Download Fragment

Thursday, 31 May 1979

Senator McLAREN (South Australia) - I commence this speech where I unfortunately had to leave off on Tuesday when I was speaking on Appropriation Bill (No. 3). I had not completed my speech when a series of events overtook the Senate and I was given an enforced holiday. However, what I was--

Senator Douglas McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) - You got headline news.

Senator McLAREN - I did get headline news. I am pleased that the newspaper from which I was quoting now has been featured on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald and in a cartoon in today's Australian Financial Review. It depicts the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) looking over the shoulder of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and using those words which I was removed from the Senate for using. Three of the most important newspapers in the country have used those words. I think the average taxpayer in the community has the message and knows that the Government has broken all the election promises it made in 1975 and 1977. Most of the people I talk to are hoping that they will get an early chance to go again to the ballot box to put this Government where it deserves to be.

Senator Puplickspoke earlier tonight on the first reading of these Bills. His speech is the type of speech of which we will hear many in this Senate until the pre-selection ballot is held in New South Wales. To try to enhance his preselection chances he had to launch a real diatribe of nonsense against the New South Wales Labor Government. 1 will not delve into that tonight because I am sure my colleagues will answer Senator Puplick next week. When we look at the task in front of Senator Puplick we find that three Liberal Party senators from New South Wales will come up for election at the next half Senate election. They are the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, Senator Scott and Senator Puplick. When we look at the last State election results in New South Wales we realise that one of those senators has to miss out. Whoever is unlucky enough to be No. 3 on the ticket can look to other fields to occupy his time after 30 June 1981. Without a shadow of doubt three Australian Labor Party senators from New South Wales will be returned at the next half Senate election.

Let us look at the position in my State. The three senators from the Government side who will face re-election in South Australia are the President of the Senate, the previous speaker, Senator Davidson, and Senator Jessop. Of course the President is prohibited from making any preselection speeches in this place but we can expect to hear a few from Senator Davidson and Senator Jessop. While the proceedings of the Senate were being broadcast last night Senator Jessop launched his campaign for pre-selection by trying to convince any of the people who might have been listening to him- I understand there were quite a few because I have received a few messages today to which I will refer- about funding for the Stuart Highway in the mid-north of South Australia. Some of these messages I have received today were not complimentary to Senator Jessop so I do not think he did his preselection campaign any good by the way he behaved here last night.

I can see Senator Davidson nodding his head. I suppose he is very pleased with the way Senator Jessop performed last night. At the present stage I think Senator Davidson would be at short odds to finish in front of Senator Jessop on the Senate ticket. But of course the Government parties cannot win three of the positions. They will be able to get only two up, if they get that many. Senator Chipp is claiming that the Australian Democrats perhaps will win the fourth seat in South Australia. Labor will win three seats, the Democrats will win the fourth and the Liberal Party will win the other one. We will see a big gap on the benches opposite after the next half Senate election is held. Honourable senators presently sitting opposite will be sitting on this side because we will be back in government.

Senator MARTIN (QUEENSLAND) - Ah!

Senator McLAREN - It is all very well for Senator Martin to say: 'Ah! ' She knows full well that the Government's prestige in the electorate today is at rock bottom.

Senator MARTIN (QUEENSLAND) - Are you talking about Queensland?

Senator McLAREN - Queensland is another story. There is every chance that we will win three seats in Queensland. When Queensland senators speak next week in this place in answer to Senator Puplick who accused the New South Wales Labor Party and tell the story of how the Premier of Queensland conducts his Parliament, the stocks to Government senators will go down again unless they dissociate themselves from the way the Queensland Parliament is run. Of course wc know the battle that is going on here at present with the Victorian senators. Victorian Labor senators next week will remind the Senate that the Victorian Parliament reopened just the other day after being closed for six months. Again the spectacle of the old land deals is coming forward. The Victorian Premier assured the electors of Victoria prior to the last election that the land deal matters were cleaned up. No sooner did the Victorian Parliament open, on the very first day, than the skeletons in regard to crooked land deals started falling out of the cupboard again. The police have been called in. I have mentioned only three States where the Government is in real trouble. Today, in the debate on the statement by Senator Carrick which tried to get Senator Webster off the hook, we had the spectacle of Senator Walters making all sorts of claims against the Labor Party. She tried to hoodwink the people into believing that the Liberal Party is a united body. I want to refer to a speech on the divisions in the Liberal Party made by Mr Fred Daly just prior to the Liberal Government under Mr McMahon being annihilated in 1972. In a speech on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) on 16 September 1971, as recorded at page 1462 of the House of Representatives Hansard,Mr Daly said in part:

Senator Mulvihill - It was like the Packer cricket circus.

Senator McLAREN - That is right, Senator Mulvihill, but all of this took place in 1971, just prior to the defeat of the Liberal Government. Now we see that the wheel has turned full circle. All of these things are happening again in this Federal Government. In the space of eight years we find that the Liberal Party is again in a crisis situation. As I said in my remarks this afternoon, we witnessed the spectacle last night of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) having to sit in this chamber from eight o'clock until twenty-three minutes past two, without having the opportunity to leave the chamber. She was deserted by her Cabinet colleagues. They must all have been away swarming, trying to avert the crisis that they were facing. They have all of the back benchers snapping at their heels.

Senator MARTIN (QUEENSLAND) - What crisis were your guys trying to avert? They were not here.

Senator McLAREN - The newspapers are not far wrong when they refer to this matter. I would like a comment from Senator Martin on whether she is one of the back benchers who are prevailing upon the present Treasurer (Mr Howard) to make more massive cuts in all government expenditure?

Senator MARTIN (QUEENSLAND) - If the honourable senator really wants to know, I will tell him in a speech.

Senator McLAREN - Senator Guilfoyleis the only person in the Cabinet who can hold her head up high and say she is fighting the Government to the death-knock to prevent it from making further inroads into pensions, into unemployment benefits and into all those other matters that the needy people are depending upon.

Senator Lewis - We have a solid Liberal Government in Victoria.

Senator McLAREN -Solid? The honourable senator was in the chamber when I told Government senators chapter and verse what was really worrying them. We saw the Minister for Primary Industry and Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) come into this chamber and really demand from Senator Carrick that he go out into the Government lobby and withdraw the demands that were being made that Senator Webster be sacked.

Senator Lewis - Is that what it was?

Senator McLAREN - Of course it was. We know that is what it was. The dogs are barking it. Senator Webster himself is reported as saying that he had been removed from the Cabinet.

Senator Lewis - Would you explain that convoluted argument to me?

Senator McLAREN - I do not need to explain it.

Senator Lewis - You cannot.

Senator McLAREN - I have already done it once today, and it is recorded in Hansard.

Senator Lewis - That is right. You will have to read it tomorrow morning to find out what it was.

Senator McLAREN - If he was in the chamber I might then incur the displeasure of Senator Jessop, as I did last night, when he accused me of tedious repetition. I am already on record, and it is there for people to read. We know that Senator Lewis who is trying to interject is one of the people in Victoria who is in trouble trying to get number 2 on the Senate ticket. I could not understand the honourable senator getting up here today and defending Senator Webster, who is his arch rival. The Hamer Government is already in trouble. The honourable senator does not want to say that there is a united Liberal Party.

Senator Mulvihill - Before you go any further, can you explain the analogy between Senator Davidson and Senator Jessop?

Senator McLAREN - If the honourabe senator had been watching Senator Davidson when I referred to Senator Jessop 's speech last night and saw the real smile that came over his face, he would understand. Senator Davidson knows that Senator Jessop went right to the bottom of the barrel. I will say that Senator Davidson will win by a mile.

I refer now to a remark which was made last night in this chamber by Senator Jessop. My speech might be somewhat distorted because I have been waiting for Senator Jessop to enter the chamber so that I may repudiate a statement that he made last night in this chamber about Government members. I quote what Senator Jessop said.

Senator Jessop - I think you are paranoic.

Senator McLAREN - I am not paranoic. I will put the record straight, because the honourable senator is a great one for distortion. When the Committee of the Whole was debating the transport appropriations last night Senator Jessop said:

I remind Senator Jessop that in September 1975 the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, saw fit to go to Coober Pedy. We have not yet had a visit by Mr Fraser to Coober Pedy. Gough Whitlam went to Coober Pedy in September 1 975 for discussions with the residents of Coober Pedy. People came from hundreds of miles around to have discussions on the very matter about which the honourable senator is complaining, that is, the upgrading of the Stuart Highway. Now he is accused of making false promises to the effect that a dual highway would be constructed. As my colleague Senator Elstob has conveniently pointed out- apparently our friends on the opposite side did not like it- we were not allowed to stay in government long enough to honour that promise. That is one aspect.

Through you, Mr Deputy President, I remind Senator Jessop also that, since we have been in Opposition, the shadow Minister for Transport, Mr Morris, visited Coober Pedy in December 1977 to discuss with the residents the problems that they were having, particularly in regard to the Stuart Highway. In December last year, he again visited Coober Pedy. I also was there, and so too was Senator Elstob, the honourable member for Grey in the other place, Mr Wallis and Mr Duncan, the South Australian AttorneyGeneral. Yet Senator Jessop says in this chamber that nobody in the Australian Labor Party, State or Federal, is interested in the problems of the people at Coober Pedy. I throw it all back at Senator Jessop. I hope that he will get up and admit that he was completely wrong when he made that statement. Our members do go there, quite regularly.

Senator Messner - Every election.

Senator McLAREN - No, not every election. The other matter I raise concerns a question that I have had on the Notice Paper since 22 February of this year. I raised the matter in the Committee of the Whole last night when we were discussing the estimates in relation to the Department of Administrative Services. On 22 November, I asked Senator Carrick whether the immediate past Governor-General of this country had a free telephone service in England, and, if so, what was the cost of calls made to Australia during the writing of this book. Senator Carrick requested that I put that question on notice, which I did. I quote that question again. I sought to get some information last night from the Department of Administrative Services which, I thought, would be responsible for overseas posts. I was told that it was not a matter for the Department of Administrative Services, and I accept that. I raise the question again tonight in this chamber and I hope that before the night is out I will have an answer. Senator Guilfoyle was in the chamber and she knows what I wanted. The question is on notice. I will read it:

On the very same day I put another question on the Notice Paper seeking information as to what telephone accounts had been submitted by Harry M. Miller and where the connections were. I have an answer to that. As I reminded the Senate last night, for a period of about 12 months two of his telephone connections cost the Australian taxpayer about $30,000. That is a person who, I was told repeatedly, was serving the Government in an honorary capacity. The amount for that gentleman's telephone account, I repeat, was $30,000. In our consideration of the 1 979-80 Budget appropriations, I will be seeking information on how much in fact Mr Harry Miller actually cost the Australian taxpayer. As I pointed out, he was an appointment made by Mr Sinclair, the man who is now on record as being very famous, for the way that he came into this chamber today and ordered the Leader of the Government out of the chamber in order to instruct him that he was not to persevere with the sacking of Senator Webster.

The question on the Notice Paper is a simple one. The point is that if Mr Kerr, our exGovernorGeneral, has not a free telephone, the Government has had plenty of time to say to me: No, he has not one'. So, I am led to believe that he does have one, and that difficulties are being experienced in ascertaining how much his calls cost. I have it on good authority that the telephone line ran hot between England and Mr Miller and other people during the writing of that book, and honourable senators will know that it was Mr Miller who launched the book in Australia and was responsible for its sales. So, there is the combination of associations in relation to these people. We have the costs of some of the telephone calls, but we have not yet been able to ascertain whether Mr Kerr has a free telephone. As I said, I have pretty conclusive proof that the telephone ran hot. I am assured that the taxpayers paid for those telephone calls, not the person who wrote the book. So it appears that the Government is refusing to answer that question. I hope that now that I have raised the matter again I will receive an answer. I have sat here week in week out hoping to get an answer so that I would not have to raise the matter in the Senate. But I have had to do so tonight because next week probably will be the last week that this Parliament will sit until after the winter recess.

Senator Jessop - It depends on how long you keep talking. You might keep us here for three months.

Senator McLAREN - I am prepared to sit on here. There is plenty of legislation before the Parliament. It is all very well for Senator Jessop to say that I might keep him here, but if he looks at the Hansard record he will see that every Opposition senator who spoke in this House this week was matched with a Government senator. Last night it got to the stage where the Government received the call three times in a row and we could not get the call. Three Government senators got the call, one after the other, yet we were standing waiting for the call. So it will be no good honourable senators opposite coming into this chamber next week and saying that the Opposition held up the business of the Parliament. We have heard plenty of long speeches from honourable senators opposite.

Getting back to the matter of the information I am trying to obtain, the Government owes it to the taxpayers of this country either to deny that Mr Kerr has a free telephone or to own up that he has a free telephone and then to tell us what it costs. We all know that honourable senators who sit opposite have to pay their debts, the same as they have to pay their debts to the oil companies. We have had that out in our debates on the Great Barrier Reef. Everyone has to pay his debts. There has to be a settling of accounts. It would appear that the settling of accounts is becoming a very burning question with honourable senators opposite and a very hot political potato as far as drilling on the Great Barrier Reef is concerned.

But there is also the settling of accounts for the way in which Fraser was able to twist the previous Governor-General around his finger. I have spoken about that on many occasions in this House. Honourable senators opposite owe the previous Governor-General something too. Questions have been asked in the other place about what it cost the taxpayer to freight all of his furniture to Paris, where he remained in his job for about as long as Senator Sheil remained in the Ministry. Within less than 24 hours Mr Kerr was dumped from his job in Paris and had to go to England. The Australian taxpayer had to pay all those costs. Those are questions which we want the Government to answer. When we were in government we were accused of being spendthrifts. This Government has done everything possible to cover up what it is spending.

Another matter came out of the Estimates committee hearings. I asked about the method of charging costs of the various departmental officers who travel overseas with the Prime Minister. We all know that when Whitlam went overseas he chartered a plane from the Australian flag carrier. The costs of all the officers he took with him were charged against the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. We were able to see what those costs were. Of course, honourable senators opposite used those figures. But under the present system of accounting- it is on record in Hansard that this Government has adopted a different method of accounting- the costs of all the departmental officers who accompany the present Prime Minister overseas are charged to the various departments. It is impossible to add up the costs. But we well know that, with all the trips that the present Prime Minister is making overseas, he is costing the Australian taxpayer much more than the previous Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, cost the taxpayer.

Senator Messner - He is costing a quarter of what your Prime Minister cost.

Senator McLAREN - Senator Messnercan waffle on; what I am saying is hurting him. Every time I speak it hurts honourable senators opposite.

Senator Messner - How about listening to the facts?

Senator McLAREN -They are the facts. If Senator Messner is so concerned about facts, the next time general business is being discussed in his party room he should ask his leader whether he will make a statement in the Parliament listing the complete costs of the Prime Minister's trips overseas since he took office so that we can analyse those costs and compare them with the complete costs, which we know already, of Prime Minister Whitlam 's trips. Then we might have a basis for argument. But Senator Messner has no basis for argument now because the costs are spread all over the place like a dog's breakfast. We have to look everywhere to pick out the costs.

That is the way in which this Government operates. It came into office by devious means. It is operating now by devious means by misleading the electors. One only has to read this week's issue of the National Times to see that. I think the sales of the National Times went up about 200 per cent this week. Everyone wants to buy this week's issue to refresh his memory on all the promises the Government made and broke. It broke them one after another. It does not have one vestige of credibility left- not one. Yet we find that honourable senators who sit opposite-

Senator Messner - Tell us about what you told South Australia last Christmas.

Senator McLAREN - I know that honourable senators opposite are embarrassed.

Senator Keeffe - Mr President,I draw you attention to the State of the House.

Senator Jessop - It's a good idea to stop him talking for a while. You should run around and ask who wants bacon and eggs for breakfast because that is what you will get, or bangers and mash. ( Quorum formed).

Senator McLAREN - I am pleased that we have a few Government senators in the chamber now. In view of the interjection by Senator Jessop, in which he made a threat and told us that because Senator Keeffe called a quorum we would have to suffer-

Senator Jessop - I suggested that you should take orders for breakfast.

Senator McLAREN - I suggest to Senator Jessop that he ought to recall the behaviour of his Government in the House of Representatives between 1972 and 1975 when its members did everything possible under the Standing Orders to call quorums every day in order to frustrate the Government. They did the same in here. But when we treat honourable senators opposite in the same way they do not like it. As the old saying goes, when you throw a boomerang you should expect it to come back and clout you behind the ear if you do not duck. Honourable senators opposite will be ducking a lot between now and when they go to the people next year. There is no question about that. They have a lot to answer for. After all that the Government has done, if I were a member of the Government at the present time I would be ashamed to show my face back in my electorate. Honourable senators opposite have no credibility. They have made a lot of promises. The person who is laughing the loudest is Senator Davidson. In the years that I have known him, I have thought him to be a man with a lot of credibility and a man who would not suffer anybody who made a promise to people, not only once but two or three times, not keeping that promise. I thought he would have been the first person to come to his feet in this chamber to disown the leader he sits behind now. His leader has broken promises and, as I said, the people of Australia know it.

---