Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 15 October 1964

Senator McKENNA (Tasmania) (Leader of the Opposition) . - I move -

That Amendments of the Air Navigation Regulations, contained in Statutory Rules 1964, No. 128, and made under the Air Navigation Act 1920-1963, be disallowed.

The motion which I have introduced to the Senate deals with matters of great constitutional, parliamentary and political importance. At the outset I wish to make completely clear the position of the Opposition in relation to power over aviation, or civil aviation, for the Commonwealth Parliament. The Opposition favours the grant of concurrent power to the Commonwealth in that field of aviation. That position has been made clear by our party for quite a number of years. I indicate that despite our action in seeking to disallow the regulations referred to in my motion, we are pre pared at any time to support the Government if it will 'submit to the people a referendum to enable this Parliament to be clothed with power over civil aviation.

Senator Maher - Full power or concurrent power?

Senator McKENNA - I said concurrent power, Senator.

Senator Maher - Who would be boss, finally?

Senator McKENNA - Unquestionably the Commonwealth. In a situation where there was concurrent power. State laws, so far as they were valid, would prevail until contrary to Commonwealth law was enacted. In the event of a conflict between Commonwealth and State law in any field where there was concurrent jurisdiction, Commonwealth law would prevail.

Senator Henty - Section 109.

Senator McKENNA - That is the provision of section 109 of the Constitution, as the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) has said. There is no question about it. I do not disguise our exact position in that matter. If I may, I shall remind the Senate at a later stage that that was one of the unanimous recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee first submitted to the Parliament back in 1958.

We are concerned with two main things in addressing ourselves to this motion. First, we are concerned at the wrongful assumption of authority by the Government; and secondly, we are concerned at the abuse of the power the Commonwealth Parliament clearly has. They will be the main things to which I will address myself and I shall come back to them, when I have laid the necessary foundation, to draw the conclusions I shall put to the Senate.

The Senate will notice that I am moving to disallow the whole of the regulations contained in Statutory Rule No. 128. There are some minor matters to which we have no exception. In particular I refer to regulation 2 which contains a definition of Commonwealth aircraft, and to paragraphs (a) and (b) of regulation 3. To disallow portion of regulation 3 and to retain the other two portions would be a very awkward procedure. I indicate quite clearly to the Government that if the disallowance motion is carried and the Government wishes to pick up regulations 2, 3 (a) and 3 (b), we will facilitate the matter by co-operating. So there is no issue between the Opposition and the Government as to those regulations. Nor do we object to the rewriting of paragraph (e) of regulation 6, which enables the Commonwealth to take power over air navigation in which military aircraft is engaged. I would not like the Government to make an issue of that matter. There are many ways in which the position can be overcome if necessary. There is clearly no conflict between us on that point.

I think the best way that I can present the Opposition's case to the Senate is to refer to the sequence of events which have occurred and, from time to time, to proffer comments as I proceed. First I wish to take the Senate back 27 years to a time when the present Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) was Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. As Attorney-General he sponsored a referendum, which was submitted to the people, seeking power for the Commonwealth Parliament over air navigation and aircraft. The referendum was not carried.

Senator Lillico - Can you tell me what was the attitude of the Opposition during that referendum?

Senator McKENNA - Quite frankly, I cannot, at this stage. I do not recall it and I have not checked it. There had been an overall Australia-wide majority for the proposal, but only two of the four States had carried it.

Senator Henty - It was carried by a majority of 256,000 people, was it not?

Senator McKENNA - I think it was more than that. From my research into the matter, I believe that 52.3 per cent, of the valid votes were recorded in favour of the proposition. In my view, that would certainly run to a far greater number than 256,000, the figure mentioned by the Minister. Sir Robert Menzies, who is Prime Minister today, had not evinced the slightest interest in the question of the Commonwealth's constitutional power over aviation until the financial and business interests of the Government's most favoured son - Mr. R. M. Ansett - were threatened. He was not interested for 27 years.

The next event to which I wish to refer is the report of the Constitutional Review Committee in 1958, which has lain in this Parliament without debate and so far as I know or so far as the Parliament has been told, without consideration by the Government for six long years. Certainly we have had no decision from the Government on any one of the 22 recommendations made by the Committee. One of its recommendations is that there should be a new head of power for the Commonwealth over aviation or civil aviation. The Constitutional Review Committee referred to both terms. Again the Government had not moved for six years, from the time of receipt of the recommendation until the interests of its most favoured son were threatened, as they are at present.

Against that background, let me come to more recent events. The situation we are in today was triggered off on 25th October 1961 by a directive issued by the Commissioner for Motor Transport in New South Wales under the State Transport (Co-ordination) Act, pursuant to which he directed Airlines of New South Wales Pty. Ltd., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd., and East-West Airlines Ltd., which is a New South Wales company, to rearrange their routes. This directive was based on an attempt to secure an even sharing, or a relatively even sharing, of air miles between the two undertakings, and to share new routes. The purpose of the allocation was to ensure that there would be something like even competition between the two airlines operating purely intrastate in New South Wales.

This directive sought to correct the position where the Ansett company, Airlines of New South Wales, had some 70 per cent, of the business in that State whereas East West Airlines had some 30 per cent, of that business. The correction would have meant that the proportion would have been 51 per cent, of the business to Airlines of New South Wales and 49 per cent, to EastWest Airlines. That directive was attacked in the High Court of Australia by Airlines of New South Wales. In the course of the proceedings, the validity of the relevant portion of the State Transport (Coordination) Act was under attack. The validity of the directive issued under that Act also was attacked. Finally, an injunction was sought by Airlines of New South Wales against the Commonwealth Government and the Director-General of Civil Aviation, the senior Commonwealth officer in the Department of Civil Aviation. I will come back to that judgment in due course. I do no more at this stage than indicate that they are the bare facts.

The litigation dragged on from that time until 27th February of this year, approximately two and a half years, when the High Court gave a unanimous judgment rejecting every submission made on behalf of Airlines of New South Wales, upholding the relevant provisions of the New South Wales Act and upholding the validity of the directive of the Commissioner of Motor Transport in that State. Mr. Ansett did not accept that judgment and sought to appeal to the Privy Council. That matter was dealt with by the Privy Council on 15th July of this year when application was made for special leave to appeal. Rather summarily, that application was rejected by the Privy Council. The Commonwealth was represented by its own officers at the proceedings.

Then we get action at high speed from the Government, in this Parliament on 20th August it was ascertained from the Prime Minister that he had written a letter on 6th August, only a matter of days after the protracted litigation had been concluded, to every State Premier indicating that the Commonwealth was going to assume complete power over air navigation throughout Australia. He indicated also that the Commonwealth was going lo seek power in the co-ordination of air transport throughout Australia and insist upon a complete licensing system throughout Australia. In the course of that letter the Prime Minister indicated in the most arbitrary terms to the State Premiers that the CommonwealthState arrangements that had stood from 1937 were to be brought to an end. The The Minister for Civil Aviation laughs.

Senator Henty - I do not laugh. I am just saying it is not correct to say that they stood.

Senator McKENNA - Well, they varied. The Commonwealth-State agreements were entered into after the Goya Henry case - the case of R. v. Burgess - in 1936 and, with minor variations from time to time, they have stood till now when, in those terms the Commonwealth summarily dismissed the arrangements which, as I have said, stood for so long. The Prime Minister said -

The Commonwealth proposals would, as the Commonwealth sees it, result in there being neither practical nor legal scope for State control of intra state air navigation, and they would mean therefore the termination of the Commonwealth-Stale arrangements of 1947.

I think I am correct in saying there was no prior consultation with the States about this matter and that the first the State Premiers knew about it was when they received this letter on 6th August indicating that the Commonwealth Government was going to blast ahead with its proposals without consulting the States except in respect of one matter which was the coordination or air transport facilities on which the Commonwealth Government would consult them in the future.

There was no word about air navigation in the States; there was no word about other matters; and consultation was promised only on one of the matters in which the Commonwealth was assuming primary authority for the first time.

We in this Parliament became aware of that letter by questions addressed to the Prime Minister on 20th August when he undertook to table that letter and to permit debate on it. On 25th August, he tabled the letter. On 26th August, he agreed to table letters, when they were received, from the State Premiers in reply to his letter. Letters were tabled on Tuesday of this week. We find that the replies from the Premiers were belated. One was received at the end of August, another at the end of September, two others in the first week of October, and those from South Australia and Western Australia aire still awaited. At this minute a debate is proceeding in another place on the subject matter of those letters. I point out to the Senate that it is almost two months since the promise was made by the Prime Minister that the Opposition would be given the opportunity to debate this matter. No opportunity for debate has been proffered to the Senate although there is a matter on our notice paper. We, as the Opposition, are forced today to use the device that we are now using - to move for the disallowance of tho regulations - in order to obtain both a debate and a decision on this most important matter. f would say, having regard to the importance of this matter, that it is quite wrong for the Government to have delayed debate and discussion on this whole mailer so long and, in the meantime, proceed to lake the most drastic and effective action, and take it in the very week when the Parliament was not sitting.

Senator Buttfield - What was the good of having a debate before the replies of the Premiers were received?

Senator McKENNA - There was the advantage in putting the viewpoint that had been expressed. At least, if the Premiers did not reply, they were exceedingly vocal in the Press in their objections to what the Commonwealth proposed. I think the honorable senator will recognise that fact. There would have been great advantage in this Parliament, and particularly in the Senate - the States' House - teasing out a matter that involved the usurption by power over a field that hitherto, since Federation, had remained under the control of the various States, I think great advantage might have come from such a debate. We might not now be embroiled in the exceedingly awkward situation which has been precipitated in this country.

On 1st September - I go back just a little - the Commissioner for Motor Transport in New South Wales issued the first directive in that State to the two airlines concerned indicating that the new routes would be developed as from 12th October. That is last Monday. Then we see how fast the Government went. On 2nd October the regulations that we are now discussing not only were made but were put through the Executive Council and were gazetted. That was all done in one day. With a knowledge of what is involved in that type of procedure, I say that it is exceedingly smart work to get that much accomplished in one day. This was an instance of completely undue haste. On 5th October the Minister fixed two dates that he was called upon to fix under the regulations. In each case he fixed the 10th October. That is a significant date, having regard to the fact that the State directive was to operate as from two days later, on the Monday. The Minister fixed the 10th October - this decision was gazetted on 6th October - as the date for giving effect to the substantive part of the regulations, to which I will refer in a moment. That was clearly designed to put an obstacle in the way of the State Government implementing its own directive. There is no other explanation.

I come now to the question of what are the regulations. The main position is governed by regulation 6 of the Air Navigation Regulations. Nearly everything dealing with civil aviation is contained in regulations. I refer the Senate to regulation 6, because this is the regulation to which the main amendment has been directed. It provides in sub-clause 1 that the regulations apply to and are in relation to certain matters. I point out to the Senate that they are all matters clearly within the legal competence of the Commonwealth Parliament. There is no question about that. Sub-clause 1 refers to -

(a)   international air navigation within Australian territory;

(b)   air navigation in relation to trade and commerce with other countries and among the States;

(c)   air navigation within the Territories;

(d)   air navigation to or from the Territories; and

(e)   air navigation in controlled air space . . .

Those are five matters in which the Commonwealth clearly has legal competence. The amendment to regulation 6 adds a new paragraph (f), which provides - on and after such date as is fixed by the Minister for the purposes of this paragraph by notice in the "Gazette", all air navigation within Australian territory of a kind not specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), or (da) of this sub-regulation ".

So the Commonwealth, for the first time, goes outside those other heads and says, in effect: "We take over all air navigation from the date gazetted by the Minister." In due course, the Minister gazetted the new regulation to operate from 10th October. Most of the amendments following the amendment of regulation 6 are really consequential. They deal with manufactures of spare parts and components for aircraft, charter licences, work licences, ordinary licences, cancellation or suspension of licences and arrangements under which services may be operated by a person other than a licensee, and so on. The DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation is required in every instance - on and after the date that has been fixed by the Minister, namely, 10th October - to have regard to matters concerned with the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation and to no other matters. That provision runs all the way through the regulations. It is obviously expressed in a form that looks like a qualification of the absolute power over air navigation, but let us study the words that are used. The DirectorGeneral is to have regard to the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation. What would lie outside those concepts? How wide is efficiency? I invite the Minister in due course to tell us. What purports to be a qualification of complete and absolute power is, in my opinion, not a qualification at all. This is a mere matter of words and form.

I direct attention to amendment 13, which the Opposition seeks to disallow. In new regulation 203a it is proposed - for the first time - that the Director-General shall have regard to the need for co-ordinating, in the interests of safety in air navigation, all operations of the kind referred to in regulation 191 of the regulations. There is nothing there to honour the promise of consultation with the States that was made by the Prime Minister. Regulation 191 covers a multiplicity of matters. I direct attention to the significant fact that there, in dealing with air transport co-ordination, the DirectorGeneral is to have regard to one factor only - safety. It is significant that he is not there invited to have regard to the questions of regularity and efficiency. 1 come then to amendment 14, which deals with two matters constituting the other major change made to these regulations. A new regulation 320a is inserted to provide that an aircraft shall not land at or take off from any place, being a place acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes, without a permit issued by the DirectorGeneral. Another new regulation, 320b, provides that an aircraft shall not be flown without a permit in controlled airspace in the course of air navigation of a kind specified in paragraph (e) of sub-regulation 1 of regulation 6. That covers intrastate flights and everything outside the normal powers hitherto exorcised by the Commonwealth. So the new regulations are very far reaching. They purport, .in the view of the Opposition, to take over the whole field of air navigation and co-ordination in Australia.

I should like to refer to some features of this matter before I come to my conclusions. 1 wish to read in some detail the letter which the Prime Minister sent to the Premiers, as I want tq contravert what he said. He slated -

.   . some members of the Court-

He was referring to the High Court judgment delivered on 27th February of this year - including the former Chief Justice, Sir Owen Dixon, recollecting no doubt the state of the Regulations at an earlier stage of their history, expressed surprise at the limited scope of the Air Navigation Regulations, operating as Commonwealth law.

I invite the Minister to tell me where that surprise was expressed. The word " surprise " was used by one judge only - the Chief Justice. I quote from the " Australian Law Journal " report of the airlines case, at page 402. Speaking about regulation 6, which I have already explained to the Senate, and setting out the application of the regulation, His Honour expressed himself in this way -

Surprising as it, at first, appeared to me, I think that this sub-clause intended to cover the entire field to which, subject to any special regulation, the " Air Navigation Regulations " are to apply. It means that apart from special regulations the Regulations do not cover intrastate trade and commerce.

What the Chief Justice said, in effect, was: " At first I thought that regulation 6 covered the whole field. I was surprised that it did, but then I noticed that intrastate powers were not included." How does that justify the statement in the Prime Minister's letter? I invite the Minister to tell me what other judges of the High Court expressed surprise. From my reading of it, I do not find one word of surprise expressed elsewhere.

I would like to refer honorable senators to what Mr. Justice Windeyer said. I quote from the same report at pages 411 and 412. Mr. Justice Windeyer went a great deal further than the other judges and said this -

In my opinion the powers with respect to trade and commerce with other countries and among the States (s. 51(i)), external affairs (s. 51 (xxix)) and incidental matters as described in s. 51(xxxix), are ample to give the Commonwealth Parliament complete power over all air navigation in Australia.

He refers to other powers that support him in that conclusion. He affirms this -

As l see it, Commonwealth power extends to the control of the movement of all aircraft in all air space above Australia and its territories.

I invite honorable senators to keep their minds on the words " air navigation " which he used because in a later paragraph he said -

That docs not mean that the Commonwealth can, as mailers now stand, undertake the regulation of everything and anything relating in any way to aircraft. And it does not mean that a State can say nothing as to the purposes for which aircraft may bc used within its borders.

Later he said -

But a State law that said simply that within the State aircraft should not be used at all for some specified purpose, such as the carriage of particular articles or the carriage of persons from one place within the State to another within the State would, in my opinion, be a valid law.

Despite the acknowledgment in his view of the complete power of the Commonwealth over air navigation, he, in the most express terms, said that in his considered opinion there is reserved to the States power over the co-ordination of State transport; power to determine whether an aircraft should go from one place to another.

Again I say that the Prime Minister's statement in relation to the judgment of the High Court is not correct, to put it mildly, lt is misleading. I say that he could find no justification in any of these pages of the judgment to which I have referred for saying: " This Court has said that the Commonwealth has the most complete power, so here we go ".

Senator Paltridge - You have not quoted all of it.

Senator McKENNA - The Minister says that I have not quoted all of the judgment. It covers scores of pages. I would be reading for hours if I were to read all of it. Need I make any further apologia on that particular point?

Senator Henty - Did not you use the the words " as matters now stand "?

Senator McKENNA - Not so much that I did, but that the judge did. There has been no change at all in constitutional power, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned. The adoption by this Parliament of the Chicago Convention was the last thing that could have happened in this Parliament, to affect the question of powers.

Sitting suspended front 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator McKENNA - I pass to another aspect of the judgment of the High Court. I refer to page 410 of the judgment and to what Mr. Justice Menzies had to say regarding the inclusion, by Airlines of New South Wales, of the Commonwealth Govern ment and the Director-General of Civil Aviation as parties. He said -

This all appears to me as subterfuge and I see no basis for relief against the Commonwealth or the Director-General in this action. . . I am prepared to join in answering the questions without doing more than deprecating the introduction of unnecessary parties into an action for the purpose of attracting the jurisdiction of this Court.

That was a very severe stricture by His Honour.

Turning to the Privy Council proceedings, I read to my astonishment in the local Press that counsel for the Commonwealth did not ask for costs against Airlines of New South Wales when the Commonwealth in due course won the action. I was so surprised that I made some inquiries. It appears that the matter originated from a suggestion by Viscount Radcliffe, who presided over the Privy Council hearing. At the end of the case, and finding for the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales, he asked: "You are not concerned about costs for the Commonwealth? " To my absolute amazement, I read that Commonwealth counsel replied: " No ". The costs that would have been awarded might not have been very great, but, having regard to the fact that Commonwealth officers were transported half way round the world to London to appear in a case in which the Commonwealth Government and the DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation were completely unnecessary parties, I venture to say that no company other than Ansett would have received such treatment.

Senator Cormack - This is not uncommon in matters inter se or in constitutional matters.

Senator McKENNA - As far as I understand, this was not an inter se matter. I do not think that point was argued. Certainly the Commonwealth played a very small part in the argument. But that is not the point. A brief had to be prepared and officers had to be transported to London. Unquestionably the Commonwealth would have been involved in considerable expenditure. I mention that merely as one more good example of the power of the Ansett magic which permeates this whole situation.

What other company in Australia in similar circumstances would have received such favoured treatment? It was an excellent performance by the Ansett companies.

By their litigation, which failed, they delayed the New South Wales Government's proposed reallocation of air routes for three years. They had three good years with 70 per cent, of the State's air traffic. They made a convenience and a foot-stool of the High Court by unnecessarily invoking parties to the action. They found a friend in the Privy Council, and even in the Commonwealth, in the matter of the costs of the Privy Council hearing. It is quite clear from the objective statement of the sequence of events that I have made that they used the Commonwealth Government like a kitchen mop to clear the path for themselves, pushing out of the way the judgments of courts and cancelling long standing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States in regard to which the Commonwealth could not complain of lack of co-operation.

I make the point that the speed and, above all, the solicitude with which the Menzies Government, within days of the Privy Council's decision, dashed to Ansett's rescue is simply staggering. It is in sharp contrast to the Government's action in many other matters. Consider the last election promise to do something to house our people; a year has gone by. Consider the promise to do something about scholarships for our children; a year has gone by. But it takes only days for the Government to act when Ansett is in the slightest difficulty. It is five years since the Government first promised to introduce legislation to deal with restrictive trade practices. The people of Australia have waited" five years for protection. They have been waiting four years for taxation evasions to the tune of £14 million a year to be stopped. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) has indicated that the law will be made retrospective to August 1961. This is a perfect example of the Government's lethargy. The report of the Senate committee on television productions, which disclosed the bad influence of certain television programmes in our homes, particularly for the children, and mentioned many other aspects that were vastly important to our social life, lies neglected and undebated on the table of the Senate. The Government has made no decision on this report although it was presented in this place in October last year.

The question of constitutional changes, the urgent problems that face this country and the taking over of our national assets by overseas companies, have brought no speedy action, but the Government to a man, including the Prime Minister, rushed to Ansett's rescue within days. The situation can only be described as staggering. How can this Government become so active on behalf of Ansett and his interests while allowing the major matters to which I have referred to trail along year after year? Why does this Government regard the Ansett empire as of such importance? In the Opposition's view, the Government's actions on behalf of Ansett are nothing but a gross abuse of power.

I ask the Minister to tell the Senate whether it is the Government's policy on interstate air routes in Australia that there shall be only two airlines, which shall compete on terms as even as the Commonwealth can provide. If that is the Government's policy, why is it wrong for the New South Wales Government to follow a similar policy in relation to intrastate transport in New South Wales? What is wrong with that? What does the Minister see that is evil in the allocation of air routes that the New South Wales Government propose to make? Those are questions that should be answered in this Senate.

We have seen takeover after takeover by the Ansett group. A few years ago it attempted to take over East-West Airlines, one of the companies involved in this dispute. Australian National Airways, Butler Air Transport, New Guinea Airways, Airlines of South Australia and many others have fallen into Ansett's lap. But his greatest success and his biggest and most successful takeover has been his takeover in recent days of the Menzies Government. The Prime Minister - for the first time, as far as I can recall - intervened in civil aviation matters, to the extent of writing directly to the Premiers in the way that I have indicated. Ansett has landed the Prime Minister in his net. I think he has deposited the Prime Minister in some very hot water. To my delight, it appears that the Premier of New South Wales and his colleagues are certainly not susceptible to the Ansett magic, whereas the Commonwealth Government most emphatically and plainly is. It seems to me that the Commonwealth Government has been blinded by its love for this particular organisation. The Government could have given no better, more loyal or more effective service to that industry had the Government been on its staff. I level no charge of impropriety against the Government, its advisers or anyone else. I know of nothing that would justify it. But I do cite some comments by newspapers to indicate what the public reaction is. I think I recall the Minister for Civil Aviation saying in this place recently that a thing has not only to be right, it has also to appear to be right. It is from that viewpoint that I direct attention to these articles. The leading article in the " Sydney Morning Herald " of 27th August, after referring to opposition to the Government proposals, finishes with this-

It is already clear that the opposition will not easily be overridden; that sections of it may resort to legal challenges; and that, not least because of their timing, the Commonwealth's proposals are regarded with deep suspicion.

That is the considered comment of a body that now supports this Government. I turn to the leading article in the " Daily Mirror " of last evening, in which this statement appears -

The Australian public has every reason to feel bewildered over the airlines wrangle between the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments. This bewilderment is understandable in view of the Prime Minister's extraordinary reticence. He has never satisfactorily explained why his Government decided to step in and, almost furtively, take control of intrastate aviation . . . What mystifies is the manner and the timing of the sudden Commonwealth action. Why was it taken behind the back of Parliament so that it could not be fully debated? It would, perhaps, be unfair to suggest that it was done expressly to benefit Ansett interests; but because of the way it was done the public cannot be blamed for thinking Ansett influence prompted it.

I merely advert to one more thing, a presentation in a newspaper with a very wide circulation in one part of Australia. I do not propose to quote it, not even under privilege, because of its nature. I shall make it available to the Minister so that he may look at it for two purposes - to see that the situation is such that a newspaper is prepared to indicate a degree of vast concern at what goes on and to draw most publicly a sinister implication. I do not support it. I merely indicate it. I am not prepared, even under privilege, to describe it.

Senator Cormack - Why mention it?

Senator McKENNA - I mention it for the reason that I have given, which is to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the state of affairs is such that it can provoke a sinister presentation in a newspaper in this country. The second reason that I do so is to point out to the Minister that it behoves him and the Prime Minister to stand up in this Parliament and state clearly to the people why they have proceeded with this timing, with this great speed, to shoulder their way into intrastate aviation in Australia. I say again to the Minister that things have not only to be right; they have also to seem to be right. The onus is entirely upon this Government to make things seem right. I can assure the Minister that unless that is done it will only make worse the misgivings that are widely felt today throughout this nation at what the Government has been doing in recent weeks. We have frequently attacked here all the favours and concessions that down the years have been given by this Government to Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. I am not going into those now. I leave that to one of my colleagues to develop.

Suggest corrections