlam said, and he has not repudiated it. He said:

Let me make it clear at the outset that our opposition to this Budget is no mere formality. We intend to press our opposition by all available means on all related measures in both Houses. If the motion is defeated, we will vote against the Bills here and in the Senate. Our purpose is to destroy … the Government which has sponsored it.

Mr Whitlam was speaking to a money Bill that was introduced in 1970 by the then Government.

Perhaps the most damning of all statements from the Prime Minister appears in Hansard of 1 October 1970. He said:

We all know that in British parliaments the tradition is that if a money Bill is defeated … the government goes to the people to seek their endorsement of its policies.

That is exactly what we are saying today and what we have been saying for the last 3 weeks. Mr Whitlam said that in 1 970. Surely the statement I am about to quote would not surprise some honourable senators opposite. On 4 November 1970 when the motion that the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) be read a third time was proposed by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, former Senator Murphy, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, is reported at page 2030 of Hansard of that date as having said:

I simply want to say that, in accordance with what we indicated earlier, we propose to vote against the third reading of this Appropriation Bill as an indication of our complete and utter rejection of the Budget. It is not necessary to say any more than that.

I wonder how many honourable senators opposite recall that statement? 1 look across the chamber and seen Senator Douglas McClelland, Senator Willesee, Senator Poyser, Senator Cameron and Senator Mulvihill who were here when that statement was made. Fifteen Government senators who are here now were members of the Senate when that statement was made.

Senator Poyser:

– I rise to a point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- What is your point of order?

Senator Poyser:

– It is in relation to tedious repetition. I refer to standing order 42 1 . This is the third speech in identical terms that we have heard. Obviously they all were typed in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. It is really tedious to hear the speech repeated so often. No new matter is being brought before the Senate.

Senator Young:

– I rise on a point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- You are speaking on the same point of order?

Senator Young:

– I am speaking on the point of order that was made. I take strong exception to the words used by Senator Poyser- that these speeches were obviously typed in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. That is not true and Senator Poyser knows it is not true, and I ask that he withdraw those words in fairness to the standards of this Senate. I am serious in saying that he should withdraw those remarks because they are offensive.

Senator Poyser:

-Mr Deputy President, I am addressing the Chair and the remarks that I wish to make now do not relate to any point of order. I will continue my speech on this particular subject. I still say that honourable senators on the other side of the chamber should hang their heads in shame when they come up with all this humbug and hypocrisy about voting against the Supply Bills. There are still fifteen of them sitting on the Government benches who were here in 1972 and who voted with the former Senator Murphy, now a Justice of the High Court, when he moved that motion and when he said those words. They were here and they voted with him. So let us have no more of this humbug and mischief that is going on at the moment about a constitutional crisis. There is no constitutional crisis. The only crisis is that, as I said earlier, the Government is not prepared to face the people of this country and let them pass their judgment on the Government’s record. Let us look at the record of this Government. We have the worst depression of the last 30 years, with 400 000 people unemployed. This concerns me greatly because I come from the working ranks. I have been a labourer and a working man all my life. Thank God I have never been a member of the Labor Party, but I have been a labourer and worked with my hands all my life. I have a great concern for the 400 000 people who are unemployed because of the mismanagement of this Government. Look at the inflation rate, which is the highest in 40 years.

Senator McLaren:

– It is not.

Senator BONNER:

– It is running at 16 per cent, and the cackle from the other side of the chamber only strengthens my argument. Senator

McLaren knows that that is true and we all know that it is true. Let us look at the false statements that were made about the loans affair by 2 acting Prime Ministers, Dr Cairns and Mr Connor. These statements misled the Parliament, and led to their ultimate sacking by Mr Whitlam. But Mr Whitlam, the Prime Minister, should accept part of the blame. No one can tell me that the Prime Minister of a country would not have some knowledge of the things that two of his senior ministers were doing. He had knowledge of it, and on that score alone, because of his gross incompetence, he should resign and submit himself to the will of the people. The Government would have us believe that its policies are for the good of this nation. If that is the case, let it go to the people and let the people speak. Let the people decide whether the Government’s policies are the best or not. The Government should not continue on its present course until the economy of this country is completely plundered and there is a depression the like of which we have never seen.

I am quite sure that there are honourable senators here today who, like me, recall those black days of the 1930s. I lived through them. God forbid that any of my children or grandchildren should have to experience a repetition of those times- times of suffering, human misery and deprivation. Goodness me, with the way this Government is carrying on we are heading fast for that situation. They were times when once proud working men were reduced to shambling wrecks through no fault of their own, unable adequately to support their families, stripped of their pride and robbed of their dignity. Is that what we want to see? I think not. I want to see this Government face the people and let the people make the judgment, as we on this side of the chamber are prepared to let them do. We can look at a long list of scandals involving this Government: The Murphy-ASIO raids; the unethical attempt to manipulate Parliament by the Gair affair; the shocking impropriety of the sacking of the Speaker, Mr Cope; the Phillip Cairns affair; the Morosi affair; the Hayden Budget leak; the loans affair and so many other matters.

Senator Walsh:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Standing order 406 states that no senator shall read his speech. I submit that Senator Bonner is quite clearly reading his speech and has been doing so for the last two or three minutes.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- I do not uphold the point of order. I think that Senator Bonner is quoting from copious notes, as we often say. Some notes are more copious than others, but I think the honourable senator is in order.

Senator BONNER:

– If this is a speech from which I am reading then there is something wrong with my eyes. This happens to be a newspaper.

Senator Walsh:

– Show us the other pages.

Senator BONNER:

– You can have a look at the other ones. There they are. Have a look at them- copious notes.

Senator McLaren:

– This is Mr Lynch ‘s speech that he used this morning in the House of Representatives- word for word.

Senator Bessell:

– Listen to it. You might learn something.

Senator BONNER:

-That is right; that is a good idea. Mr Deputy President, I do not have a great deal more to say because I think the record speaks for itself without my going any further. Much has been said on this side of the chamber. Arguments have been put very strongly, very firmly and very wisely by other members of the Opposition. All I say in conclusion is that there is no constitutional crisis. I cannot stress that enough, and I want the people of Australia to know that we are not facing a constitutional crisis. The only crisis that we are likely to face will be caused because this Government is not prepared to go to the people. The Appropriation Bills will lie on the table and not be passed by this chamber until the Government is prepared to go to the people. If there is any suffering amongst the people of Australia, then the Government is responsible for that. It is the Government’s responsibility because it is the Government. If it is prepared to submit itself to the people then we will certainly give very speedy passage to the Appropriation Bills. There will be no trouble at all. People will be paid and the money will flow. But it is up to the Government. Let the Government have the courage of its convictions and go with us to its masters, the people of Australia.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In order that this country can be administered efficiently and properly and in accordance with convention and standard practice, the Government is attempting today to have restored to the Senate notice paper Appropriation Bills that the Opposition continues, in defiance of the welfare of the Australian people, to have deferred. Despite what Senator Bonner has said, there is a crisis in Australia. Whether it be a constitutional crisis or a political crisis is little to the point. The fact is that there is a crisis and the crisis was not brought about by rejection of the Budget, as the Opposition has attempted to imply. The crisis is brought about by the attitude of the Opposition in continuing to defer consideration of the Budget. It has not rejected the Budget. Indeed, it would get some respect from the Australian people if it had the courage of its convictions and moved for the rejection of the Budget. But the Opposition has not done that. That is the gravamen of the issue. What it has done is to move an amendment to seek deferral of the Budget. It has failed to move for any outright rejection. If it moves for outright rejection, that is its right. It is the Opposition’s entitlement to do that, but it has not done so, nor will it do so, I suggest, while there are so many in its ranks who are opposed to the principle of rejection by the Senate of money Bills.

Having said those things, I must say that I am amazed at the attitude of members of the Opposition. They are irresponsible and obviously they are indifferent to the welfare of the people. They are arrogant in their display of the power of numbers in the Senate in what is I suggest, and as my colleague Senator James McClelland the Minister for Labor and Immigration suggested this morning, an unrepresentative House whilst they conveniently ignore the weight of numbers given to the Government in the House of Representatives by the people of Australia through the ballot box only 18 months ago. Members of the Opposition have had 2 elections in 3 years. Now they want 3 elections in 3 years. Merely to satisfy their wants, their lust for power, they adopt this callous, ill-conceived and terribly tragic attitude of deferral. It is an attitude which is tragic for Australia and Australians. We know that in December 1972- not 3 years ago- they lost the power of government which they had possessed previously for 23 years. Like someone addicted to drugs, members of the Opposition find it difficult to kick the habit of power. They must have it back. They demanded an election in May 1974 because they were addicted to power. They had the election. They lost the election and shortly after that in their hallucinatory state or period of remorse they sacked their then leader. They have now acquired a new leader, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Now again, in their craving for power, in their addiction to a Cassius Clay philosophy of greater than thou, they have turned aside the long, well established, well understood, accepted and acclaimed standards of democracy and convention.

Let us look at the Senate numbers as a result of the 1 974- last year’s- Federal election. Last year there was a double dissolution of the Parliament. Last year the Labor Government was re-elected to office, lt was given a mandate by the people in the House of Representatives. At the same time as the House of Representatives election there was also a Senate election. At that Senate election 29 Government senators, 29 Liberal Party senators, one Liberal Movement senator and one independent senator were elected. The Opposition was not given a majority in this House by the people. It was given the same numbers as the Government was given by the people in this Senate. At that dme, at that election the Opposition was not given a mandate to govern in the House of Representatives. So too it was not given a mandate by the people to frustrate or defer in the Senate. The simple fact of the matter is whether we like it or not- quite frankly, I do not like saying it- if the late Senator Milliner were alive today, and he passed away a mere 3 months ago, the Opposition would not be able to conduct itself as it is conducting itself today in challenging the convention of elective parliamentary democracy by moving its amendment for deferral of the Budget. As members of the Opposition polarised and divided this great nation and the Australian people in respect of Vietnam when they were in office, so too are they now polarising the people and the Australian nation by their tearing up of the long established principles of democracy and the conventions which bring about stability and confidence within a nation. Those conventions which we all understand and know about in the Senate deliberately set out to provide for periods of stability of government on a democratically elected basis.

In making provision for that basis of democracy, those conventions also provide for the protection of the rights of the Opposition and for the protection of the rights of minority sections in the community. If there is an election, the mass of the people speaks. That mass of the people speaks through the ballot box and elects a government. At the same time, the minority of the people is provided with a voice. As the people elect a government, so too at the same time they elect an Opposition. That is what happened a mere 1 7 months ago. The people elected a governmen t and they elected an Opposition. By the Constitution the Opposition in the House of Representatives and in this place are provided with rights. The Opposition in the Senate is entitled to take certain courses of action in regard to financial decisions of the Government. Firstly, if it likes, it can accept a Budget. The Opposition has not done that, at least so far this year. Secondly, if it likes, it can seek an amendment of a money Bill presented by the House of Representatives. It can carry a request for an amendment to be referred to the House of Representatives for consideration. The Opposition has refused and still refuses to pursue that course.

Thirdly, if it so chooses, it has the right, I suggest, to reject a money Bill. But as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, the Opposition has not taken that course because it knows that on that issue its ranks would crack open like dried timber. What members of the Opposition have done and what they are doing now is to say to the Parliament and to the Australian people that they refuse to consider the Budget unless it is on a condition imposed upon the Government by them. Indeed, they say in their thinking and statements that if that condition is agreed they will pass the Appropriation Bills. Therefore, one must assume that to them there cannot be much wrong with the Budget. In plain words, as I have said, only the death of one of our colleagues on this side of the Senate has put the Opposition in the position in which it can now accept legislation conditionally. It is like holding a gun at a man’s head. No government can tolerate such a situation. I am certain that Australians as great people will not allow it to happen.

As was mentioned here this morning, it has been claimed in the publication the Bulletincertainly not a publication which gives support to the Government- that there has been a groundswell against the Opposition in the last week in the public ranks. Whilst the Opposition continues to adopt the attitude it has adopted it will continue to lose the support of the Australian people. It is Opposition members who have ripped up the conventions in the last 12 months. It is they who are depriving the people of democracy in this country. It is they who are depriving the people of the financial sinews that are necessary to keep the Australian economy going. It is they who are showing a callous indifference to the welfare of the Australian people. I urge them- I implore them- to rethink their megalomaniac attitude.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– This is the third time that this message has been debated in this Senate. It has amazed me on every occasion when we hear our oppositionthe Government- standing up and talking about such things as principles and conventions when all the time they are basically talking on double standards. Senator Douglas McClelland, who has just finished speaking, has been highly critical of the actions of the Opposition. Yet I can recall an occasion in this place in 1 970-1 have a copy of the Hansard before me- when in a division on the third reading of an Appropriation Bill the Labor Party voted against us as the Government, and included in the names of those who voted against us was none other than Senator Douglas McClelland. He on that occasion saw fit to vote against Supply but on this occasion, in government, he sees fit to turn around and condemn us in opposition for adopting exactly the same role. So when we start talking about credibility and double standards we should look also at the record of this Government in the last few months.

The reason the Opposition has adopted its present stance is the culmination of many factorsfactors that have been dealt with by so many people; factors that made it necessary for us, after a lot of deep and serious consideration to adopt finally the stance we did. If we had not done so we would have been dodging our responsibilities and obligations. It is easy for this Government to stand up today and adopt scare tactics. That is exactly what it is doing. In fact, it has gone so far with its scare tactics, as I said the other day, that it probably has some people convinced that even the River Murray will dry up before this issue is finished. But there is no need to have a crisis in this country. It is not a constitutional crisis; it is a crisis that has been brought about because this Government will not face up to its responsibilities.

I recall that in 1974, when on a similar occasion we in opposition told the Government clearly that we would defer the Appropriation Bills until such time as the Government was prepared to go to the people, this Government saw fit to go to the people. I question now: Why the sudden change? Why this stance that has been adopted by the Government? Why these scare tactics that are being used by the Government? It is easy to see the reasons why. In 1974 the Government was reasonably confident that with the economic crisis that was going to develop it was better for it in many ways to have an election at that stage than for it to have to sit through the economic crisis and uncertainty of the future months. So it went to the people on that occasion, but it is not prepared to do so now. It comes down to cold hard politics on the Government’s part. It is not prepared to go to the people because it realises that it would be beaten if it did so.

Senator Walsh:

– Have you seen the latest gallup poll?

Senator YOUNG:

-I quote the results of the latest gallup poll, which appeared in the Bulletin of 1 November. It showed that the results of the poll of 18 October were that the LiberalNational Country Parties were holding some 50 per cent and the Government Party was holding some 43 per cent. They are the cold hard facts at the present time. I repeat, this Government is using double standards; it is breaking conventions and everything else. No government, no party, has adopted more double standards than this Government in its present actions. We have heard many quotations of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and also ex-Senator Murphy, now Mr Justice Murphy. I shall mention those again in a minute because I think they should be spelt out as much as we possibly can to let the people of this country see the double standards of this Government.

Let us look to the other areas of this Government’s activities. Consider the loans affair. What is the Government’s record of credibility? I say that the credibility of this Government is absolutely bankrupt. In the loans affair we can go back to the Executive Council meeting of 13 December which clearly showed that this Government was prepared to break all conventions and to bypass completely the Constitution. It did this by coming up with the devious and unconstitutional act of saying that it was going to borrow short-term loans from overseas. They were to be short-term loans of some $4000m- I repeat, $4000m- for what the Government described as temporary purposes. They were to be loans that were to be extended over a 20-year period. This has been spelt out by the exMinister, Mr Connor, and it is on record. It has been spelt out also by the Prime Minister and by the Executive Council minutes.

I ask the Government: If it considers that that is a temporary purpose, what if one of them were suddenly picked up and put away in solitary confinement for 20 years? Would he regard that as being temporary? I doubt very much that he would. The same applies with this whole gory scandal of the loans affair. It has seen the enforced resignation of not only a Treasurer but also a Deputy Prime Minister. Lately an Acting Prime Minister, the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, also was forced to resign. Both of these senior men, men who in their periods of time have led Australia in the absence of the Prime Minister, have been forced to resign because they misled the Prime Minister, they misled the Cabinet, they misled the Parliament and they misled this country. Those are not my words, they are the words of the Prime Minister.

We do not stop there. We go on and come to an issue that was debated in this place yesterday. I refer to the ACTU-Solo exercise- an issue that is not to be allowed to be pushed under the rug; an issue that, is full of grave problems; an issue that leaves much to be answered. Senator Wright and Senator Greenwood spelt this out very clearly in the Senate yesterday. There are question marks around this issue. Then of course we find that this week the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has given information, prior to the Budget being presented to the Parliament, to the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hawke. I admit that some of the honourable senators opposite in the Labor Party have admitted that it was wrong for this to be done. Nevertheless, it happened, and I would go so far as to say that if this had happened 3 years ago no doubt we would have seen the resignation of the Treasurer. But it is becoming customary these days to see so many of these things happening in the Government that people tend to take them as a matter of course.

We know that in England for lesser reasons 2 Treasurers- Chancellors of the Exchequer- were forced to resign for giving information about the Budget. One; in fact, passed some comment to a pressman, as I understand it, on his way into the Parliament to present the Budget. He was forced to resign. This is not happening now, and it comes back to the credibility of this Government when things like this can happen and the Minister still stays. When we compare this with some of the other things that have happened during the term of this Government we see that this is only one of so many similar occurrences. Conventions have been spoken about considerably in this debate, not only today but on other occasions. We talk also about double standards. Let us look at the contradictions between statements made by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition and the statements he is making today and also the actions he is taking today. I refer to Hansard of 25 August 1970, where Mr Whitlam is reported as saying:

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

I repeat: ‘An election therefore would cause no disruption ‘. This statement clearly shows that the then Leader of the Opposition expected the Government to pick up its responsibilities if it were defeated and go to the people. That is entirely different from the attitude of the Prime Minister today. I continue the quotation:

The only thing that will cause disruption is the continuance of the Government.

In the same speech on the same day the Prime Minister went on to say:

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

Those words were spoken by the present Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. Yet he stands up today and accuses the Opposition of double standards and of breaking conventions. I. ask: Who has the double standards? It is all very well to adopt a role in Opposition. It is all very well to adopt a role when one is Prime Minister of this country which is what the Prime Minister did in 1 974. But he is adopting another role today and using scare tactics in the process. I cite another quotation which was given in October 1970. He stated:

We all know that in British Parliaments the tradition is that if a Money Bill is defeated … the Government goes to the people to seek their endorsement of its policies.

Those statements are on record. They were made by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition.

Today we have heard Ministers in this place stand up and say that we do not have the powers under the Constitution to take the stance which we are taking. But let us look at what the then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Lionel Murphy, had to say. His credibility is not questioned by this Government because it saw fit to elevate the then Senator Murphy to the High Court where he is now Mr Justice Murphy. Let us have none of this poppycock about our actions being unconstitutional. The Labor Party leader of that time, its appointee to the High Court, gave a ruling on the Constitution and the Senate ‘s powers. He said that the Senate had these powers. As I understand it this was in 1970. He stated:

In doing this the Opposition is pursuing a tradition which is well established. But in view of some doubt recently cast on it in this chamber perhaps I should restate the position.

I am quoting the words of Senator Lionel Murphy, now Mr Justice Murphy. He stated:

The Senate is entitled and expected to exercise resolutely but with discretion its power to refuse its concurrence to any financial measure -

I repeat: ‘To any financial measure’- including a tax Bill. There are no limitations on the Senate in the use of its constitutional powers, except the limitations imposed by discretion and reason. The Australian Labor Party has acted consistently in accordance with the tradition that we will oppose in the Senate any tax or money Bill or other financial measure whenever necessary to carry out our principles and policies. The Opposition - has done this over the years and in order to illustrate the tradition which has been established, with the concurrence of honourable senators I shall incorporate in Hansard at the end of my speech a list of the measures of an economic or financial nature, including taxation and appropriation Bills, which have been opposed by the Opposition in whole or in part by a vote in the Senate since 1 950.

That quotation is taken from a speech by former Senator Murphy, the Leader of the Australian Labor Party when in Opposition. I understand that those Bills numbered some 160, including taxation and money measures. They were opposed by the Labor Party when it was in opposition. Let us have no more of these double standards.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition is not opposing; it is deferring.

Senator YOUNG:

– We have explained the reason for deferment. There is a difference. We have control of the Bills while they are in this place. The moment the Labor Party is prepared to go to the people, in an instant we can have Supply running. If these Bills go back to the other place the Government gets control, and with the spitefulness of the Prime Minister at the present time, anything could happen. We will not abrogate our responsibility. We will keep control of the Bills in this place so that we can make sure that when the Government accepts its responsibility Supply will start immediately. The Government knows this only too well. I have dealt with the Government’s record with regard to double standards. Other honourable senators have spoken about the economy generally and the rundown which has taken place. It is a tragic and unnecessary situation. Today this country faces an economic crisis or a depression. Many have said that it is the worst for some 30 years. Unemployment is heading to a figure in excess of 400 000. That is not my estimation. People in the Labor Party have said that. Others have put the figure higher. So one does not have to go into these other areas to point out the lack of credibility of this Government when it comes to economic management or its lack of economic management.

This Government has spent so much time and so much of its energy and resources in trying to push its ideologies rather than getting on with the economic management of this country that we are facing one of the results today in the unfortunate economic situation which we have in Australia. It is a situation which is singularly peculiar to Australia at the present time. Other countries did have inflation. Other countries had worse inflation than we had. Other countries were more affected by the energy crisis than Australia. But those countries which had been adversely affected by inflation are today recovering rapidly. We have had a slight upturn but if we believe the economic forecasts which have been given to us by many people there is a minimal short term downturn at the present time in the rate of inflation but the forecasts are that we will see an increase in the rate of inflation again.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable senator would be disappointed if there were not.

Senator YOUNG:

– I am . disappointed that there has been. Nobody more than I wants to have a country running properly. It has been a tragedy to see what has happened in this country. Talking about tragedies, let me come back to my own State. Before, I mentioned that this Government was hell bent on pushing its ideologies and its policies rather than engaging in economic management. I refer to a proposed petrochemical industry in South Australia which would have been established at Redcliffs. The industry would have meant a lot of employment. It would have brought other industries. It would have been a very stable industry. In all probability that industry is lost to South Australia today for only one reason and that is the interference of the past Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor. He set out to make sure that his policies would be forced upon our Governmenta Labor Government, incidentally- and the Redcliffs project was deferred. It was deferred again. Today, with the escalation of prices through inflation, we have a situation where there is a big question mark as to whether we will ever have a Redcliffs. Without a Redcliffs or some such industry we are also facing problems with our gas fields in the north of South Australia. This tragic effect has been caused through the stupidity, the arrogance and the interference of the Minister and of this Government.

I also wish to make some comments about the media. We have seen what the Government has done regarding its mistakes in the economy. We have also seen what it has done when it comes to selling its own policies and developing its great propaganda machine. Some months ago I did an assessment of the cost to the taxpayer of Government propaganda in this country. When the figure came from the Government it showed that up to 3 1 May the Government was spending on Government publicity in excess of $lm a month. That is over $250,000 a week. It was primarily being spent on Government propaganda to sell Government policies and to cover up its mistakes. That was the cost to the taxpayer. One can go on in other areas. Let us look at the television and radio world at the present time. I questioned the Special Minister of State (Senator Douglas McClelland) who in this chamber represents the Minister for the Media (Dr Cass) on 3 September regarding the issue of licences on a temporary basis under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Here we are at the end of October and still I am awaiting a reply. We know that there is a big doubt about the legality of issuing licences in this way and I question why the Government is still not prepared to state what is the AttorneyGeneral’s opinion on this question. I fully support the concept of public broadcasting and ethnic radio but I question the legality of what the Minister is doing. I am still awaiting an answer from him even though my opinion and outside opinion from other lawyers is that what the Government has done is very questionable.

We then look to other areas to see what is happening. This Government has established a propaganda machine. In the area of public broadcasting, the number of licences being issued at present is of great concern to this country because the media is one area that must be kept free of Government interference. Licences are being issued willy-nilly and on an ad hoc basis at a time of great advances in technology and when there is every need, as the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and others say, for us to have long term planning in the electronics media in Australia because if we do not we will have much trouble. The Government is taking this action to assist its propaganda machine and I take great exception to it. Here again is a waste of taxpayers’ funds. It is another example of the double standards of this Government which says one thing and does another. It is another of the black parts which will go into the record books when this Government finally goes to the people.

Senator Steele Hall:

– When is that going to be?

Senator YOUNG:

– If the socialist sympathisers help the Government, that is for them to answer, not me. I will not answer it. We leave it to others to answer. Senator Hall can give the Government all the support it needs. Earlier today an appropriate remark was made about what has happened to this Government with its black record. We have seen what it has done in so many areas. I refer to an earlier statement of Senator Davidson. Looking at the record of this Government we see the Murphy ASIO affair, the Gair affair, the Galston affair, the Morosi affair, the loans affair, the dole cheats, Blue Poles, overseas junkets, jobs for the boys, the arts, inflation, unemployment, grants, taxes, prices, strikes, business failures and finally we had the ‘Csickness’ of the Government- Cope, Cameron,

Cairns, Connor, Crean. There was also Mr Barnard who was wise enough to get out before this Government went over the cliff. Despite all these things the Prime Minister still says that he has a mandate and that the Opposition has no right to do what it is doing. He has a short memory. It certainly does not go back to the 1970s. Since those events we have had the ACTU-Solo affair about which much is unanswered. We also have the Hawke-Hayden affair. And so we go on.

I conclude by quoting from the editorial in the Daily Mirror of 15 October this year headed Face up to it, Gough’. It states:

At last, after three years of bungling, crippling inflation, record jobless and political turmoil, Gough Whitlam has a chance to give the nation a Christmas present.

A double dissolution.

A return to sane government. An end to the bickering, the confidence crisis, the axings and the political panics which have marked the Labor Party’s terms of office.

Today is likely to mark the beginning of the end for Gough Whitlam ‘s harum-scarum Government of cowboys.

The Opposition Leader, Mr Fraser, will soon confirm he has taken the plunge: he has chosen, for the good of the nation, to pull the plug and deny Supply.

And Mr Whitlam owes it to Australia to give us a chance to pass judgment on his Government.

I repeat, ‘Mr Whitlam owes it to Australia to give us a chance to pass judgment on his Government. The editorial continues:

No more tricks. No half Senate elections. No more political ploys to stave off our chance to have our say through the ballot boxes.

WE DEMAND A DOUBLE DISSOLUTION.

Any move by Mr Whitlam to deny a double dissolution will be seen as a shabby attempt to cling to power at a time when the nation deserves its say.

And we deserve it because we can no longer afford this kind of government. We cannot afford to live among the top inflation nations of the world. We cannot afford a bankrupting deficit of $4,000 million. We cannot afford more Asio, Gair or Loans Affairs.

Gough must give us our say- in both Houses. And the sooner the better.

Many other such statements have appeared in the newspapers of Australia. This Government has dug its heels in. It has employed scare tactics in the community. It has done everything but face up to its responsibilities and obligations, and by taking the stance it has it is adopting a double standard. We in the Opposition are not seeking power. We are seeking to give the people of this country the democratic right to pass judgment on the Government or the Opposition. At least we have accepted our obligation and I challenge the Government to accept its obligation.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– There is only one main issue in this debate and controversy and that is whether the Budget ought to be used as commodity of ransom to force the public to accept an election and the Government to agree to it. Whilst Senator Young is unable to see the simplicity of the argument he has been a far greater help than he knows. He has adopted the standards of the Australian Labor Party for his own and consistently throughout this debate, this continuing saga week by week, the Opposition has justified its action by looking at the Labor Party and saying: ‘You did this or recommended that at a certain time’. To begin with we can assume that the Liberal Party is acting on Labor Party standards by its own choice and that, I believe, does not elevate the Liberal Party in this chamber. Nevertheless, Senator Young made some interesting comments. He said that he recalled 1974. I wonder whether he does recall 1974 because time after time Opposition speakers then said: ‘We want to test the Government. We want the people to choose’. Surely he can remember that an election was held in that environment. Now 18 months later the same request is made again: ‘Let the people choose’.

– I do not know who sent them. I suspect that they are not members of the Liberal Movement. The words that are being used consistently by leading spokesmen for the Opposition are ‘we want’. That means the Liberal Party of Australia wants and not the people of Australia. The Liberal Party wants an election not for the greater good of this country but so that it can get into office and its leading spokesmen can be Ministers. That is the attitude which has been consistently adopted and which I deplore.

As I have said, those are the smaller issues that Senator Young went into at great length. But they are not the issues now. The issue now is simply whether a lower House is the place where a government is formed in Australia from here on in. That is the real issue. I am, as I have said previously, extremely disturbed that our side of politics, which was showing a complete supremacy over its Labor adversaries, has suddenly surrendered the torch of principle to those adversaries and has given them the principle to uphold whilst our side tries to drag it down. That is what I regret so much about the political dogfight. The issue at stake is whether a government is formed in the lower House. I should have thought that the issue was settled long ago.

There is perhaps one issue which does stand out among the detail in this argument and that is the loans affair. There is no doubt that the Opposition has made it the central issue, the central factor, of its charge against the Government. It has lived for some months now in times of great controversy whilst this matter has been sifted through and 2 Ministers have lost their jobs. I believe it reflects great discredit on the Government that it should have been involved with the backyard financiers of that unknown and unguaranteed or, should I say, unvouched for world in London and other capital cities. The Government , of course, has incurred its own penalty for getting involved with those people. The victims of that are the Australian people in the form of the challenge which has now been put up on this matter by the Opposition.

What is the Government’s position now in this issue? As I have said, 2 Ministers have gone. The Opposition has adopted those very people that first took the Government in these negotiations. Mr Khemlani is now the possession of the Opposition- of the Liberal Party. I suppose that he is today closeted somewhere eating potato crisps and having his 8 bulging briefcases examined by senior assistants to Liberal Party shadow Ministers. He is the possession of the Liberal Party. I cannot for the life of me see why the LiberalParty has not proceeded to support his presence in the Senate, as I understood Senator Withers said last week he would do. It seems to me to be very much a matter of very shallow politics indeed that his presence here to settle this issue depends on whether his bulging briefcases favour the Liberal Party. That appears to be the extent of the Liberal Party’s interest in this issue.

Today Senator Withers has given notice that he intends to move for the setting up of a select committee of 3 members from each political side. I notice that he has very prominently ignored the two of us who do not belong to either of the two major political sides in this House. Senator Withers has suggested that it may be time to have this question examined before a restricted but proper number of the House of Representatives. In some circumstances I could agree with that examination, but it is a position which has been totally confused now with, as I have said, the Opposition being in possession of the chief negotiator who was previously dealing with the Government. The issue is now resting on innuendo and on documents whose validity is unknown and unvouched for. We have had the leading protagonists in the argument using the word ‘purported’. I notice that in the House of Representatives on 22 October, Mr Lynch said:

I have here more documents. They are not the only documents the Opposition has in relation to the loans affair, but as I recall it the Prime Minister is on record as saying that all the relevant documents have been published in the House. Why is it then that I hold before me what purports -

I emphasise the word ‘purports’- to be a telex from the former Minister for Minerals and Energy dated 7 February . . .

Mr Lynch went on in that statement about a document that ‘purports’ to be a telex to say:

But, of course, the story has been one of continuing deceit, deception and mounting evasion.

I have also noticed that in this week’s Bulletin under the heading ‘More dirty washing’ Mr Peter Samuel has said:

In an undated unsigned telex apparently sent some time in the middle of February from the Department of Minerals and Energy telex machine, there is reference to the first instalment of loan funds of $500m . . .

He ends that statement by saying:

That seems a suggestion that private funds from the Saudi royal family, which also dominates the Saudi government, might have been involved.

I emphasise the words ‘might have been involved’, ‘purports to be’, ‘unsigned’ and ‘undated’. That is apparently where much of the Opposition’s criticism rests.

If I may say so, I am also in possession of some documents which interest me. I have in front of me a blank International Message Form with the words ‘Australian Diplomatic Network’ written on it. I have in my possession a number of documents which purport to be telexes. I have not actually counted them yet. I will count them now. There are 7 purported telex messages on the International Message Form of the ‘Australian Diplomatic Network’ and one on a normal tear-off sheet, They all contain mysterious and, I suppose, interesting references. When I received them I enlisted the assistance of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Willesee, and asked him to check whether they were valid telex copies. I have a letter with which he was good enough to furnish me today, which reads:

You referred to me yesterday a number of telegrams regarding the loans affair, which I referred to my Department for authentication. The Secretary of the Department has advised me about them in the following terms:

None of the attached telegrams were dispatched through this Department and the Department knows nothing about them.

It is true that with one exception the Department’s form has been used. However, the person employing the form is revealed to have no knowledge whatsoever about how to use the various boxes at the top of the form. The way in which they have been used amounts, in fact, to gibberish. Furthermore, all Departments and all Ministers’ offices have supplies of the Department ‘s form ‘.

I hope this information may be of use to you.

There were fears in Canberra today that the premature leaking of the message on an ‘international message form’ could have upset the final loan negotiations.

At first- after a check with Department of Foreign Affairs officials- it was thought that the message was a fake.

And today it appears that at least the top half of the form listing the subject as ‘loans’ and security classification as EOrestrict is not genuine.

But experienced communications men in Canberra believed that the message at the foot of the form could be a cryptic- yet genuine- Treasury message leaked deliberately to the Press.

What are we dealing with? Are all these obviously spurious telex copies leaks from the Treasury? Was this the way leaks were conveyed from the Treasury? I do not know. I have these copies with me. Later I will ask for leave to table them so that anyone can look at them. I find it an absurd situation that people in the diplomatic network can take the time and trouble to write such things on official telex copies. The one which appeared in the Herald is available for members. I will not read it. I will read another one, which I select at random. It reads: . . Whel concerned security has been leak from inside to Melbourne paper L warns agst comm. with H and N suggest only telephone minus one both ends ex now. PM office contact maybe known also. W and C out. Must send copy second letter extra air bag . . . JM unsure sunset her staff any longer . . .

– I think you are right. I will come to this in a minute. I am tending to agree with Senator Chaney. I will deal with that matter directly. I am pleased that I have an ally there. This letter is addressed to Mr Andrew Hay, Office of the Deputy Leader of HM Opposition, Parliament House, Canberra. Quite frankly, I think it is a hoax. It is not my hoax. Who hoaxed it? It reads:

Dear Mr Hay,

Sir Frederick has acquainted us of the conversations held between himself and Mr Lynch at which you were present and may I say how pleasant it is to know we are all of one accord.

We will render as much help as possible during your overseas stay and the facilities of this office and our European offices remain, as always, at your disposal.

We are pleased to have been of service to Mr Lynch and Sir Frederick in the matter at hand and the information enclosed is from the same impeccable source which has served all of us so well.

The complete Kemlhani dossier and the file of correspondence between our Head Office and Mr Gilham make up the bulk of the enclosed. There is also a note written by Sir William to M. Lannier a courtesy of this note was sent to Sir John Bunting this week.

We understand from Mr Harris that he has had satisfactory briefings with both State and Federal officials and a meeting is to be set up shortly.

Desirous as we all are of maintaining the utmost discretion in this matter, we will be pleased to hear of your next intended move as regards the newspapers as soon as is convenient after your receipt of this letter.

The signature is torn off, if there was one. One would tend to throw away these things if the package had not contained a telex that had been reproduced in a newspaper. I have another letter which intrigues me even further, but I do not think I will bother to read it. Later I will ask for leave to table it so that senators can study it for themselves. It is an unsigned letter, as the torn off portion shows. It is addressed to George, not Dear George. It has ‘Tuesday’ on it. It is undated. It is on., of all things, paper headed ‘ Minister for State Development and Decentralisation’ for the Victorian Government.

This argument is becoming a comic opera. A man leaves a trail of potato crisps all the way from London, through the Middle East to Sydney. He has eight bulging briefcases. He is closeted for hours with chief advisers of the Opposition, one of whom then makes a statement which embarrasses his Leader and exonerates the Prime Minister. Last week the Opposition said that it would facilitate Mr Khemlani’s appearance before the Senate. Now apparently the Opposition does not want to facilitate his appearance. Today it moved a motion for the setting up a select committee which may or may not proceed, as Senator Withers said. This matter has become a comic opera, but the people of Australia are held to ransom because of it. They are held to ransom because the Opposition has adopted the theme ‘We want’.

Senator Wood:

– You backed the Opposition by seeking to call Mr Karidis.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Perhaps Mr Karidis would like to say something further. He might like to make further and wider statements. Certainly there must be a whole host of items which are unknown yet. There must be more documents, some bogus, some genuine. I cannot say whether those letters from which I quoted are bogus. I do not know. All I know is that the telexes are bogus.

Having reached this stage, it is obvious that we must do what Senator Chaney said. We must set up some sort of inquiry into this matter and let the Budget pass. This should be the strategy of the Opposition today. There is no way we can ascertain the facts of this matter in the next week, the next fort night or the next month. No sensible senator who knows how committees work and how long investigations take and who looks back and sees how long this investigation of the loans affair has taken so far could legitimately and properly say that one could obtain the facts of this case in time to use them as a matter of ransom on this Budget. There is no way it could be done. The only proper course for the Opposition to take in this matter is to set up a committee of inquiry which will finally elicit all the facts on how both sides of politics have behaved about the loans affair so we can know the facts without there being the pressure of this community being held to ransom on the economic front. In the meantime there is only one thing the Opposition can do, and that is to pass the Budget and get on with the economic reconstruction of Australia. I ask for leave to table the documents from which I have read and an additional one which I have not read and which is on the letterhead of the Minister for State Development and Decentralisation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you, Mr President.

Senator Poyser:

– Why not have them incorporated in Hansard?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Very well. I ask for leave to have them incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

UNION BANK OF SWITZERLAND

Schweizerische Bankgesellschaft

Union de Banques Suisses

Unione di Banche Svizzere

Charles J. Berg, Representative

Gerard-A. Woog, Deputy Representative

Representative Office: 325 Collins Street (9th Floor)

MELBOURNE, Victoria 3000

Telephone: 62 462 1

Cables: UBSWISS, Melbourne

Telex: 31625

June 3, 1975.

Mr Andrew Hay,

Office of the Deputy Leader of H.M. Opposition,

Parliament House,

CANBERRA.

A.C.T. 2060.

Dear Mr Hay,

Sir Frederick has acquainted us of the conversations held between himself and Mr Lynch at which you were present and may I say how pleasant it is to know we are all of one accord.

Wewillrenderasmuchhelpaspossibleduring your overseas stay and the facilities of this office and our European offices remain, as always, at your disposal.

We are pleased to have been of service to Mr Lynch and Sir Fredenck in the matter at hand and the information enclosed is from the same impeccable source which has served all of us so well.

The complete Semihard dossier and the file of correspondence between our Head Office and Mr Gilham make up the bulk of the enclosed. There is also a note written by Sir William to M. Lannier; a courtesy of this note was sent to Sir John Bunting this week.

We understand from Mr Harris that he has had satisfactory briefings with both State and Federal officials and a meeting is to be set up shortly.

Desirous as we all are of maintaining the utmost discretion in this matter, we will be pleased to hear of your next intended move as regards the newspapers as soon as is convenient after your receipt of this letter.

I remain, upon behalf of my bank,

Yours sincerely,

Victoria

MINISTER FOR STATE DEVELOPMENT AND DECENTRALISATION

232 Victoria Parade

East Melbourne, Vic. 3002

Telephone: 419 1355

Tuesday.

George,

I know for a fact that Croxford’s boys would be very interested indeed. As I understand it, having spoken yesterday to Phil Lynch and young Hay, the arrangement could be taken up for six months in advance.

I ‘m not completely sure of a couple of people here so will check the Cairns’ contact myself. It’s easier than drinking one of your cocktails, George!

I ‘m all for the meeting with Gerry and Thompson. I suggest that as both you and I aren’t too sure of our surrounding people, you should tell the Treasury chaps to meet us in the banks office. I realise you’ll have to put that one over to Charles. Look forward to hearing from you on that.

The information we had from Phil was tremendous. It’s surely more than is needed?

I congratulate you all on a fantastic job well done for the party, the people and the nation. Christ, they were really going to muck us up.

Simon goes to London on Friday week. He ‘11 go straight to Australia House and the papers can be sent to the A-G when they’re in his hands.

Encl. are the papers from Cambridge Credit. There’s absolutely . . . left at Marland House so you know what to do with these.

I repeat, the whole thing’s bloody marvellous . . . like battery chicken. But their London men must be . . .

Phone me on the venue, George.

One more thing, . . .

Department of Foreign Affairs

Form No. C02

International Message Form

Australian Diplomatic Network

RED SECTIONS OF FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

In precedence columns insert BB for BAG DESPATCH or RR for ROUTINE. PP for PRIORITY, II for IMMEDIATE or EE for EMERGENCY telegraphic transmission. BLUE sections are for use by communications personnel only.

Department of Foreign Affair

Form No. C02

International Message Form

Australian Diplomatic Network

Copy’1’

RED SECTIONS OF FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

In precedence columns insert BB for BAG DESPATCH or RR for ROUTINE. PP for PRIORITY, II for IMMEDIATE or EE for EMERGENCY telegraphic transmission. BLUE sections are for use by communications personnel only.

Security classification EE

Subject heading

WHEL CONCERNED SECURITY HAS BEEN LEAK FROM INSIDE TO MELBOURNE PAPER L WARNS AGSTCOMM. WITH HAND N SUGGEST ONLY TELEPHONE MINUS ONE BOTH ENDS EX. NOW. PM OFFICE CONTACT MAYBE KNOWN ALSO.

W AND C OUT LD MUST SEND COPY SECOND LETTER EXTRA AIR BAG. ONPASS MESSAGE.

JM UNSURE SUNSET HER STAFF ANY LONGER. C MAY NOW REACT.

ONPASS.

MORE TO COME EX P AND S.

END . . .

Department of Foreign Affairs

Form No. C02

International Message Form

Australian Diplomatic Network

“1”

RED SECTIONS OF FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

Security classification EO: II

Subject heading

LD TO SUPPLY LETTER AS DRAFT PER AIR BAG AND ONPASS TO WHEL END MONTH. VISIT OF H TO PLUS ONE TO BE DELETED ante MG. COMM FIG TO BE SPECIFIC H ASSURES WILL RETURN A BEFORE TRESURER LEAVES (DR EX NOW).

MR G TO PARIS AND CONTACT DR TO BE FOREARRANGED PRIOR P LEAVING AUSTRALIA. TO DATE NO REF AVAILABLE FOR L RE ME TALKS WITH K. IN MEANTIME WE CANNOT INFORM RE T OR OTHERS SYDNEY AND SUGGEST YOU SEND COPIES TOL AND WHEL.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Form No. C02

International Message Form

Australian Diplomatic Network

Copy “2”

RED SECTIONS OF FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

Security classification EO/RESTRICT

Subject heading LOANS

RE YOURS 11.00 GMT ADVICE THAT SAID NEWSPAPER FINANCIAL EDITOR TO LONDON END WEEK. INFORMATION MR G, PARIS AND OTHERS TO BE FED AS SPECIFIED PER TELEPHONE. U.S. TO SYNCHRONISE HOME MEDIA POSTS. THIS MESSAGE BY OUR KEY ONLY TO BE SUNSET YOUR END. WHEL. AGREES YOUR SUGGESTION POST RELEASE COMMUNICATION W AND C VIA SYDNEY.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Form No. C02

International Message Form

Australian Diplomatic Network

RED SECTIONS OF FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

Security classification

Subject heading

ONPASS LONDON LIB REP. INFORM LYNCH ARRIVE JULY 10 PASS TO HIM INFORMATION REQUIRED. TKS FOR INFO ONPASS ON SMITH. WILL USE TO EXPOSE WHEN PARLIAMENT RESUMES NEXT. HEAR FROM YOU SOONEST.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Form No. C02

International Message Form

Australian Diplomatic Network

RED SECTIONS OF FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

Security classification

Subject heading

URGENT ONPASS TO LONDON REP SOONEST. LYNCH ARRIVE ON JULY 10. SEEKS LOAN ARRANGEMENT DETAILS ON LOANS AS DISCUSSED. MELB. AGE USED YOUR DOCUMENTS PROVIDED IN DETAIL AND WILL USE MORE IF SUPPLIED. FEE TO BE PAID THROUGH NOONAN’ S OFFICE.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Form No. C02

International Message Form

Australian Diplomatic Network

RED SECTIONS OF FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

In precedence columns insert BB for BAG DESPATCH or RR for ROUTINE, PP for PRIORITY, II for IMMEDIATE or EE for EMERGENCY telegraphic transmission. BLUE sections are for use by communications personnel only.

Security classification X Subject heading

URGENT PRO LONDON EX LYNCH ONPASS DOCUMENTS TO MELB AGE. FEE PAID THROUGH MELB OFFICE. AGE REQUIRE FURTHER CABLES ETC FOR FOLLOW UP STORIES. PLS ARRANGE FOR INTERVIEWS IN LONDON ON JULY 10.

. TELEX

To PH TREASURY

SFW OFFICE CANBERRA

SYDNEY

OTHER STATES

From AW MELBOURNE

Date 24/6

Signature RETURN II

OIC RECS PLS SEND FF TO ABOVE II:

CONCERNING FA CABLE MR G LONDON REPLY EX PARIS AND WASHINGTON ARRIVED AM CONFIRMS READINESS MOVE ON C REQUESTS YOU INFORM RE SYDNEY FOLLOWUP B. ANTE IMPLEMENTATION. OTHER PARTY FULLY AC-. QUAINTED AND APPROVES. ESSENTIAL JM CLOAKED UNTIL CLEARANCE POST AFFAIR PENDING SATISFACTORY DEVELOPMENTS.

MESSAGE ENDS. . .TO MELBOURNE (AW)

. II DISPATCH.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Form No. C02

International Message Form

Australian Diplomatic Network

RED SECTIONS OF FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

In precedence columns insert BB for BAG DESPATCH or RR for ROUTINE, PP for PRIORITY, II for IMMEDIATE or EE for EMERGENCY telegraphic transmission. E>LUE sections are for use by communications personnel only.

Security classification EYES ONLY

Subject heading FAL

IN REPLY TO YOURS OF 1 1.00 GMT ADVISE THAT SAID NEWSPAPER’S AGE FINANCIAL EDITOR ARRIVES LONDON END THIS WEEK. INFORMATION GILHAM AND OTHERS SHOULD BE FED THROUGH SPECIFIED CHANNELS . . . TELEPHONE YESTERDAY. PARIS FEED TO FOLLOW. U.S. . . . AFOREMENTIONED SOURCE TO

HOME . . . RECORD DISPATCHED BY OUR . . . AGREED YOUR

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (4.19)- Mr President, I apologise for not rising immediately. I was interested in the claim for these papers to be incorporated in Hansard. You would readily understand that one of the matters which was going through my mind was the complication which Senator Hall seemed to indicate could arise in the incorporation truthfully of these documents. I assume that it is possible. I was cogitating on this matter when you called me. I am sorry I was slow in getting to my feet.

The second matter that interested me was that when I came into the chamber to hear Senator Hall make his speech I noticed that, for the first time since Mr Karidis was appearing before the Bar of the Senate, the Senate Press gallery was full with Pressmen. I was interested to discover what it was that attracted the Press into the gallery so quickly. However, understandably, they very quickly left the Press gallery and are not there to listen to me. Perhaps the sooner they leave the better I can get on with my speech.

I was interested in Senator Hall’s speech because I recollect quite clearly- the information I asked for was provided to me- that on 16 July this year the honourable senator who has just resumed his seat said, as reported in the second column of page 2756 of Hansard:

If the Government is able to frustrate this move -

That is, the calling of witnesses before the Bar of the Senate- something else will happen. If I were in the Opposition’s position I would adjourn the Senate until 1 January next year and let the people decide in the meantime.

Like the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) the honourable senator is entitled to change his mind. When the Prime Minister was challenged in the House of Representatives on the attitude he would take towards the Senate in the context of the Appropriation Bills, he put down that tremendous constitutional and legal advice that it was the duty of the Government to resign, but when questioned again on the same matter the other week in the other place it was found that he had changed his mind. I assume that Senator Hall is entitled to change his mind.

I want to make this clear: There has descended quite deliberately on the Australian electorate at the present moment a vast fog of words emanating from the office of the Prime Minister of Australia and many of his Ministers in their attempt to confuse the issue that is now before the Senate. There are 2 matters involved in this issue, I suggest. The first is that the Prime Minister is promoting a concept which is novel, at least in parliamentary terms, over the past 300 years. In essence, stripped of all the verbiage, all the antics, all the hamming, all the acting, all the strutting, it is a belief in the divine right of Prime Ministers. Our parliamentary system evolved from the concept of the divine right of kings, but that was broken 300 years ago with the great struggle between the Parliament and the Crown. For the first time since those days there has now intervened in Australia the concept of the divine right of Prime Ministers to rule. That divine right, as Senator Wriedt, my friend, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, mentioned, is in essence the concept that the only person entitled to proffer advice to His Excellency the Governor-General, despite all the matters that are embedded in the Constitution, is the Prime Minister. Senator Wriedt solemnly advanced the argument that the only person who is entitled to advise the Governor-General on any matter is the Prime Minister. In essence, what the Prime Minister is advancing is that the single decisionmaking element in the Constitution is the Prime Minister of the day. It is not the Prime Minister of the day. This decision-making element in the Constitution, outside the prerogative power, is the Parliament. The Parliament is exerting here in this chamber a struggle against what I have referred to as the divine right of Prime Ministers.

There are events which occurred last year. I suppose it is not outside common knowledge that I was not very happy with the circumstances which occurred last year, but in the end I voted for the proposition, even though I sat in the seat which you now occupy, Mr President. My recollection- I am sure it is the recollection of every honourable senator here- was that the then Leader of the Opposition asked on a Wednesday that the Prime Minister should consider taking the Senate and the House of Representatives to an election. On a Thursday the Prime Minister- this was well publicised- went to Government House and obtained a dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament. It can be argued one way or the other whether the decision which was made in the Senate was the right one or the wrong one. There was a double dissolution and, in the words of Senator Douglas McClelland this afternoon, the Prime Minister was returned with a majority of 3 seats out of 127 seats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate there was a balance which was not in favour of the Government. In other words, the people made a decision inside the terms of the Constitution and awarded to the Senate a supervisory power from the time of that election to the present day.

But that argument is irrelevant because there arose in February of this year, as honourable senators will recollect, the first rumours of a massive attempt to raise money for temporary purposes. That was the result of the infamous socalled Executive Council meeting that took place on that night in December. I am sure no honourable senator sitting on the Government side is any more happy than I am that an attempt was made to obtain from the Executive Council, when the Vice-President of the Executive Council was not present, a minute to authorise one Minister to raise a loan of $4,000m. Sir Robert Menzies made mention in a statement which he issued last week of the kerbside opinion put down by the Attorney-General of the day, who will be well remembered by honourable senators, that the money could be ascribed as being for temporary purposes. Then the Senate proceeded to go to work to try to discover the real facts that lay behind that Executive Council minute and the mandate that was extended to Mr Connor.

Eventually that culminated in an attempt by the Senate to bring before the Bar of the Senate some public servants in order to throw some light, through them, upon this murky constitutional process that had taken place. Ever since that day this chamber has been frustrated by the Prime Minister. This chamber was frustrated on that day, and it was frustrated because the Prime Minister directed the public servants to refuse to answer questions addressed to them by the Senate of Australia. I have put down some submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges on this matter. I came clearly to the opinion, which has not been contravened by anyone as far as I can discover, that the Prime Minister in that instance behaved illegally. He had no right to make threats or to issue instructions to public servants appearing before the Bar of the Senate to refuse to answer questions, and the reason that he had no right to do that is that there was no Crown privilege involved. Crown privilege derives from what is known as the prerogative power. It is an undefined power, except in relation to certain areas where the definition is clear and concise. It is this: The prerogative power does not extend to any area that is barred by the Constitution or is barred by statute. It is clear and demonstrable that the issue of such a minute from the Executive Council directly contravenes section 105a of the Constitution.

We were able to extract some further information that the money was for temporary purposes, which was manifestly a lie. So we had the curious situation of the Prime Minister directing public servants appearing before this chamber to refuse to answer questions on the basis that to do so would be a breach of Crown privilege, whereas in fact the Prime Minister himself was in breach of the Constitution as he was claiming privilege for an area in which there existed no privilege because an illegal act had occurred. The Senate has been pursuing that matter in the interests of the people whom it is elected to represent. There are some subsequent chapters in this story. Question after question was asked. As the Parliament probed in another place and in this place more and more started to filter out, although we all recall that the Prime Minister had stated that the last of the information had been disclosed and that Senator James McClelland, who is not present in the chamber at the moment, made that famous or infamous statement on television, that the Australian electorate or the people of Australia had learned all that they are entitled to know- a quality of arrogance that has not been seen for a long time. In my time, anyway, I have never seen it.

What happened after that? We then got into another curious situation, the one to which reference already has been made this week. I refer to the ACTU-Solo operation where 400 000-odd barrels of oil disappeared into the embrace of a company that was created shortly after a court case was held in Victoria. We have been trying to probe that. I wonder what was in the minds of Senator Wriedt and Senator Douglas McClelland yesterday when they spoke in reply to Senator Wright. It is very interesting to go over the report of the proceedings in the Senate yesterday. At page 1477 of yesterday’s Senate Hansard Senator Wriedt is reported as saying:

I should have thought that if there were grounds for believing that there was some error in the Commission’s findings, then other persons also would have undertaken to present a case to the Commission and to appear before it.

I assume that that is an invitation to appear before it.

Senator Georges:

– Take it whichever way you like.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I assume that Senator Georges is speaking on behalf of his colleagues and that the invitation has been extended. Is that so? Let us assume that there is an invitation. Perhaps we can give some consideration to it.

Senator Georges:

– Go ahead. The Commission is still sitting.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-Would Senator Georges favour it? At page 1485 of yesterday’s Senate Hansard the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland), in one of his hortatory moods, is reported as having said:

Having regard to what Senator Webster has just said, it appears that even royal commissioners who do not bring in the right findings as far as the Opposition is concerned are to have their reputations challenged.

Then at page 1486 he is reported as saying:

Time after time the Government has said that if the Opposition has any evidence to present it should present it not to this Parliament but to the royal commission that was established by the Government as long ago as 1973.

Further on he said:

I now invite the Opposition if it has any evidence to present to His Honour Mr Justice Collins. . . .

As I understand that the administration of royal commissions comes within the portfolio of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, am I to understand that he now invites the Opposition to appear before this royal commission and that he will lend his support to any procedures that we are invited to assume and undertake? I pose the question: Am I entitled to assume that? There is some more to be found out in this ACTU-Solo matter.

We come to the third scandal that has occurred in the last few days, that is, the information that was finally leaked out or got out, or is now at large anyway, that the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) had advised the President of the Australian Labor Party of the contents of the Budget before they were divulged to the Parliament.

Senator Georges:

– He announced it himself; it was not leaked.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-Well, however it happened, he announced it. There was some news about it, anyway. Why did not he announce it at the time when he presented the Budget? Why did he not say: ‘Honourable members, I have provided to the President of the Australian Labor Party information that is now in this Budget which I am about to put before this honourable House. I have made the President of the Australian Labor Party privy to the contents of the Budget’? Why did he not say that?

We are not in a great constitutional crisis in the sense that has been advocated and argued by Government senators or by Government supporters in another place, but we are in a crisis where the authority of the Parliament is being directly challenged by the Prime Minister who refuses to disclose to the Australian people the elements of corruption which involve him or some of his Ministers, whom he has acknowledged were involved in it in the last 12 months- since December 1973. Parliament is entitled to this information. Parliament is entitled to know whether it can place its trust in the Government. Parliament is entitled to know whether it should provide money for a government which has been demonstrably found out to be unworthy of holding the seals of office which have been accorded to it. An obscure fog has been thrown over things by the Government propaganda machine. Various groups throughout the community have been encouraged to hold meetings and to send letters and telegrams saying that the convention has been breached. No convention has been breached. What has been activated and motivated at the present time is the Senate which, for the first time in 75 years, has had to reach for the constitutional power that is given to it to deal with matters of the high and scandalous nature with which we are involved. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment that has been moved. I hope that now and forever the scribblers around this place will go and report, which they will not, that there is no one in the Opposition in the Senate at the moment -

Senator Wood:

– There is one scribbler.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK-Yes. I am sure that members of my Party and members of Senator Drake-Brockman’s Party will not be intimidated by this mass of propaganda that is emanating from government departments, from the 700 reporters whom they employ. They are given access to radio stations, such as 2JJ in Sydney which Senator Douglas McClelland mentioned yesterday. They are using government money, they are using government air waves and government stations to disperse propaganda on behalf of this Government. We are approaching an era which will solve itself, I hope, in the next week or 10 days. We are approaching an era where the Parliament has to be authoritative; the Parliament must rule. If the Parliament withdraws the trust that it reposes in a government, then in the words of the Prime Minister that government must go to the people.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I join in this debate in the hope that the Bills will be passed on this occasion. If we are to be practical about things, when we listen to the waffle coming from the other side of the chamber we must say that it is a very sad day for democracy. I wish to give some quotations of things which were said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in the other place. I think it is important that they should go on the record. The first statement was made on an electoral radio talk on 2 March 1975 by none other than the Leader of the Opposition in another place. He said:

If the Parliament becomes unworkable by destruction of convention, democracy itself becomes unworkable because democracy rests much more on adherence to convention than to the rigid application of rules and laws.

The next statement is from a story entitled ‘A National View’ by Mr Malcolm Fraser, which is to be found in a book entitled Looking at the Liberals which was written by Dr Aitchison in 1 974. The same gentleman said:

There is a pattern of behaviour in government out of which good policies will tend to flow. On the contrary, if long-established conventions of political behaviour are discarded, government is likely to become arbitrary, haphazard and even dangerous. The way things are done is as important as what is done.

On 9 April 1972 the same gentleman when addressing the Liberal Speakers’ Group Conference in Melbourne, said:

Nearly 200 years ago, Edmund Burke drew the terms of reference to my address in a concise and much quoted sentence. He said ‘Your representative owes to you not just industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

I suspect we would be better off if politicians merely asked how to be responsible. Public evidence of responsibility is a policy for achieving, if not popularity, at least respect, and that is as much as a politician can hope for.

Mr Fraser by his recent actions has lost even respect. In the National Times on 21 February 1972 there appeared an article written by Mr D. J. Killen. Honourable senators will remember that Mr Killen was a very strong supporter of the then Prime Minister, Mr John Gorton. This is an extract from that article in which Mr Killen stated:

One of the worst infringements of the conventions of cabinet government which has ever occurred took place in Australia.

In March 1971 Malcolm Fraser resigned from the Gorton Government. The ostensible reason he gave to Parliament for his resignation was that Mr Gorton did not repudiate a report involving Mr Fraser.

Views on that issue remain unsettled. But the really remarkable part of Mr Fraser’s speech lay in his criticism of an incident that took place eight months before his resignation.

In his speech to Parliament, Mr Fraser claimed that a plan was prepared in July 1970, for a call-out of the Pacific Islands Regiment to deal with possible confrontation with the Mataungan Association in the Gazelle Peninsula.

Mr Fraser further claimed that he knew nothing of the plan until July 14, and that the plan had not been approved of by the Cabinet.

Mr Fraser himself admitted that the Cabinet did meet on July 19, and he, Mr Fraser, signed the call-out order.

. If Mr Fraser had felt aggrieved by any action of Mr Gorton regarding the call-out order, then he should have promptly resigned. He chose not to. He let eight months go by before voicing his complaint. . . Mr Fraser chose to ignore a fundamental convention of government. The cosmetic of time may or may not hide the blemish.

I submit that the cosmetic of time has not hidden the blemish. Mr Fraser in those circumstances signed a document which he either apparently did not remember signing or chose not to remember that he had signed, and then left it for a period of 8 months before he brought his leader down in flames. More recently, and shortly after his election to the leadership, Mr Fraser said:

The basic principle which I adhere to strongly is that a Government that continues to have a majority in the House of Representatives has a right to expect that it will be able to govern.

He also has repudiated that statement. Yesterday I received in the mail a letter from a well known businessman, whose name and address I am not going to quote in the extract that I will read into Hansard but it will be available if the Leader of the Opposition ever succeeds in getting any sort of inquiry into these sorts of things. The letter relates to the present crisis in the Federal House and com mences:

Dear Jim,

Cannot you get it across to Gough that Mr Kemlani, is a con man and on his own admission a deserter to the Japanese, like thousands of his countrymen in the last war, therefore a deserter from the British Forces.

On his own admission in the Courier Mail he interrogated Australian Prisoners of War on behalf of the Japanese and therefore a War Criminal, because you know full well what they meant by interrogation on the Burma Railway.

Why on earth was a War Criminal given a visa to this Country, and no wonder he never left his Hotel, he just may have run into someone who remembered the men of our Army who were kicked to death by Indian and Pakastani deserters, or is their memory too short. The RSILA is also strangely silent on the Subject, but kick up a great fuss about the attempts of the Labor Council in Brisbane about the realignment of Anzac Square with the cry ‘Lest we Forget’. Well the people have forgotten pretty smartly.

Kemlani is also a Undischarged Bankrupt in Wales to the tune of £8 1 5,000, wi.th a few odd thousand thrown in.

Have him grabbed as soon as he returns and see the results. They hanged a Japanese General who never personally hurt anyone, yet this fellow is given the V.I.P. treatment by the opposition.

That statement was made by a man who is a prominent businessman and who travels around the world a fair bit. I think perhaps the Khemlani incident is summed up in the cartoon which appeared this morning in the Melbourne Age. It shows the unpacking of all the ports producing one pair of dirty underpants, with the statement: Is this all you’ve got?’

All those statements prove the pertinent point that not only is Mr Fraser in a situation where he can lead his Party into wrecking the economy of this country and wrecking the lives of thousands of people, but also that he was a totally deceitful Minister in the days when he held a portfolio. They prove that today he is a dishonest leader because he is setting two standards, two sets of principles. He is a totally devious man and he is no longer respected by the Australian people. It is going to be only a matter of time before he is toppled from the leadership by his own Party. I suspect that within the next 8 or 10 weeks the Liberal Party will elect a new leader. The man standing in the wings, of course, has the same failings and excesses as his current leader. Nevertheless, he is much more suitable to the multinationals and others who are guiding the policies of the Liberal Party today.

We have heard Senator Young and others, and it is significant- (Quorum formed) I think there is a matter of great significance here. There is tremendous turmoil in the Liberal Party at the moment. Every possible moment has to be spent in party meetings. It is noticeable that Senator Bessell and Senator Jessop were the only 2 members of the Liberal Party who happened to be in the House. The other 27 were missing completely. They are either away having Party meetings or some of them are down in the bar working out their miseries. There has been much play over a considerable period of time by Senator Young and a couple of others on that side of the chamber who have been crying about the Press. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack got up in this chamber this afternoon and abused the members of the Press Gallery and was most dissatisfied when they walked out. I want to quote from a statement that was made last Saturday, 26 October, on radio station 2JJ, the station that is much maligned by honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. This is a statement made by a journalist:

I am a journalist working for the Murdoch group, which produces the Telegraph, the Mirror and the Australian. 1 have seen at first-hand the way news is being manipulated and distorted to make Fraser look good and to destroy the Whitlam Government.

The Australian is being run at the moment by a very strange man who gets orders every day from Rupert Murdoch in New York. This man is not the editor. In a few short months he has wrecked the Australian ‘s reputation as a responsible, intelligent paper.

In the past few weeks the following things have happened: Every headline on a political story is vetted by 2 top men, and made as anti- Whitlam as possible. The letters columns have been censored to give a false impression of the anger and strength of Labor’s support in the crisis.

Yesterday the Australian had some excellent pictures of Whitlam ‘s rally . . . pictures which, under any normal application of news values, would have been used prominently on page 1. These pictures were not allowed to be published.

The Australian also had a story on the Whitlam rally. This was ‘spiked’ too, because again it illustrated how many people supported Whitlam ‘s stand. A top executive badgered reporters, telling them the story would not be used unless they could find someone who would estimate the crowd at less than half the official estimates . . . 7000 instead of the 16000 . . .

Senator Gietzelt:

– Is that the same Mr Murdoch who claims the right of the freedom of the Press?

Senator KEEFFE:

– That is exactly the same Mr Murdoch who at the moment is running his newspapers in accordance with the directions of the multinational empires, and the stooges on the other side of the chamber are the people carrying out the orders. They are not game to go backwards because they fear what will happen to their political heads and the money they get from some of these people. Let me return to the story. This paragraph is worth repeating in toto:

A top executive badgered reporters, telling them the story would not be used unless they could find someone who would estimate the crowd at less than half the official estimates . . . 7000 instead of the 16 000, who in fact turned up. No one was prepared to write or say that, so the story was not used at all.

This is the sort of manipulation that is going on in Australia during this crisis that is causing suffering and will cause greater suffering to thousands of people. I continue in my quoting of the speech by the journalist:

Political commentaries for all the Murdoch papers have been cut to ribbons or rewritten to distort the observations of experienced, responsible Canberra correspondents. At Rupert Murdoch ‘s instruction- apparently after a phone call to Murdoch from Malcolm Fraser -

I ask honourable senators to remember that- the Australian was forced the other day to remove the key point of its story on the night the Governor-General called Fraser over to Government House. Sir John Kerr rapped Fraser over the knuckles for trying to dictate what the Queen’s representative should do . . . Fraser had even said that the Governor-General had already made up his mind, and was going to ask Whitlam to call an election: which, of course, was irresponsible rubbish.

These are the sorts of shadowy characters who are manipulating the background to this dispute, the characters who have the members of the Liberal Party captive in their hands. It is manipulation which, if pursued far enough, will bring the physical strife that we have warned about from this side of the Senate.

Senator Bonner:

– Do you want to table the document?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The honourable senator can come -

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr President, I rise to order. Standing order 4 1 7 states:

No Senator shall use the name of Her Majesty or of Her representative in this Commonwealth disrespectfully in Debate, nor for the purpose of influencing the Senate in its deliberations.

Senator Keeffe has referred to the GovernorGeneral and has made untrue assertions about what the Governor-General did and said to Mr Fraser. I understand that that statement, quite unprecedently, was denied from Government House. My submission is that the statement made by Senator Keeffe should not be made in the Senate, particularly when it has been denied. It shows the value of a standing order which says that the name of the Governor-General shall not be used in debate for the purpose of influencing Senate deliberations. No one knows what happens when the Governor-General speaks to the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition if he asks them to go before him.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I cannot understand the cringing fear of the man who has raised the point of order. This morning he tried to block me from presenting petitions in the Parliament. Now he is making a claim that in some way I am being disrespectful to the monarchy. I am quoting from a document that was written by a responsible journalist and broadcast over a responsible radio station. They are not my words. Freedom has gone from this country as Senator Greenwood wants to see it go if we have to put up with this sort of piffle and the objections that he raises in the chamber. I respectfully submit that I will give copies of the document from which I have quoted to Senator Bonner and that I will have copies make for all honourable senators. There is nothing to fear in it. It could be incorporated in Hansard. If I do so it will be a public document.

Senator Everett:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. For the second time today Senator Greenwood raises a point of order. He specifically invokes the terms of standing order 417. The only prohibitions under standing order 417 are that the name of Her Majesty or Her representative shall not be used disrespectfully. There was not the slightest disrespect in what Senator Keeffe said. The only other prohibition is that the mentioning of the name of Her Majesty or of Her representative shall not be used for the purpose of influencing the Senate. Of course, one does not rely on the fact that the Senate is capable of being influenced in this debate. The point I make is that Senator Keeffe was referring in toto only to a document. He was quoting a document. I submit to the Senate that that is not within the prohibition aimed at by standing order 4 1 7.

The PRESIDENT:

-Unfortunately I was engaged in discussing a previous breach of the Standing Orders when this matter arose. I will make my decision after I have seen the actual document. The document has been handed to me and I have read it. I rule that what is stated in it is not disrespectful in the terms of standing order 4 1 7. However, I would ask that senators be very careful in observing that standing order because it is there for a very good reason. 1 call Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Mr President, I am mindful of your earlier warning to the Senate today. I have tried to keep my remarks within the Standing Orders. I am shocked that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is using every device he can not only to ensure that the people of Australia suffer as a result of the holding up of Bills but also to ensure that free debate no longer takes place in the Parliament. I have received an open letter signed by 378 people of the University of New England. I want to quote the contents of this letter because I believe for the sake of democracy it also ought to appear in the Hansard record. It reads as follows:

We the undersigned members of the staff of the University of New England, supporters of the major political parties and of none, beg the Senate to reconsider its decision to defer supply.

Jealous guardianship of unwritten constitutional conventions, based on precedent, is the firmest guarantee of liberty and order in any country. The mother of parliaments at Westminster, as Senators doubtless know, has no written constitution at all.

From the birth of the Commonwealth until 1974 no Senate had rejected, or deferred indefinitely, a money Bill. Since 1911 it has been generally accepted that the upper House in every British-style parliament has no power to do so. That this is an unwritten part of our Constitution only makes it the more important.

By its action the Senate has set an example which places social order and democratic government itself in jeopardy. The Governor of Queensland has already been encouraged to improve on the Senate’s lesson by committing a gross breach of that political impartiality which it is the first duty of the Queen’s representative to uphold, lt will be astonishing if such exalted examples of wrongdoing do not provoke emulation in other quarters. If the Senate succeeds in imposing its will on the House of Representatives then future governments, whatever their political principles, could be forced to an election every six months. No government on earth could perform its work responsibly and efficiently under such circumstances; yet this is the situation which the Senate majority, by its present actions, is inevitably bringing into existence.

We beg the Senators to think again and we urge other concerned citizens to do whatever they can to influence senators along these lines.

The letter states that the original signatures by N. D. Crew, P. K. Elkin and R. B. Ward, are held at the university. Mr President, I seek leave to have the list of signatures incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr President, I want to make only two or three more points and then I will finish my contribution. We had the unhappy situation yesterday of the great Khemlani documents, or was it a dirty pair of underpants as one cartoonist put it, being examined by none other than an eminent member of the legal profession. I wonder what sort of pressures are being applied to Mr Ellicott when he is able to make one statement in Sydney and after holding a conference with the Leader of the Liberal Party he makes a contradictory statement. It is obvious that physical and mental pressure of tremendous depth are being applied to people opposite who dare to make something in the line of a public statement that is not strictly consistent with the orders which are received from the faceless men behind the Liberal Party.

I was disappointed today when Senator Bonner made his contribution to the debate. I know for a fact that every Aborigine in Australia has suffered as a result of the holding up of these money Bills in the Senate by the Liberal and National Country parties. I know that every Aborigine in Australia who has enough money for the cost of a telegram, a letter or a telephone call has been contacting Senator Bonner begging him to relieve the distress which Aborigines are suffering at this time. My final comment will be upon the contribution made by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. He talked in a rhetorical way about the scandals of the Government. He must have a very short memory. I wonder whether Senator Sir Magnus Cormack remembers the scandal of the VIP flights when he in the Senate and a Minister and a Prime Minister in another place suppressed information for week after week. It was only because one man in the Liberal Party who has since been expelled from the Party was able to bring forward information that the matter was cleaned up.

I wonder if the honourable senator remembers the story of a Prime Minister- the last Liberal Prime Minister or Tory Prime Minister that this country is going to see for a long time- who, associated with friends, was able to do a very shady deal on the sale of aeroplanes owned by a so-called Jet-Air company. I wonder if the honourable senator remembers the money brokers in New York who have done a lot to bring about this crisis because they feared that there might have been other areas from which this Government might raise its overseas loan. For years certain people have been getting a pay-off at the hands of the Liberal Party. It has gone on year after year in the foreign moneyraising field. I wonder if Senator Cormack remembers the 500 kids that he and the members of his Party killed in Vietnam. His Party entered into a war for which it could find no justification by way of correspondence. It was when we became the Government that the present Opposition admitted that in fact there had been no real invitation from South Vietnam. I wonder if honourable senators opposite remember how in 1963 millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers’ money was committed to buy the FI 1 1 as a political gimmick. The plane has now been delivered. It was a deal which the Labor Party was committed to go ahead with. Nevertheless, the plane is not as satisfactory as it ought to be and it is much more expensive than this country can afford with the amount of defence that it is able to maintain. I submit again that the moral duty, the legal duty, the conventional duty, and the duty in accordance with political customs, of members of the Opposition is to let these 2 Bills through at the end of this debate and to cease the misery that the Opposition is causing everybody in this country.

Senator Poyser:

- Mr President I rise to a point of order at this stage after the completion of Senator Keeffe ‘s speech. 1 refer to standing order, 59, which states:

When the attention of the President, or of the Chairman of Committees, has been called to the fact that there is not a quorum of Senators present, no Senator shall leave the Chamber until the Senate has been counted by the President.

During the quorum that was called a short time ago an Opposition senator entered the chamber, moved to the front seats and, seeing that a quorum had been called, he again left the Senate before the quorum was counted in an obvious endeavour to make sure that a quorum did not continue in the House. I can name the senator but I shall not do so. However, 1 think at this stage that if this practice is going to continue a ruling from you, Mr President, should be given indicating clearly that it is very wrong, under standing order 59, for a senator to so leave the chamber, once having entered it, to try to embarrass any speaker who may be then on his feet.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question that has been raised is one on which rulings have been given in the past. I can refer to those rulings immediately to deal with the point of order. At page 102 of Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice it is stated:

Senators having entered the Chamber after the time appointed for the meeting of the Senate are not permitted to withdraw prior to a Senate being formed, i.e., a quorum of at least one-third the whole number of Senators.

Senators may leave the Chamber at any other time, except when the President is putting a Question, when a quorum is called for, or after the doors are locked during a Division.

Then on page 145 it is stated that it is against practice for a senator to leave the chamber once a quorum has been called. I mention to all honourable senators that it is not very often that this matter is called into question. But I ask honourable senators to observe the practice according to which once a quorum is called, for the business of the Senate to continue, senators should remain in the chamber. There is no power for any other action to be taken.

Senator BESSELL:
Tasmania

– I think we all remember that as Senator Keeffe sat down- or as he was about to sit down- he called on the Senate to pass the Appropriation Bills. I think that that is a forlorn hope on his part. He knows full well what is likely to happen a little later. Perhaps we should ponder a little on what was asked for in the the amendment to those Bills. If we look at the gallup polls that were released today we see that the Opposition still has 50 per cent of the support of the people and the Labor Party 43 per cent.

Senator Poyser:

– That was 10 days ago.

Senator BESSELL:

-That was today. This is the gallup poll that was quoted by Senator James McClelland earlier. If those figures had been reversed I would not think there would be very much risk that the Government would not do what the amendment asks of it. It is purely a question of numbers- that is what politics is all about. I think the gallup poll results are indicative of the reasons for the Government on this occasion resisting going to the people and asking them again for their judgment on the Government’s record over the last 14 to 16 months. On the previous occasion the gallup polls seem to be fairly accurate and the Government went rather willingly to the people. On this occasion, when it has been asked to submit itself again to the judgment of the people, with the gallup polls not showing the support for the Government that they were showing on the previous occasion, we see the Government refusing to accept the challenge and go to the people. As Senator Bunton said earlier, the democratic place is the people’s place and it is the people who make the decision. We are the agents of the people, good or bad.

I should like to take this opportunity on a money Bill to bring up something that has worried me and that I know has worried a lot of other people for a long time. There has been a good deal of argument about the pros and cons of the Appropriation Bills as such and other matters related to them. The matter 1 should like to raise is the situation that we find today in the potato industry in Australia where, because of lack of action by the Government rather than action by the Government, we find that that industry is in a rather parlous situation. Had the opportunities available to the Government been taken up -

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. My point of order is that I think the honourable senator is under the misapprehension that this is a debate on the first reading of a money Bill. It is not the debate on a first reading; it is a motion to restore money Bills to the notice paper. I cannot quite locate the appropriate Standing Order but I know that there is a Standing Order providing that a senator is entitled to address himself to either a matter which is relevant or non-relevant- 1 think it is referred to as non- relevant- on the first reading debate of a money Bill. But this is not a first reading debate. It is a debate to restore the Appropriation Bills to the notice paper. Therefore I think that the honourable senator is under a misapprehension and I ask for your ruling, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– The motion which is before the Chair was moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and is as follows:

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the order of the day for the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and the order of the day for the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 be now restored to the notice paper and that they be orders of the day for a later hour of this day.

An amendment has been moved to this motion. I do not think that Senator Bessell was under the impression that this was the first reading debate on the money Bill. The Appropriation Bills lend themselves to fairly wide-ranging debate, but I hope that Senator Bessell will connect up his remarks as closely as possible to the motion before the Chair.

Senator BESSELL:

-Thank you, Mr President. I thought I was starting to give one of the reasons why this Government should stand condemned for lack of action in this field. It has been very obvious that right throughout the term of its office the Government has disregarded the welfare of one section of the community, the section of the community engaged in primary industry.

A lot of things have happened in primary industry, many of them of course beyond the control of government. They are related to international market fluctuations, prices and matters over which the Australian Government has no control or very little control. But the Government has an important responsibility of rather large magnitude. We have seen the wool industry go through a period of problems which have been somewhat overcome. We have seen the beef industry facing a major problem. Again there has been no action taken notwithstanding the report of the Industries Assistance Commission which has suggested certain measures that the Government may take to assist or alleviate the situation in some part at least. Unfortunately, all too recently exactly the same situation developed in the dairying industry. Because of the enormous buildup and stockpile of powdered milk the dairying industry, in some instances, is receiving up to 10c a lb less for butterfat in milk than it was receiving at this time last year.

I come back to the topic I was discussing before I was interrupted and that is the situation we have in the potato industry. This industry has been of extreme importance to the people in the area particularly where Senator Devitt and I live. It is important not only to the people in that part of Tasmania but also to people in many other parts of the Commonwealth. It is an industry which has been up and down. It has fluctuated wildly due to seasonal conditions, disease and market price. One of the big problems this industry faces at the present moment arises from the importation of enormous amounts of frozen french fries and the Government has taken no action of any sort to exercise any degree of restraint. These imports have been coming into the country at prices which are very competitive for the home grown product.

Naturally the home grown product is the best product. But it suffers the disadvantage of being grown in an area where costs are increasing rapidly. Freight charges are going up. The cost of fertiliser has gone up because of the withdrawal of the bounty. The cost of wages, machinery and fuel has gone up. Of necessity these increases must be reflected in what can be accepted as the cost of the product. Over and above that is the profit margin, if any is left to the growers. But what has happened in the last 12 months? An enormous amount of produce of this kind has been allowed into the country, and notwithstanding questions that have been asked from both sides of the chamber of the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) and of Senator Wriedt when he was Minister for

Agriculture, no effective Government action has yet been taken to limit or to control in any way the volume of the imports. This has had a tremendously important effect on the industry.

In large parts of Tasmania- and I guess the same applies to some other parts of Australia- an evolution is taking place in the potato growing industry in that the State is starting to process rather large quantities of potatoes. In one instance a factory had purchased the machinery to undertake this processing. It left the machinery in storage and subsequently made alternative arrangements. This denied to the people who lived in that area an opportunity for further employment. This happened in a situation where we see something like 300 000 people out of work in Australia. Because the Government has not taken any action we look with some doubt at the record of the Government in accepting or acting upon any of the IAC reports with regard to rural industry. We note that a few months ago- in fact, I think it was in July of this year- the Special Minister of State on 1 1 July 1975 sent a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission on the question of long term assistance to this industry in terms of supplying both the fresh market and the local processing market. His response to a question I asked him this morning- I did not know at that time that I would have an opportunity to discuss this matter- made it fairly evident that no quick answer would come from the IAC. It may well be that the Commission’s report, when it comes, will be valuable as so many other reports have been. But if the Government refuses to accept or just ignores the reports, it is fairly obvious that referring matters to the Commission is a waste of time and a waste of the expertise which the IAC has built up in recent years.

We have seen a number of these reports. I mentioned some of them briefly a few moments ago. They are all excellent reports. The then Senator Murphy, who is now Mr Justice Murphy, also sent a reference to the IAC when it was his responsibility with regard to the situation in the tomato industry’. I shall quote a brief section from the recommendations to indicate the sort of action which I feel could be of tremendous value to the potato industry. I do not know whether any action has yet been taken on this recommendation.

The recommendation states:

The landed cost of imports-

Of course this refers to tomatoes and not potatoes- under by-law are equated with an established local price. This could be achieved by the duty free admission of that portion of each shipment (the balance being subject to the full substantive duty) as is necessary to arrive at a composite landed into store cost over the whole importation equal to the established local price; and conditions to prevent stockpiling of the goods are imposed.

Further in the report it states quite clearly and categorically that the recommendation of the Commission is that, should any produce come in under lowered tariff, that must be cleared from the market before the next season begins so as not to interfere in any way at all with the cost in the subsequent year.

This has not happened in the potato industry. This matter is of very grave import to the people in my State. When we look at the figures supplied by the Department of Manufacturing Industry we realise that the figures given as importations last year represent in total 65 per cent of the average production of Tasmania over the last few years. Fairly obviously, importations of that size will have a marked effect. That has had the effect of virtually destroying both the fresh market and the processed market in Tasmania. We know that it costs $40 a tonne to send potatoes on the direct sea route to the Sydney market, which is the main market for the fresh produce. I am not sure of the figure for imports from America to Australia. I imagine it is somewhat lower than the figure I have given. This gives the imported product a marked advantage. We do know that on occasions this year processed potatoes from Canada and the United States of America were being sold at a retail price that was about 10c lower than the local product. Of course this does not take into consideration the cost incurred in the processing in either country. The effect this year in TasmaniaI guess the same applies to many of the other States- has been that plantings are down markedly on what they have been as an average over the past several years.

I know that importations of this size were a result of a low yield in the market during the 1974 harvest season.’But if the industry had been covered by and controlled by a tariff and an import restriction we would not have seen this situation continue into the harvest season for the Australian product. I shall cite some of the more pertinent figures supplied by the Department of Manufacturing Industry. I shall seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. We note that in October of last year 2 441 270 kilos of potatoes came into Australia. In the following month, November, the amount was 3 599 283 kilos. In December the amount was 2.8 million in round figures and there was a jump to 3.7 million in January.

The total quantity of frozen potatoes imported was 15 941 113 kilograms. This is an enormous quantity. What is more important is the value of these imports which was money denied to the Australian growers, many of whom this year have ploughed their potatoes into the ground or have ploughed them up for stock feed. The value of those imports was $5,71 9,639. There are other small imports with relative values, such as flour, meal and flake. The total for those imports was 1 274 579 kilograms valued at $973,813. This gives a total importation of 17 215 682 kilograms worth $6,693,442. Fairly obviously those figures should indicate to the Senate the damage which these imports can do to an industry and the damage which has been done to it. This threat is staring the potato growers in the face in the forthcoming year. What is even more disturbing is a telegram dated 25 July 1975 which was sent to one of the people in the trade regarding potato stocks and prices in the United States of America.

Senator Poyser:

– These are Khemlani potato crisps.

Senator BESSELL:

– No. These are not for temporary purposes.

The telegram reads:

The US Department of Agriculture reports current substantial excess for both fresh potatoes and frozen french fries.

Senator Keeffe:

– What has this to do with the Budget?

Senator BESSELL:

– A lack of Government action in doing something about it; that is what it has to do with the Budget. It has broken nearly everybody who is growing potatoes. The telegram continues:

In 3 billion pound Industry Cold Stores as of 30th June 1974 were 887 million pounds compared to year earlier figure of 544 million pounds. Outlook for current harvest and 1975 pack starting 1st August, is for extremely large harvest and pack- aggravating current situation. According to local Brokerage Houses, good quality french fries may be purchased for 22 cents-23 cents per lb, lower quality for 16 cents- 1 7 cents per lb and short pieces as low as 8 cent per lb.

Fairly obviously unless the Government acts quickly we will be faced with the possibility of these stocks being unloaded onto the Australian market and it may well be- I do not wish to preempt in any way the recommendations on the report of the Industries Assistance Commissionthat the Commission will bring down a recommendation somewhat similar to the one I referred to with regard to tomatoes. If the Government does not take on board what I have said and does not do something about it we will see during this current year- most areas are already planting; that is, the few that are planting- a complete breakdown in this industry which has provided a valuable cash crop for many people in many parts of Tasmania and other States. It is an opportunity for the dairy farmer, who is receiving up to 10c a pound butterfat less than he was at this time last year, to earn something from his property during the winter months when his cows are not in production.

I have discussed this problem briefly with Senator Wriedt and he is not unsympathetic to the view that some control and a careful watch must be kept on this industry. When Senator Wriedt was the Minister for Agriculture he set up a national potato advisory panel to keep himself and the Department of Agriculture informed of the growers’ wants, needs and problems in the coming years. I ask the Government to look after this primary industry and not let it get ground down and subjugated by massive imports of potatoes so that this industry which at one time was an extremely valuable industry to Australia is not destroyed.

Senator Devitt:

– The country grew on it in our area.

Senator BESSELL:

-That is right. The countrydid grow on it, as Senator Devitt said. He and I well know the magnificent areas in which we both live that are capable of and suitable for this type of production. It is an extremely important industry to the north-west coast. It is one that has potential for an enormous expansion into the frozen foods area. Nowadays people seem to prefer to buy french fries rather than peel potatoes. If we are to keep down the cost to the consumer obviously we have to go into volume production. The only way by which we can do that is by maintaining an industry which is viable and in which the volume of production is such that the unit costs can be brought back to a level which is not going to make it unreasonable. I ask the Government to have a careful look at this matter and to watch that the imports in the coming few months do not escalate like they did at this time last year.

If a situation like the one that occurred last season is not avoided people are going to go out of the industry completely in one or two seasons. The side effects of that are fairly obvious. It would affect the people who are manufacturing machinery. It would affect the people who are manufacturing containers. I heard the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) answering a question this morning with regard to the importation of jute packing. This is used quite extensively in the potato industry, particularly the fresh side of the industry. There are very many people who would be affected by the destruction of the industry. An industry that is destroyed by the lack of competent government action is an industry that is not going to have very much faith in anybody who is watching over it. The Government has a responsibility to every aspect of industry, whether it be primary or secondary. If it is going to abrogate that responsibility it may well be, as this amendment says, that it is time it went to the people for their verdict.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a short explanation arising from something that Senator Bessell said during the course of his remarks and for his edification.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDDuring the course of his remarks Senator Bessell referred to the dairy industry and mentioned that he had asked me a question this morning concerning a proposed report of the Industries Assistance Commission. He then said that he thought that it would be quite some time before the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the dairy industry was received.

Senator Bessell:

– The question I asked you this morning was with regard to the potato industry and that is what I was leading into here.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am now advised that the target date for the Commission’s report was 10 October 1975, but it has not been possible for the Commission to meet that date. I understand, however, that the report has been nearly completed. My Department has been advised by the Industries Assistance Commission that I can expect to receive the report either at the end of this week or early next week. I expect that the Commission’s report will be released publicly as soon as sufficient copies have been printed, but I have been told that the printing of sufficient copies may involve a delay of some weeks.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation concerning something about which I have been misrepresented.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator STEELE HALL:

-After I had spoken this afternoon Senator Sir Magnus Cormack read a passage which inferred that I had said that the Budget should be defeated and that I had since changed my mind. By way of interjection Senator Withers said: ‘He has seen the gallup poll’. The general inference of that was that I had changed my mind in the 24 hours since the publication of a gallup poll which showed an upsurge in Labor support. The facts of the matter in relation to any public stance on this are that what was said in the heat of the debate here on the loans affair was completely superseded by a public statement in which I was joined by Senator Bunton in this chamber on 1 1 September- many weeks before the Budget was presented- when it was made quite clear by the two of us that we would not support the defeat or deferral of the Budget. It was subsequently confirmed in a letter of warning I wrote to Mr Malcolm Fraser on, I think, the first of this month or early in this month. Therefore the situation is quite clear. There has been no recent change of view. There was a clear public statement weeks before the Budget was presented. This matter is not subject to the wilful misconstructions that Senator Withers usually puts on these matters if he can get away with it.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating a motion for the restoration of the Appropriation Bills to the notice paper so that the Senate might again grapple with the question of whether the Opposition wishes to continue delaying the passage of the Budget. It is now 2 weeks since the Opposition first announced its intention to delay the Budget in the Senate. Since that announcement was made many speeches have been made in the Senate about the course of conduct on which the Opposition has embarked. At this stage the debate might normally be very tedious. It would be but for the very grave consequences of the course which the Opposition has adopted and but for the line of argument which the Opposition has followed in its tortuous search for reprehensible circumstances to try to justify that criterion which Mr Fraser laid down when he was elected Leader of the Opposition and from which he has since departed. In the course of that tortuous and tedious search for reprehensible circumstances we have had references in this chamber and elsewhere to the loans crisis; to the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd matter; to the Khemlani crisis, the new crisis which has been inflicted on the Liberal Party; to an alleged decline in ministerial standards, the charges being made by persons who have the most reprehensible record in this regard; and today to the post facto suggestion of reprehensible circumstances which arises from the charge of a Budget leak by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden), revealed long after the decision to delay the Budget had been made.

So we have this long list of Opposition endeavours to try to justify the unprecedented action which it has taken; an action which has been taken for the first time in 75 years of Australian federation. It is all very well for people to quote Government spokesmen when they were in Opposition saying that the proper course might be to defer a budget or a Supply Bill or to vote against a Supply Bill or the proper course might be for a government to resign. It is all very well to cite all these things and to try to avoid the reality of the situation, which is this: Although those threats have been made in the past in the course of party political bluff, although comments of that sort have been made, this is the first time that this action has happened. I mention what we are debating because people might be pardoned for deciding that we are talking about something altogether different. For the first time, to that long list of attempted reprehensible circumstances to which I have referred, we have Senator Bessell from Tasmania introducing an entirely new reprehensible circumstance- the condition of the potato industry. Not content with that as a try-on as a possible reprehensible circumstance, he then referred to the situation of the tomato industry as a possible alternative reprehensible circumstance, as a possible reason for delaying the Budget. These are new and unique suggestions from the Opposition which we will no doubt have to devote a few more days to debate. After dealing at length with Mr Khemlani, after dealing at length in the Senate with the ACTU-Solo matter and the residue of the so-called loans crisis, we are now confronted with a new situation- that of the potato industry.

The Budget is being delayed on the basis of these alleged circumstances. It is being delayed, and it is the effect of that delay on the whole of Australia, on the people of Australia and on the economy which is of gravest concern both to the Government and to the people, I believe. The Budget, which contains the economic program of the Government, had a number of important aspects about it. It proposed, first of all, significant cuts in the level of government expenditure. It proposed a deficit of the order of a deficit suggested by all the commentators on economic matters and as suggested by Mr Fraser himself as an appropriate parameter in which the deficit might be.

The Budget was designed to encourage investment. Furthermore, it was designed to encourage spending and to put more money into the pockets of the people in the community by the proposed taxation cuts. The system of concessions was to be abolished and replaced by a rebate system which was much fairer and much more equitable and which would mean that every Australian would from 1 January 1976 be subject to a different tax system for the first time in 30 years. It would mean that half a million Australians would pay no tax at all. It would mean, furthermore, that many taxpayers in the middle income range would pay significantly less tax than they have paid previously. It would mean particularly that the family man would benefit considerably from the tax concessions proposed. Those are one or two positive aspects of the Budget which I feel it worth mentioning, because in all the furore about the price of potatoes and these various matters which have been raised in the debate today it is important to remember what is happening: The Budget is being delayed.

Senator Chaney:

– The Government has had its chips.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Chaney is to be congratulated. That is one of the best interjections I have heard in the whole course of the Budget debate. Senator Chaney, summoning up all of his courage, suggests that the Government has had its chips. By the way that Senator Chaney has looked in the last couple of weeks I would have thought that it was somebody else who might have had his chips. I will be coming to him in a minute, and I intend to deal with him at some length. I think the popular consensus is that perhaps that other gentleman has had his chips. But I am relating my remarks to the Budget.

The point I want to make about the Budget which is being delayed with its positive aspects is that every independent economic commentator in this country has given some credit at least to the Budget and given a lot of credit in many circumstances. Since the Budget was brought down the Australian Financial Review has referred consistently to Mr Fraser’s problem. Mr Fraser’s problem, according to the Australian Financial Review, is to bring up an alternative Budget proposal which is a viable one. Mr Fraser’s problem is to explain how he will cut government expenditure in a satisfactory manner- in a manner which will produce the results which he hopes for and which will not produce a greatly exaggerated degree of unemployment in Australia. That is Mr Fraser’s problem- or, indeed, it was Mr Fraser’s problem until he embarked upon this absurd and totally unprincipled course of delaying the Budget. Now he has a new problem.

I mention the Budget because that is what this debate is all about. I would say that the Budget has been acclaimed by independent experts as a positive and sensible one in the fight back to restore the economic situation in this country. The delay in blocking the Budget does nothing more than contribute to the economic malaise about which the Opposition senators have been talking for months. It can do nothing more than that. It has a drastic effect in contributing to business uncertainty and in contributing to all sorts of factors which upset the possibility of the proper working of the Budget and the restoration of a reasonable economic situation in this country. One must ask these questions: How sincere is the Opposition about inflation? How sincere is the Opposition about unemployment? How sincere is the Opposition about economic management?

These issues about which the Opposition used to criticise and carp have not even been referred to very much in the course of this debate. Rather it has been concerned about all sorts of matters such as Mr Khemlani, ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd and the potato industry. Some years ago this technique used to be called Sukarnoism and what it amounted to was simply an attempt to divert attention from gross ineptitude and mismanagement by raising all sorts of other issues which were totally irrelevant to the real concerns of the people. So we have had, as I say, Mr Khemlani trotted back to Australia twice as though that had some relevance to the real concerns of the people and the issues with which the Budget is concerned. This attempt by the Opposition to withdraw attention from its own inadequacies, from the inadequacies of its own economic proposals and from the inadequacies of the programs on various matters which have rather abortively been put forward in the last few weeks is a classic case of Sukarnoism

This leads me to consider for a moment the tragic decline in performance and standards of this once great Party- the Liberal Party of Australia. I think we all understand that there are 2 great traditions in the Liberal Party. There is the tradition., the mythology of the Liberal Party as the upholder of convention in Australia and the upholder of enlightened conservatism, of alternative policies and of addiction to principle and to fair play in order that the parliamentary system might survive as the basic institution of democracy as we know it. That is the myth of the Liberal Party Opposition- that it is the upholder of convention. 1 do not wish to go into the rather turgid details with which we have dealt previously in the Senate concerning the Liberal Party’s failure to comply with the great conventions of parliamentary democracy. I do not have much material to go on to discuss the Liberal Party’s alternative policies because we do not really know what they are. All we know are the various matters which I have mentioned, which the Liberal Party has tried to raise to. the level of reprehensible circumstances. The reality of the Liberal Party as distinct from the myths which I have mentioned is that in 1974, 18 months after this Government came to office, it embarked upon the course, which had never been embarked upon before in Australia, of saying: Stand and deliver. Give us a double dissolution election or we will refuse Supply’. Subsequently, on 2 occasions, the Liberal Party broke Senate convention regarding the replacement of senators.

In 1975 we get now the second version of the stand and deliver argument. The Liberal Party says: ‘Stand and deliver us an election because the gallup polls seem to suggest that we might win it. Stand and deliver us an election or the Budget will be refused ‘. These are the realities of the Liberal Party as distinct from its principles which are so often espoused as being the philosophy of the Party. The key to all this is that still the Liberal Party, the much vaunted Liberal Party, is really the handmaiden of the National Country Party. The Liberal Party began its campaign in support of its rejection or delay of the Budget with a big rally at the Myer music bowl in Melbourne. There was a list of prominent Liberal Party speakers to address that rally. At the bottom of that list there appeared these words: Guest speaker, Mr Doug Anthony’. Guest speaker, if you please- the man who devised it all in 1974, who supported Mr Bjelke-Petersen with his breaking of the convention regarding the replacement of a senator.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The ghost at Banquo’s feast.

Senator BUTTON:

-The ghost at Banquo’s feast, as Senator James McClelland so eloquently puts it. Mr Anthony is the man who again in 1975 provoked this course upon which the Liberal Party has allowed itself to embark. He is the man who is desperately concerned about one particular issue, that is, that the electorates in the House of Representatives might be redistributed in accordance with the will of the Joint Sitting of this Parliament and with the recommendations of the electoral commissioners. That is his basic concern. He is concerned about that for one very simple reason, which is that electorates which have been described by every independent commentator as fair should be the basis for the elections of this Parliament. He is concerned about the decline which the National Country Party would suffer if the votes of citizens in the cities of Australia were worth the same as the votes of citizens in certain country electorates. Mr Fraser has yielded to those pressures, and this is the reality of the Liberal Party at the moment. In May 1973 these words appeared in an article in the Melbourne Age:

And so we want a style and manner of government that wins respect. We, as Liberals, cannot rely on our opponents making political errors, for unless we demonstrate by better argument, by better policies and by behaviour which commands respect that we have earned the right to government, we will be unlikely to achieve it.

Those are the words of Mr Malcolm Fraser. How true the words are. But is it the same man talking? Will the real Mr Fraser please stand up? Is the Mr Fraser who said that, the man who sought desperately for reprehensible circumstances and then decided to allow himself to be pushed by Mr Anthony and his colleagues into this delay of the Budget? Is that the real Mr Fraser? That is what the people of Australia want to know. Which is the real one? Is it the one who replaced Mr Snedden because he was a man of principle and Mr Snedden was not? Is it the man who said that the House or Representatives was the place where the party with a majority should be allowed to continue in government? Or is it the man who in the last few weeks has sought every expedient to justify the actions which he has taken as distinct from those high sounding principles? What does he mean when he says: ‘We want a style and manner of government that wins respect. ‘? Is the Senate winning respect by its present conduct? Is the Senate winning respect by debating the situation of the potato industry when the Australian Budget is being delayed? Is the Senate winning respect by the sort of comments that have been made here today by various speakers on the Opposition side as to how many lawyers everybody has endorsing their particular position? Is that a winning of respect? Is that the sort of thing Mr Fraser was talking about.

He went on to say: ‘We cannot rely on our opponents making errors. We must demonstrate by better arguments and by better behaviour that we have earned the right to govern. If we do not do those things we will be unlikely to achieve it. ‘ I could not agree more with him, and there are many people in the Liberal Party who are beginning to think that they could not agree more with what he said in 1973. But this is the tragic situation with which the Senate is now confronted because of this action which has been taken. It is no longer a question of the sort of issues which were properly debated in this chamber a few months ago relating to economic management and so on. Those issues have gone. They have gone because the Opposition has laid down new issues; not better policies, not better arguments and not better behaviour, but a different set of issues which it hopes will do something to justify its action which, as I said before, is quite unprecedented.

The reality of the situation which we have reached now was very well expressed in last week ‘s issue of the National Times. Referring to the situation which had been reached in Australian politics, the National Times stated:

Malcolm Fraser now seems likely to have to choose from one of 3 key alternatives:

Continue to block the Budget and hope that Labor will fall apart. . . .

Of course, he could do that, but I think he would be whistling in the dark. There is not very much hope of that happening in the foreseeable future. There might have been but for this action which has been taken by the Liberal-National Country Party alliance. The second alternative was:

Dig up more dirt on the Government over the loans affair and/or the ACTU-Solo deal- and both front bench members and staff are digging very hard indeed but without apparent success.

That is the second alternative, and we know a little more about that this week. The third alternative was:

Accept a face-saving solution ‘ for the good of the country’ offered by the Governor-General.

I suppose that hope springs eternal in the Opposition ‘s heart. Hope springs eternal that the Governor-General has, in addition to his other virtues, the virtue of charity and will provide a face-saving solution for the good of the country. Of course it would be for the good of the country. That is hardly any longer a matter of serious political dispute.

-Of course, as Senator James McClelland points out, the very fact of the Labor Party’s winning office was itself a reprehensible circumstances from which the Opposition has never recovered. I say this to Opposition members: The real task that they have is not to persuade themselves in their righteous indignation and dislike of this Government that a whole set of reprehensible circumstances exists. The real task is to persuade the Australian people of that as a political exercise, quite apart from the constitutional problems which you have, quite apart from questions of political morality and quite apart from departure from the fine sounding statements which their new Leader of principle has espoused over the last few months and from which he has so consistently departed in practice. These are the real problems which the Opposition has in a political sense. What we are concerned about is to get the Budget back before the Senate and to get it passed in order that the things that the Opposition expressed concern about in months gone by- inflation, unemployment, lack of business confidence, education- could be proceeded with as a matter of the normal processes of Australian government. If that course had been followed the whole situation politically might be a little different, both for the Liberal Party and for Australia. Mr President, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1589

TIMES OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, the times of meeting of the Senate next week shall be as follows:

Tuesday- 1 1.30 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.

Wednesday- 10.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.; 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.

Thursday- 10.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.; 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.

That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day.

page 1590

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senate adjourned at 5.57 p.m.

page 1591

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 649)

Senator Missen:

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

Has the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee made any policy recommendations to the Government in the past twelve months; if so, what were they, and which of them have been accepted and acted upon by the Government.
When will the next report of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee be presented to Parliament.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes. The National Aboriginal Consultative Committee has held five national meetings following which many policy recommendations have been made. A copy of the recommendations is available in my office should honourable senators wish to consult them. Many of these recommendations have been accepted by the Government and several of them have been acted upon. Specific details will be provided to the honourable senator if he so desires.
The National Aboriginal Consultative Committee provides advice to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and is not required to report to the Parliament.

Government Grants (Question No. 719)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

Was an inter-departmental committee appointed to examine the ‘overlap of Australian Government grants’ in June 1974 as reported in July 1975; if so, when.
Were the Departments of Education, Social Security, Health, Tourism and Recreation, and the Treasury all represented on the committee; if not, which departments were represented.
Who were the members of the committee.
When did the Government receive a report or reports from the committee.
5 ) Were they made public; if so, when.
How many separate programs administered at the local level were mentioned in the reports.
What were they.
What were the recommendations contained in the reports.
Do the reports indicate that there has been a lack of co-ordination by the Government among locally based programs covering schools, health, social welfare, urban improvement and employment.
10) Do the reports specify the additional costs the duplication of programs has involved; if so, what were the costs.
What action if any has the Government taken on the recommendations contained in the reports.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

Yes; on 11 June 1974.
Yes; the Department of Urban and Regional Development was also represented.
See (2).
13 and 21 August 1974 and 10 April 1975.
No.
The programs are as follows-

Schools Commission- Innovations grants; grants to Catholic school systems; grants to individual nongovernment schools.

The Interim Committee for the Children’s CommissionLady Gowrie Centres; Interim program for preschool and child care services; Childhood Services Program.

Curriculum Development Centre.

Social Welfare Commission- Social welfare policy and services: research grant program.

Department of Health- Nursing homes capital assistance; Home Nursing subsidy; Community Health program; Flying Doctor; Blood transfusion services; Family planning; Paramedical services schemes.

Department of Social Security- Aged persons homes; Pesonal care subsidy; Aged persons hostels; Homeless persons; Community Information Centres; General grants to National Social Welfare bodies; Welfare services to migrants; Good Neighbour Movement; Family Research Project; Delivered Meals; Home Care Services; Senior Citizens Centres; Sheltered Employment Assistance; Handicapped Children Assistance; Australian Assistance plan; Special Programs- Welfare Rights Service.

DURD- Area Improvement Program; Regional Organisation Assistance Program; National Sewerage Program; National Estate; Urban local roads.

Environment and Conservation- Assistance to environmental and conservation organisations.

Australian Council for the Arts- Community Arts (and Festivals) Program; Grants Programs of the ACA Boards.

Tourism and Recreation- Assistance for leisure facilities; Innovative leisure programs; Recreation research; Sport and Fitness; Development of tourist attractions and facilities; Low cost Accommodation for Young Travellers; Youth Services.

Department of Labor and Immigration- Regional Employment Development Scheme.

In the broad the Interdepartmental Committee recommended more precise definition of programs and of departmental responsibilities; rationalisation and coordination of administration of programs’, and consultation and co-ordination by Australian Government Departments and agencies.
The Interdepartmental Committee was of the view that potential for overlap did exist but did not identify specific examples of lack of co-ordination in its report.
No.
1 1 ) It was announced on 5 February that a Committee of Ministers had been established to be concerned primarily with the Australian Government’s relations with the States and to examine programs of direct assistance to regions, local government and local communities.

In the statement on Regionalism of 18 June the Prime Minister said that ‘general acceptance of a regional policy, coupled with uniform regional boundaries, would enable coordination and harmonisation of those Australian, State and local programs delivered at the regional level’. The Australian Government is seeking the co-operation of the States in arrangements which will improve the equity, efficiency and responsiveness of its programs, particularly those locally-based, and will reduce the need for detailed coordination of projects at the Federal level.

The Committee of Ministers is giving consideration to the details of regionalisation of Australian Government administration and appropriate means of co-ordination of Australian Government activities. The recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Overlap of Government Grants, contained in its report of March 1975, are being taken into account in that consideration in the light of new policies announced after the report had been completed.

Research and Public Relations (Question No. 80S)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister for Police and Customs, upon notice:

1 ) What persons or private companies outside the Public Service have been used by the Minister’s Department for research, public relations, advice or any other purposes, since 1 July 1 973.
For what project or purpose were the services of each person or company utilized.
) What was the cost of each of the consultations referred to above.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

Many persons outside the Australian Public Service are used by the Department for a variety of services, e.g., equipment maintenance contractors, barristers, interpreters, tradesmen, occasional lecturers, etc. Details of expenditure of this nature have not been given in the following reply which lists significant payment for such matters as research, public relations and professional advice.

Education: Literacy (Question No. 834)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice:

Did the Minister say recently that, ‘Some Australian children were reaching high school without being able to read’.
For each of the last 25 years, with a breakdown by State and Territory, how many students were known to reach secondary school without being able to read and write.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

1 ) In a statement on the television program ‘Federal File’ on Sunday, 31 August 1975 1 said: ‘. . .I am assured in certain high schools . . . that children can go through the primary school reaching high school and they are not able to read. We are talking about normal children, not mentally defective children or migrant children who might have a language problem’.
Statistics are not available to me of the number of students reaching secondary school without being able to read and write. As a matter of interest and relevance, the honourable senator’s attention is drawn to the recent issue of Education News (volume 15,Nos2 + 3 1975), published by the Australian Department of Education, which contains a number of articles on the issue of literacy.

Institute of Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 887)

Senator Missen:

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

Who are the current members of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Which of the members of the Council are Aboriginals.
What does the Government see as the aims and purposes of the Institu te.
Is it expected that more Aboriginals will become members of the Council of the Institute in the near future.
What is the extent of Aboriginal involvement in the operations of the Institute, other than at Council level.
How much was spent by the Institute in each of the years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

1 ) The current members of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies are:

The members whose names are marked above with an asterisk are Aboriginals.
The aims and purposes of the Institute are defined in section 6 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act No. 56 of 1964:

(1)-

to promote Aboriginal studies: (‘Aboriginal studies’ means anthropological research and study in relation to the Aboriginal people of Australia (including research and study in respect of culture and languages) section 4).
to publish, or assist in the publication of, the results of Aboriginal studies;
to encourage and assist co-operation amongst universities, museums and other institutions concerned with Aboriginal studies; and
to assist universities, museums and other institutions in training research workers in the fields relevant to Aboriginal studies.
1. The Institute shall carry out its function of promoting Aboriginal studies primarily by giving financial and other assistance to the carrying on of Aboriginal studies under the auspices of universities, museums or other institutions, but the Institute may, subject to this Act and to such extent as appears to the Council to be necessary in order to complement the Aboriginal studies so carried on, contribute to the furtherance of Aboriginal studies by employing or engaging persons for the purpose of carrying on, or by directly assisting persons carrying on, those studies. ‘

Since 1 972 the Institute has also taken on responsibility for research into current Aboriginal situations and for carrying out a national program of Aboriginal Site recording. The Institute has established several committees to further this work, namely: The Education Advisory Committee, The Aboriginal Advisory Committee, The Sites of Significance Advisory Committee, The Publications Committee and the Ecology Committee. It is also involved in carrying out studies of issues such as the Aboriginal view of the White legal system, mobility patterns in and out of Darwin, attitudes towards housing, etc.

The membership of the Council of the Institute is determined by section 12 of the Act and comprises 22 persons, namely:
1. The Principal;
2. Two members of the Senate appointed by the Senate;
3. Two members of the House of Representatives appointed by that House;
4. d) Six persons appointed by the Governor-General;
5. Eleven members of the Institute elected by members of the Institute in accordance with the rules.

Of the six nominees of the Governor-General four are Aboriginals and of the eleven elected members two are Aboriginals. The increase in the Aboriginal membership of the Council is a matter for the Council to consider.

Aboriginals sit on several Council Committees including the Executive Committee, the Research and Membership Committee, the Publications Committee and the Education Advisory Committee. The Aboriginal Advisory Committee of the Council comprises members drawn from both traditional and urban areas and its members are invited to attend meetings of other Committees. Aboriginals are trained and employed in the Institute’s Sites of Significance Program and there is considerable Aboriginal involvement in the collaboration between the Institute and the Aboriginal Arts Board. Aboriginals are now eligible for associated membership of the Institute as well as for full membership in their own rights.
The following sums were spent by the Institute: 1972-73, $605,673; 1973-74, $1,549,434; 1974-75, $1,652,874.

Aborigines: Grants (Question No. 897)

Senator Rae:

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

1 ) How many projects, enterprises, grants, etc., within the control of the Minister have not had adequate supervision of their expenditure, since the Queensland Turtle Farm project was found to be inadequately financially controlled.
Will the Depanment be paying to the New South Wales Foundation for Aboriginal Affairs the $80,000 requested by it, together with the subsequent $16,000 per month for administration.
How much additional unplanned expenditure will be required over and above the $4,334 paid on 25 September for Aboriginal Self Help Enterprises in Western Australia.
What additional supervisory measures have been adopted by the Department to control expenditure since the Turtle Farm scandal.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

1 ) None. Funds against approved grants are released in quarterly instalments subject to the production of accounts in respect of previous releases and wherever possible Funds Recipients are required to employ accountants to assist in controlling expenditure.
No. $40,000 has been paid to the Foundation against a budgeted amount of $120,000 for 1975-76. Following a meeting with the Minister recently, the Foundation has agreed to a detailed examination of its activities and expenditures, and this has commenced. While the investigation is proceeding, $24,000 is being released to cover the Foundation’s operations from 1 September to 30 November on the basis of $8,000 per month.
$30,000 has been budgeted for Aboriginal Self Help Enterprises in Western Australia during the current financial year of which possibly $27,000 will be available for the purchase of land subject to investigation and approval. No further fund requirements are anticipated at this stage.
All grants paid out by the Department are subject to a set of Financial Rules which require quarterly accounting statements and an audited financial statement at the end of each year and cover the normal requirements of any financial management system. In addition, funds approved for each project are released on an instalment basis subject to previous funds being duly acquitted, and progress reports, as well as accounting statements, are scrutinised in the Department for deficiencies that may. be revealed in the management of the projects.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19751029_senate_29_s66/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate29 October 1975

PETITIONS

Income Tax

Senator GIETZELT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator GIETZELT:

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator KEEFFE:QUEENSLAND

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator McINTOSH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McINTOSH:

Senator Greenwood:

Senator Gietzelt:

Senator Greenwood:

Senator Wheeldon:

Senator Missen:

Senator Everett:

Senator Webster:

Senator Keeffe:

Senator Rae:

Senator Keeffe:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Keeffe:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Keeffe:

Senator Withers:

Senator Douglas McClelland:Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Douglas McClelland:Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Withers:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator WITHERS:Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

Senator Keeffe:

Senator WITHERS:

Senator Baume:

Senator Douglas McClelland:Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT:

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator MELZER:VICTORIA

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator BROWN:VICTORIA · ALP

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Senator McLAREN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McLAREN:

Budget Bills

Senator BUNTON:NEW SOUTH WALES

The Clerk:

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

Loan Bill and Appropriation Bills

QUESTION

NOTICES OF MOTION

The PRESIDENT:

Senator WITHERS:

Senator Georges:

Senator WITHERS:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator WITHERS:

Senator Douglas McClelland:Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DEVITT:Tasmania

Senator JESSOP:South Australia

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE APPROPRIATION BILLS

Senator GREENWOOD:

Senator James McClelland:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator POYSER:VICTORIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

BUDGET BRIEFING

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIEDT:Minister for Minerals and Energy · TASMANIA · ALP

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator DEVITT:

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

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY: FLOODS

Senator BUNTON:

Senate
29 October 1975

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BUNTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · TASMANIA · ALP

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

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Police and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP