House of Representatives
19 November 1959

23rd Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2887

QUESTION

SECURITY

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that he has stated that the visit of Brigadier Spry, head of the security service, to Professor Stout was not normal practice. If so, will he state whether the decision to depart from normal practice, as the Prime Minister described it, was the sole responsibility of the AttorneyGeneral? Was the action taken with the Prime Minister’s prior knowledge and approval? Is this the only occasion on which the normal practice has been departed from? If not, will the Prime Minister furnish details of the other occasions on which this has occurred? Finally, has the Prime Minister taken steps to prevent any further departures from the normal practice?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– This matter has been more than adequately canvassed already. I have nothing to add to what I have already said on it.

page 2887

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Last Thursday, the Prime Minister, in reply to a question by the honorable member for Kingston, said that 100 speeches would not alter his attitude to pleas for specific Federal assistance to education. I ask the Prime Minister whether he questions the sincerity or sense of responsibility of nation-wide representatives of parents and citizens’ organizations, mothers’ clubs, and teacher organizations, and of eminent individual educationists and State Ministers of Education of all political faiths, when they urge that the state of education in Australia to-day, compared with that in other modern countries, demands urgent and extraordinary provision, well beyond the scope of normal State budgetary capacity. If the Minister accepts these widespread appeals as being genuine and responsible, how does he reconcile his own adamant attitude of rejection with his professed respect for the democratic will of the people?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– Since you permit this to be put as a question, Mr. Speaker, although it is clearly an argument, I maysay that I do not question the good faith of any of those eminently reputable people who were referred to by the honorable member.

page 2887

QUESTION

NATURALIZATION

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister for Immigration. In view of the desire to have as many immigrants as possible naturalized, could the Minister give more publicity to the fact that immigrants who are married to naturalized Australians do not have to wait for the full period of five years for naturalization? Apparently very few people realize this important point.

Mr DOWNER:
Minister for Immigration · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Yes, I will try to oblige the honorable member. I would have thought that by now the terms upon which people are entitled to become naturalized were well known, but if, apparently, there is some darkness in some places about this I shall try to relieve it by bringing in more light.

page 2887

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– On 19th February of this year the Prime Minister tabled a report on the Commonwealth Public Service known as the Boyer report, which contained extensive recommendations. The Prime Minister later said the Government had set up a Cabinet sub-committee to bring down a report regarding the implementation by legislation of these recommendations. Will the right honorable gentleman say whether the Government has made any progress in this matter and when it is expected that the recommendations contained in that report will be implemented?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– A great deal of work has been going on now for some time on this matter. As the honorable member knows, the report is lengthy and it involves a great number of separate considerations. I would hope to arrive at a Government decision in respect of it as soon as posible

page 2887

QUESTION

APPLE AND PEAR EXPORTS

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Recently the Minister for Trade announced better opportunities for Australian apple and pear exports to Germany as a result of the trade agreement signed with that country. Can he give an indication of the scope for apple and pear exports to the continent of Europe generally?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– It is true that better opportunities will exist this year for the export of apples and pears to West Germany, and I am sure that the honorable member’s electorate will benefit from this. Import restrictions imposed by the West German Government have in recent years inhibited the free entry to that quite important market of these fruits. But at the present time, following negotiations which we have had, the West German authorities are prepared to issue import licences without limit for Australian apples and pears during the next export season, which in that country is from March until July.

The United Kingdom, of course, historically, has been and still will be the greatest market for Australian apples and pears, and any over-supply from this country to the United Kingdom bears seriously on the price for the whole crop. That explains the importance that we have always attached to entry to the European market. Sweden will receive Australian apples and pears in the forthcoming season without restriction. For the first time in many years, France will receive Australian apples and pears unlimited by licensing; and Norway will receive in our season apples and pears to a ceiling value of £1,000,000. This opens the widest and brightest prospect for these fruits which has existed for many years. I acknowledge the interest which the honorable member for Franklin has always taken in this matter.

page 2888

QUESTION

CANADA CUP DINNER

Mr GALVIN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Did the Prime Minister receive an invitation to the “ Meet the Teams “ Canada Cup dinner, held in Melbourne last Monday, which was attended by representatives of 29 nations? Is it correct that this is the first time in the history of the Canada Cup that the head of the Government of the host nation has not attended the official opening? Finally, would it not have been appropriate that the Prime Minister, if he himself could not attend that dinner, should have accepted an invitation for one of his senior Ministers to attend and represent him, as the organizers thought it was a great opportunity to foster international goodwill?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr. Speaker, I was invited. I had, at an earlier stage, a little to do with helping to have the Canada

Cup competition in Australia, so that I cannot be accused of a lack of interest. But 1 hardly saw why I should have to go away from a most important annual conference of my own party organization, particularly in relation to an event to which my Ministers were invited also, when, I am happy to say, I was more than adequately represented in Melbourne by the most famous sportsman in this Parliament - the honorable member for Corio. Everybody was delighted with him, and I am perfectly certain that they did not miss me at all.

page 2888

QUESTION

LONG RANGE BOMBERS

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Defence had his attention directed to a statement attributed to a distinguished Australian airman, Air Commodore Edwards, to the effect that this country could well do with a long range supersonic bomber capable of delivering knock-out blows deep into possible enemy territory? Has the Government considered this point of view? If so, what decision has been made? Further, will the honorable gentleman consider consulting Air Commodore Edwards while he is in Australia, so that the Government may determine precisely the reason upon which Air Commodore Edwards based his opinion?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Defence · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– No, I have not seen the report of this statement by Air Commodore Edwards. It has not been brought to my attention, but no doubt it will be in the course of the next day or so, and I will then be much better able to make a statement on the matter.

page 2888

QUESTION

TRADE WITH JAPAN

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. At the time of our reaching the trade agreement with Japan the right honorable gentleman said that the Government had in mind entering discussions with the Japanese Government at an appropriate time before July, 1960, concerning the application of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade between the two countries. I ask him for a succinct statement as to whether Australian representatives broached this subject with the Japanese Government at the meeting of the Gatt countries in Tokyo last month and, if not, whether he still intends to discuss the subject before next July?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The answers are, “ No “, and, “ Yes “.

page 2889

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Primary Industry received a copy of the Goulburn wool inquiry report which was tabled yesterday in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. If so, can he make copies of it available to interested members of this House? Will the Australian Agricultural Council be meeting to discuss this report so that if any action is to be taken as a result of Mr. Justice Cook’s recommendation it may be taken on an Australiawide basis?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

– 1 have not received a copy of the report made by Mr. Justice Cook to the New South Wales Government. However, I may be able to obtain copies of it for honorable members, by courtesy of the New South Wales Government. Naturally, the report will not be presented to this Government, because the inquiry was carried out under terms of reference determined by the New South Wales Government. No doubt the report’s contents will in due course become known, and I rather think that the Australian Agricultural Council will debate certain aspects of its findings when it meets, probably in February next.

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Trade been directed to the report of the wool inquiry in Sydney? Does he realize that similar conditions to those existing in Sydney exist in wool selling centres throughout the Commonwealth? J ask him: What action does the Government propose to take in order to see that a just price is obtained by the woolgrowers for their product.

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I have seen only the published reports of the royal commission. I think that woolgrowers and leaders of their organizations have not been without some knowledge of the position. The Government will be very interested to learn the reaction of organized woolgrowers to these reports.

page 2889

QUESTION

NATURALIZATION

Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the attention of the right honorable gentleman been directed to rather widely circulated suggestions that the law on naturalization in this country should be amended to provide for a dual nationality? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government will not agree to the enactment of any legislation along the lines of the infamous Delbruck law, and that it will not flout the important principle that no man can have two allegiances or serve two masters?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– My attention has not been directed to these publications. I quite agree that the honorable member’s concluding words have some scriptural authority. He can take it for granted that before we made any change in a matter of this kind we would give very deep consideration to all the aspects referred to by him.

page 2889

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT TO INDONESIA

Mr COPE:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that he is shortly to visit Indonesia at the invitation of the Government of that country. If it is a fact, is it his intention to discuss with President Soekarno the future of West New Guinea?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– It is true that I am going to Indonesia. It is true that I expect to have discussions with President Soekarno. My mission does not involve any particular negotiation, but although there is no agenda I have no doubt that in the course of our discussions the problem of West New Guinea will inevitably come up for consideration.

page 2889

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr HOWSE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to the periodical visits of officers of the Taxation Branch to various country centres in New South Wales for the purpose of discussing taxation problems with country people on the spot. Will the Treasurer consider appointing taxation officers in large rural centres, so that country people may be able to sort out their tax problems without having to undertake expensive trips to Sydney?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I shall discuss with the Commissioner of Taxation the practicability of implementing the interesting suggestion that the honorable member makes, the adoption of which, if such be practicable, would, I am sure, be of considerable convenience to people in the areas that the honorable member represents, and in other similar areas.

page 2890

QUESTION

EXPORT OF NATIVE BIRDS

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister for Trade. In view of the fact that about 100,000 of our Australian native birds are exported and sold annually in overseas countries at high prices, will the Minister investigate the possibility of restricting the export of our birds, whose numbers have been so greatly depleted by the reduction of forest areas, by indiscriminate shooting and by large-scale export? Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Government has the power to control the export of our native fauna?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The matter to which the honorable member refers is not within the administrative jurisdiction of my department. I understand that it is within the jurisdiction of the Department of Customs and Excise, which endeavours to work out policies with the State governments. I believe that discussions to that end have been held quite recently, and an agreement may have been reached. I will see that the question of the honorable member, which is of considerable public interest, is brought to the notice of my colleague, the Minister for Customs and Excise, who will furnish a reply.

page 2890

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr CASH:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Does the Treasurer consider that the conspicuous envelopes used by the Taxation Branch for posting refund cheques to taxpayers have made more frequent the illegal interception of these cheques, with the subsequent cashing of them by persons other than the taxpayer concerned? Will the right honorable gentleman discuss with the Commissioner of Taxation the use of a plainer envelope for the posting of refund cheques?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– Recently, the Commissioner of Taxation made some analysis of the incidence of illegal cashing of refund cheques. We have issued warnings in the past to persons cashing the cheques that they should satisfy themselves of the identity of the payee. The number of instances in which these cheques have, been cashed illegally is so very small that the Commissioner has not felt it necessary to take the action that has been recommended to him, including forwarding the cheques by registered post. If that proposal were adopted, considerable additional staff would be needed, in both the Post Office and the Taxation Branch. The suggestion that the comparatively small incidence of irregularity and improper conduct could be further reduced by sending the cheques in an envelope that did not have an official appearance is interesting. I will ask the Commissioner whether he has examined this suggestion, and I will then supply some information to the honorable gentleman.

page 2890

QUESTION

AVON-SABRE AIRCRAFT

Mr CAIRNS:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– 1 ask the Minister for Defence whether it is a fact that the manufacture of Avon-Sabre jet aircraft in Australia was restricted by the North American company concerned to manufacture for Australian use. Is it likely that a similar restriction will apply to aircraft manufactured in the future in these circumstances? Does the Minister consider this desirable, in view of the fact that, if no restrictions were imposed, similar aircraft could be manufactured for such countries as India and New Zealand, thereby considerably reducing the cost of production of the aircraft in Australia?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– It is so long since we entered into negotiations for the manufacture of the Rolls Royce Avon engine that I have forgotten just what the terms and conditions were. Indeed, I was not involved in the matter at that time. What the honorable member has said will be borne in mind in the future.

page 2890

QUESTION

X-RAY EXAMINATIONS

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Health seen a report attributed to Professor Linus Pauling to the effect that routine X-ray examinations of pregnant women are sufficient to double the chance of the children developing cancer between their first and tenth years? If he has seen the report, can he say whether it is an expression of the personal opinion of Professor Pauling or whether it is based on the report of any responsible medical body?

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have seen no actual report, although I have seen a press reference to something that the professor is alleged to have said. I am not quite sure how close a resemblance that reference bears to what he actually said, but I think it is generally conceded that the routine X-ray of these cases is both undesirable and unnecessary. That, of course, is quite a different thing from saying that X-ray presents any particular dangers in those cases in which it should properly be employed.

page 2891

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral: Has a decision been taken that the Australian Broadcasting Commission will not be permitted to establish a television station in Canberra until a date after that on which a commercial station comes into operation here? If this decision has been taken, will the honorable gentleman state the reason for it and can he also indicate the approximate date on which a national television station will be established in Canberra?

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I have already stated on several occasions that no change has been made in the policy adopted by the Government regarding the provision of dual television services. Therefore, although we are awaiting the result of the inquiry which the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is at present making into applications for television licences before making a final decision, because of several problems that arise such as availability of frequencies, no such decision as that referred to by the honorable member has been taken.

page 2891

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Services a question without notice. Is it a fact that the Department of Social Services, continuing its decentralization policy, has opened a regional office at Hamilton, Victoria? If so, will the Minister endeavour to include Mildura, Victoria, in what the Postmaster-General would call “ the next phase of development “?

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Consistent with Government policy the Department of Social Services has engaged in decentralization in all States of the Commonwealth. To that end Victoria has been divided into regions, and regional offices have been established in each region. A region, of course, must qualify by the amount of business and the number of people within the region warranting the establishment of a regional office. If the honorable member for Mallee will do whatever lies within his power to increase the population of the locality that he mentions, consideration will be given to his request.

page 2891

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether he recalls the statement made by his predecessor in office, the present Minister for Labour and National Service, on 11th March last year, in reply to a question by the honorable member for Lalor, in which the Minister said -

I feel sure that this is a figment of the honorable gentleman’s imagination. I have no evidence, and I have never heard it suggested, that buyers’ rings of any kind are operating in the Australian wool market. I feel reasonably confident that if they had been operating, that fact would have been brought to the attention of the Government, the department or myself.

Will the honorable gentleman inform his colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, of the finding of Mr. Justice Cook that seventeen of the largest wool buying firms were members of pies?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– I am not aware of any such statement having been made bv the Minister for Labour and National Service, but I am sure that if he made it he had good reason to make it. So far as the findings of Mr. Justice Cook are concerned, I had the privilege of reading a summary in a newspaper about one hour ago. I will have another look at that.

page 2891

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr IAN ALLAN:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Health. In view of the high rate of development of newdrugs, can the Minister say how frequently the British Pharmacopoeia is amended to* include new drugs? Who determines which, drugs should be listed? What are the criteria for the listing of new drugs?

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I think that the British Pharmacopoeia is revised once a year. I am sorry that I cannot tell the honorable gentleman who conducts the actual revision, but I will obtain definite information for him.

page 2892

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether it is a fact that the British Post Office recently announced the introduction of a public radio-telephone system which enables motorists to make and receive calls in their cars to and from telephone subscribers throughout the whole of Great Britain. Will the Minister inform the House whether similar facilities are available in Australia? If they are not available, is it intended to provide them?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I have heard that some action along the lines mentioned by the honorable member is being taken. As I understand it, the action is only exploratory as yet, and the service is not general in its application. Of course, in Australia we provide a radio-telephone service to a number of instrumentalities, both private and public. No consideration has yet been given to extending that service to ordinary telephone subscribers. The department has ahead of it a very great volume of work of a greater priority than a radio-telephone service and, therefore, such a delevopment cannot be expected within the foreseeable future.

page 2892

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICES

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for the Army aware of the new spirit of liberalism in the United Kingdom which has resulted in the removal from the British Army of the punishment “ confined to barracks “, in the hope that this will encourage volunteers into the service? Is there the same spirit of liberalism in the Australian Army? What -is the state of recruiting for the Australian Army?

Mr CRAMER:
Minister for the Army · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I can assure the honorable member that recruiting in Australia is very satisfactory at present. I just do not understand the whole context of what he has been saying. Probably he has been reading something.

Mr Bryant:

– You do not understand the spirit of liberalism.

Mr CRAMER:

– I do understand the spirit of liberalism. If the honorable member for Bruce is concerned about recruiting in Australia, I can assure him that it is quite satisfactory.

page 2892

QUESTION

COLOMBO PLAN

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for the Interior, who recently led a delegation to a conference of Colombo Plan countries, whether it is a fact that an offer was made by Australia to accept more Asian students under the technical training scheme. Was any consideration given to sending Australian technical experts to Asian countries in the Colombo Plan in order to alleviate some of the difficulties that they are encountering at present?

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Most details of the kind that have been mentioned by the honorable member were discussed at the preliminary meeting of officials. Australian aid under the Colombo Plan for the current year has already been settled in detail and provision has been made in the Estimates for it. Australia plans an intake of additional students this financial year. For many years we have been sending, within the limits of our capacity, technical experts to advise those countries which request technical assistance. Indeed, we place far greater emphasis and value on the sending of assistance of that kind to countries overseas than on the relatively limited amount of capital aid that we can give them.

page 2892

QUESTION

FISH

Mr CASH:

– Can the Minister for Primary Industry inform the House of the present position of the Australian tuna fish canning industry? What has been the effect on Australian operators of Japanese activities in this industry?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– I shall have to get the details of the present position for the honorable member. I do not think that the Australian industry has been detrimentally affected by Japanese activities in the northwest of Australia. The Japanese, really, have not come into Australian territory.

page 2893

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that, in Queensland, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has recently made some remarkable discoveries in relation to pasture improvement which, if put into practice, could be of tremendous value to the dairying industry? Is it true that the organization has been refused finance to conduct further research in this field? If this is true, can the Minister say why the relevant establishment of the organization in Queensland has been denied the funds necessary to carry these tests to a conclusion?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has done excellent work in the field of pasture improvement in relation to the dairying industry. I think that if the honorable member again examines the allocations made in the Budget he will see that the organization has been given substantial funds with which to continue its work and, indeed, expand that work from year to year. There is no doubt about the fact that this Government recognizes the importance of the work of the organization and will continue to assist it in its activities and to provide for their expansion.

page 2893

QUESTION

FORESTRY RESEARCH

Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior. Can the Minister say whether any decision has yet been taken in regard to the establishment of a forestry research institute, thereby ending some years of indecision in this important matter?

Mr FREETH:
LP

– The answer is, “ No “.

page 2893

QUESTION

GRETA MIGRANT CENTRE

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the recent statement by the Minister for Immigration that it is proposed to close down the Greta migrant centre completely by 15th January next, will the Prime Minister inform me whether the Government intends to dispose of any of the buildings, and cut its losses as a result of the closing of the centre, or are the build ings to be allowed to fall into disrepair and decay through disuse and vandalism as has happened at other centres? Will the right honorable gentleman discuss with his colleagues the advisability of allowing some of the buildings to pass to charitable and benevolent institutions, or to honorary sporting bodies for use as club houses, as well as selling some of the buildings for occupation as week-end holiday huts if this is found to be practicable. In short, will the Prime Minister ascertain what is to be done with the buildings in this centre?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I am not personally informed on this matter, but I will be very happy, a note of the honorable member’s question having been taken, to make such inquiries as I can and to convey to him the results of my inquiries.

page 2893

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer a question concerning funds made available to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. For the right honorable gentleman’s information, I should like to say that my question arises from one which was asked a few minutes ago, before he entered the chamber. Is it a fact that the funds made available to the C.S.I.R.O. by this Government have now reached a total of approximately £7,000,000 a year compared to £1,900,000

Mr Ward:

– This is information.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is giving information.

Mr JEFF BATE:

– I ask: Is it a fact that the C.S.I.R.O. is provided by this Government with very generous funds in addition to the finance made available by various industries which are asking the organization to undertake research in the particular fields with which they are concerned?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– It is a fact that in the ten years in which this Government has been in office increasing support has been given to the work of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organization. The financial provision now being made is more than treble that which existed when we took office. Of course, that is only part of the story because, as honorable gentlemen are aware, the highly successful and valuable activities of the C.S.I.R.O. have, in turn, stirred other sections of the community, including many primary producing organizations and industrial concerns, to introduce research programmes of their own, some of which are carried out in collaboration with the C.S.I.R.O. Primary producing organizations, in particular, have in recent years introduced schemes for research on a substantial scale and have had the active co-operation of the C.S.I.R.O. The Government, consistent with its obligations in that direction, can be relied upon to see that orderly progress is made in the provision of adequate funds for this vital national organization.

page 2894

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES

Mr BRYANT:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation whether the Government really believes in free competition in the airline business. If it does, what steps has it taken to overcome the difficulties of Trans-Australia Airlines in carrying out intra-state business in competition with private airlines?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– This question properly should be addressed to my colleague in another place. However, the honorable gentleman has asked me to reaffirm the Government’s policy of interest in two airlines. 1 do reaffirm that. It has been a most successful policy. In both of the great airline organizations there are about 5,000 or 6,000 good Australians employed. To them it does not matter a great deal what is written over the door. They have the same problems as we all have, of educating their children and so on. The result of this Government’s policy has been that both organizations are more prosperous, better equipped, and better manned, and the employees are better paid, than ever before in the history of the country.

page 2894

QUESTION

COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCES

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Minister for Social Services a question re lating to the payment of £105,406 last year by his department in the form of compassionate allowances. As in the making of these payments there is inherent recognition of the fact that some people in particular need cannot satisfy all the statutory requirements for a benefit, are his senior officers in each State specifically encouraged to submit for his ministerial approval cases which are beyond their own authority?

Mr ROBERTON:
CP

– The answer to the honorable member for Swan is in the affirmative. Quite obviously, the Directors of Social Services in each of the six States of the Commonwealth have authority to refer any matters that they cannot resolve themselves either to the Director-General of Social Services or to the Minister for Social Services, whoever he may be, for final decision.

page 2894

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION FROM CYPRUS

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I should like to remind the Minister for Immigration of the long struggle I have had with the Government, both during his term as Minister and during the term of his predecessor, to get the Government to extend to British subjects living on the island of Cyprus the same right to migrate to this country as has been extended to other people in the world who are not British subjects. Can the Minister now say whether, in view of the improved relationship between Great Britain and the island of Cyprus, these British subjects will be given that right?

Mr DOWNER:
LP

– The matters raised by the honorable member are now under consideration, and when they have been determined I shall inform him accordingly.

page 2894

COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Third Annual Report

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have received, and I shall present to the House, the third annual report by the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, furnished to me in accordance with section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Copies may be obtained from the Clerk. In his report the president made only one suggestion for amending legislation. Consideration had already been given to this matter and an amending regulation, which should meet the position, is being prepared. It is pleasing to note that the president has emphasized the value of recent amendments of the act, and that he is able to report that the objects of the act have been substantially achieved and that industrial friction is waning rather than increasing. I lay on the table the following paper: -

Conciliation and Arbitration Act - Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission - Third Annual Report by President for year ended 13th August, 1959.

page 2895

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Mr BLAND:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As chairman, I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee -

Forty-third Report - Expenditure from Advance to the Treasurer for the year 1958-59.

This report embodies the results of our inquiries into the operations of what is usually known as the Treasurer’s Advance Account. It is an inquiry that the committee pursues year by year because it best reveals, amongst other things, the financial methods by which the various departments supplement their votes. For example, there is revealed the extent to which the departments over-estimate their requirements or under-spend their appropriations.

I can assure the House that, as a result of years of criticism and exhortation on the part of the committee, the estimates of the departments submitted to us on this occasion were, generally, much more accurate than they previously had been.

One matter that has caused the committee concern, however, has been the nature of the follow-up of its recommendations and comments. The House knows, of course, that each report of the committee, having been presented to the Parliament, is sent to the Treasury, which discusses the matters raised in the report with the departments affected. Subsequently, the Treasurer advises us of what he has done and we, in our turn, report that to the Parliament. We will submit a number of these reports to the House next Thursday. But the Treasury’s authority in matters of departmental organization is limited and it avoids overlapping the functions of the Public Service Board. Accordingly, from time to time we have suggested that the board, with or without Treasury aid, should see that the departments take notice of our recommendations or comments.

This year we found that a department whose financial methods and controls that we criticized two years ago had not improved to any significant extent. This is the sort of case that we think should be taken over by the organization and methods staff of the Public Service Board to rectify the weaknesses which we mentioned, thus putting the operations of the department on an efficient basis. We were told that the departments generally were short of trained staff capable of doing this financial work. Therefore, it was suggested that the status of the finance and accounting officers of the Public Service might well be raised with a view to attracting suitable staff for this arrears of work that has to be done. If this is to be done, it will probably need a departmental committee to look into the circumstances to which we have drawn attention.

I conclude by saying that this is the sort of report which ought to be a “ must “ in the reading of all honorable members. I know that members get scores of reports across their desks every day, but I still say that I would prescribe this report as a “ must “ in their reading. And as they read, I would ask them to do so in the light of the question whether Parliament is abrogating its position and relying on its several committees to do a piece of work which Parliament ought to be doing itself.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– In support of the remarks of the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I should like to emphasize that honorable members should be aware of the fact that this committee’s report dealing with the Advance to the Treasurer appears on the notice-paper as item 16. Until about three or four years ago Supplementary Estimates were presented to Parliament for consideration and approval. These related to amounts spent in the preceding financial year but which had not been included in the general estimates. As a result of an alteration in procedure the Statement of the Treasurer’s Advance was substituted for the Supplementary Estimates. As the chairman has pointed out the committee discovered in a number of cases that the reason for unexpected expenditure under the Treasurer’s Advance had been brought about by grave errors in estimating by various departments. This report will give honorable members the opportunity, when it is debated, to discuss not only the matters to which it refers but also the Statement of the Treasurer’s Advance.

Honorable members should have a greater appreciation of the information supplied both in the Treasurer’s Advance statement and in this report. Since the Public Accounts Committee first began to investigate the Supplementary Estimates there has been a great improvement in the estimating and expenditure by the various departments. There are not now so many excesses of either over-spending or underspending on the Estimates approved by Parliament as there were in the early days of the committee. Previously, when the Supplementary Estimates were discussed it was a post-mortem of expenditure by the various departments, but it was the best opportunity that honorable members had to consider whether the departments conducted their business and spent the money approved each year under general Estimates in the wisest way. I commend the report and hope that it will receive greater attention from honorable members than it has in the past, and also that honorable members will take up the questions on which the Public Accounts Committee has reported.

Ordered to be printed.

page 2896

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Dr. Evatt) agreed to -

That leave of absence for one month be given to the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) owing to his absence from Australia, and to the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Sexton) on the ground of ill health.

page 2896

COMMONWEALTH MOTOR VEHICLES (LIABILITY) BILL 1959

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act relating to the liability of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth authorities in respect of death or personal injury caused by, or arising out of use of, certain motor vehicles.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to accept on behalf of the Commonwealth the same liability for personal injuries caused by people who from time to time drive Commonwealth motor vehicles without proper authority, as the Commonwealth has accepted since 1903 under Part IX. of the Judiciary Act in respect of injuries caused by the negligence of drivers properly authorized and driving in the course of their duty.

At the present time, the Commonwealth is not liable for injury caused by the negligent driving of one of its vehicles if the driver at the time of the accident was nol acting in the course of employment by the Commonwealth. The attempt to alter this position might seem so simple an exercise that honorable members may wonder why it is necessary to introduce for the purpose a separate, and obviously complex, bill of the kind now before the House. Before I sit down, the reason will, I think, be quite clear. In the community generally the liability for personal injury caused by the negligent use of privately owned vehicles is provided for nowadays in all States by compulsory third party insurance under individual State laws. The task which this bill has to accomplish is to adjust that system of liability, on an Australia-wide basis, to the position of the Commonwealth as the owner of motor vehicles which for good and sufficient reasons are not brought under an insurance system. This task could not be accomplished by a simple amendment of the Judiciary Act.

Under the common law, the Crown was not liable in law for damage caused by the negligence of its employees, negligence being a tort and the maxim being that the Crown could do no wrong. As long ago as 1903, the Commonwealth made itself liable to suit in contract or in tort by section 56 of the Judiciary Act, and section 64 of that act provided that the rights of the parties in such a suit should be as nearly as possible the same as in a suit between subject and subject. The Judiciary Act, therefore, made the Commonwealth liable for damage caused by the negligence of its drivers committed in the course of their employment.

However, it sometimes happens, to the Commonwealth as to other employers, that one of its employees, to use the picturesque vernacular phrase, uses the vehicle “ on a frolic of his own “, and is involved in an accident in so doing; or maybe a vehicle is taken by some person who has no authority whatsoever to use it. Neither the common law nor the Judiciary Act made the Commonwealth liable in those circumstances. The purpose of this bill is thus, in the words of the Prime Minister, “to make the Commonwealth liable to be sued for damages for death or injury caused to any person by a Commonwealth vehicle by whomsoever driven and whether with or without the authority of the Commonwealth “.

Like the third party insurance provisions in the States, the bill will not alter the common law position in respect of claims for damage to property, but will cover liability in respect of death or personal injury.

As honorable members are aware, a policy of third party insurance is taken out by the owner of a motor vehicle so that, in the event of some other person being injured or killed through the negligent use of that vehicle, money will be available under the policy to meet any judgment for damages that may be awarded in favour of the person injured or the representatives of the person killed. The purpose of making third party insurance compulsory, of course, was to ensure that this cover would be available in al! cases. There are two kinds of cases in which, apart from such a system, the person injured might go without effective remedy. The first is that the owner of the vehicle might have no funds available to satisfy a judgment. The second is that in any event the owner might not be liable in law. Let me explain in a little more detail.

With the increase in the number of persons owning or buying motor cars, it became clear that there would be many cases where a person was injured by the negligence of the owner of the vehicle, or of the agent of the owner, and where the owner was liable to the injured party in damages at common law, but where the legal claim might not avail the injured party because the owner of the vehicle did not have the means to satisfy the judgment. In this respect, the aim of the State third-party legislation was not to alter the common law as to liability, but was to ensure that the lack of means of the owner would not defeat the legal claim of the injured party.

There was, however, also a secondary purpose in the State legislation. Where a vehicle was being driven by an unauthorized person - by a thief or by a servant of the owner who was not using the vehicle in the course of his employment - a person injured by the vehicle would, at common law, have no right of action against the owner, and it was necessary to ensure either that the unauthorized driver should be deemed to be the authorized agent of the owner, thus rendering the owner and his insurer answerable, or that the liability of the unauthorized driver himself, in an action against him for damages, would be met by third-party insurance.

Mr Bryant:

– What about damage to property?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– It is not concerned in this at all. The legislation of some States adopts both the courses I have mentioned. That of other States merely requires the policy of third-party insurance issued in respect of a motor vehicle to cover the liability of unauthorized drivers, in addition to that of the owner or his agent.

In the case of vehicles owned by a government, the first problem could scarcely arise. There would always be funds available once liability was established. The second problem, however, is real enough - that is, the need to create liability in the event of unauthorized use. So far as all the States are concerned, that liability has either been imposed by law or accepted by the government in various ways.

For constitutional reasons, the States cannot impose their legislation on the Commonwealth. The Government of the Commonwealth is, in fact, not legally obliged to insure its vehicles against third party risks, and as a matter of policy does not do so. It simply acts as its own insurer, and meets judgments for damages in respect of its vehicles out of general revenue. This practice has worked satisfactorily where the Commonwealth has been liable, through its authorized driver, for the injury caused. But, as honorable members will realize, there are from time to time cases where the Commonwealth is not at present legally liable - owing to the fact that, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven without the Commonwealth’s permission, either by a person employed by the Commonwealth but acting outside the course of his employment, or by some other person who has taken a Commonwealth vehicle without authority. Under the ordinary rules of vicarious liability in tort, the Commonwealth has no legal responsibility for an accident caused in these circumstances, and the injured person can only hope to succeed in an action against the unauthorized driver, who may be a person of limited means, possibly quite unable to meet the damages awarded against him.

Except in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, where legislation similar to that of the States has been introduced, it is therefore usually not worth-while to sue the unauthorized driver of a Commonwealth vehicle, and if the injured person sues the Commonwealth, he may properly be met by the defence that the Commonwealth is not responsible for the driver’s unauthorized acts. The Commonwealth has, however, for some time done something to alleviate this position. In cases where the Commonwealth has had this defence open to it, the procedure has been for the Treasurer to examine the case and, if he thought fit, to offer the injured person an ex gratia payment equal to the amount that would have been payable had the Commonwealth been liable under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act for the injury sustained.

The number of cases of injury caused by unauthorized drivers of Commonwealth vehicles is small, of course, compared with the number of cases arising from the use of vehicles driven in the ordinary course of employment, but the Commonwealth takes the view that a person injured by a Commonwealth vehicle, whether its use was authorized or not, should not be in a worse position than a person injured by a privately owned vehicle.

This bill is designed, therefore, to give a person injured by a Commonwealth vehicle being driven without authority the same right of action against the Commonwealth as he would have had if the vehicle had been driven by an agent of the Common wealth acting within the scope of his authority. To this end, clause 5 provides, in effect, that in any proceedings against the Commonwealth for damages in respect of death or personal injury caused by a Commonwealth vehicle, the driver of the vehicle, whatever the circumstances under which he comes to be driving it, is conclusively presumed to be driving as the authorized agent of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will thus be liable to meet the damages awarded in any case of death or injury caused by its vehicle, by whomsoever driven, and a gap in the law relating to compensation for road injun will be closed.

The bill makes various incidental provisions. There is one important incidental provision, the reasons for which I desire to make quite clear. I refer to paragraph (b) of sub-clause (1.) of clause 5. It will be seen that the paragraph speaks of a claim “ made by or against the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority for contribution . . .”. The inclusion of this paragraph has two important consequences. In the first place, if a Commonwealth vehicle driven by an unauthorized driver comes, for example, into collision with another vehicle and a third party is injured partly as a result of the negligence of the unauthorized driver of the Commonwealth vehicle and partly as a result of the negligence of the other driver, the paragraph makes clear that the ordinary State laws relating to contribution between tortfeasors will apply. This will mean that the Commonwealth will be able to claim contribution from the other negligent party, and on the other hand it will equally mean that that party, if he is the one sued, may claim contribution from the Commonwealth in respect of the negligent use of the Commonwealth vehicle.

In the second place, although the Commonwealth will be accepting the liability to pay damages to a person injured by the negligent use of a Commonwealth vehicle by an unauthorized driver, the paragraph makes clear that the Commonwealth will have the right to recover from the unauthorized driver the damages paid by it. In other words, the bill will give the injured person a ready means of redress against the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth in its turn will have the right to try to recover from the driver who was driving without authority what it has paid to the injured party. Of course, whether or not the Commonwealth exercised the right would depend on the circumstances. If the Commonwealth vehicle is, for any reason, covered by a policy of third party insurance at the time of the accident - for example, if it is in the hands of a trader or repairer who holds a third party policy in respect of a vehicle while it is in his care - the bill will not apply, and the policy will be left to operate.

In submitting itself to the same liability with regard to injury caused by negligent driving of one of its vehicles as that to which other owners of motor vehicles are subjected, the Commonwealth will, under the bill, have that liability, whether for authorized or unauthorized use, assessed by a court in the same manner as the liability of any other litigant in a motor accident case would be assessed - that is to say, with or without a jury, depending on the requirements of the law of the particular State in which the liability arises. This is in accordance with the policy of the Commonwealth, embodied in the Judiciary Act since 1903, that in regard to its liability to be sued in contract or in tort the Commonwealth is to be as nearly as possible in the same position, before the court, as the litigant would be in a suit between subject and subject.

Dr Evatt:

– There would be no change in the practice?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– No. The provisions of the bill apply to Commonwealth authorities and their vehicles in the same way that they apply to the Commonwealth and its vehicles. In a case in which a Commonwealth authority is not covered by the State compulsory third-party insurance system, it will be covered by this bill. The act will apply throughout the Commonwealth and the Territories of the Commonwealth.

Honorable members will see that clause 5 is designed to apply in respect of deaths and injuries caused by occurrences that took place after 9th September, 1958. The effect will be that the clause will apply to proceedings in respect of occurrences that took place on or after the date of the statement by the Prime Minister from which I quoted earlier - the statement which was made on 9th September, 1958. 1 commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr. Evatt) adjourned.

page 2899

QUESTION

SUPPLY (GRIEVANCE DAY)

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) proposed -

That Order of the Day No. 1 - Supply (Grievance Day) - be postponed until a later hour this day.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I desire to make a protest against what the Government is now proposing to do. The ordinary member of this Parliament does not have many opportunities to raise matters of great concern, both to his own electorate and to the community generally. This would appear to be the last occasion on which we can have a grievance day until the Parliament reassembles, because I understand the Government intends to end this sessional period at the end of next week, and the Parliament will not sit again until, probably, the end of February or the beginning of March next year. It has already been announced that the Government intends to prorogue the Parliament, and that the new Governor-General is to open the next session of the Parliament. As the Governor-General designate will not arrive in this country until February next, it is most likely that the opening of the Parliament will not take place until the end of February or the beginning of March.

I believe there are so many important matters that should be ventilated in this Parliament that the Government’s action on this occasion is quite unwarranted. Why this haste to close the Parliament up, to prevent criticism of the administration of the various departments and of the legislation that is being enacted in the name of the Government? There has never before been a government of this country which has run away from its responsibilities to the extent that this Government has, and which has neglected to give Opposition members the opportunity to function as they should, to bring matters of concern to the community before the attention of the House, and to question Ministers.

Honorable members are fully aware that although the Standing Orders provide for a debate on the motion to adjourn the House every sitting day, a practice has grown up since this Government has been in office of not permitting debate on the adjournment motion on the first sitting day in each week. Already, therefore, the Government has curtailed the opportunities of ordinary members to raise important matters from time to time. Not only on the first sitting day in each week has this become the practice; there have been many occasions on other days when the Government has used the gag to prevent adjournment debates. The Opposition has gradually been manoeuvred into a position in which it is practically begging the Government to give it the right, which the Standing Orders provide, to raise important matters in the House.

It is no exaggeration to say that in my office are papers concerning at least SO different important matters which I want to have the opportunity of raising in this Parliament. How often have we had a Grievance Day? Even when we have had one the Government has had the audacity to say to the Opposition, “ We will permit two or three speeches from each side of the Parliament”, instead of allowing a full and complete opportunity for all members to raise matters that they regard as important.

What is the need for the haste? The sitting of the Parliament yesterday was continued until half-past three this morning, with the House exhausted, 75 per cent, of honorable members asleep and the same proportion of Ministers incapable of knowing what was going on in the chamber. Why must this happen? It happens simply because the Government has decided to end the sittings next week. I do not think any member, and certainly no member who has any thought for his obligations to the people whom he represents, would mind if the sittings of this Parliament were extended for another week or even two .weeks, so that we could conduct our business in a proper and orderly manner.

We have often heard members of this Parliament regretting the fact that reflections are cast upon the Parliament and its members, and that this institution is being held in contempt by the Australian community. Who is responsible for bringing it into contempt? The responsibility rests on this arrogant and over-bearing Government, which believes that an Opposition is only an irritating body, and that the sooner the Government can close up the Parliament and stifle and muzzle the Opposition the better. Although the Government has the numbers to prevent us expressing our views in this Parliament, thank goodness it has not yet got the authority to prevent us telling the people, outside the Parliament, exactly what is hapening in this country to-day. I enter my protest, and I hope that other members of the Opposition will join me in this protest.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

– The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has gone through a familiar process. The act, the mannerisms and the language we have heard from him so often before. We have listened on both sides of the House with the same lack of receptiveness, because we know that in the present circumstances what he says is absolute poppycock. No member of this Parliament with any lengthy experience can remember a parliamentary year in which more time has been devoted to the business of private members, and more opportunity given them to bring forward matters for debate, than the year 1959. The time devoted to the debate on the Estimates was longer than normally allowed. Almost without exception the times normally set aside for the business of private members have been devoted to that business. In the days of the Government of which the honorable member for East Sydney was a member, such times were so rare that I can hardly recall an occasion when we were allowed a Grievance Day.

In this parliamentary year opportunities have been provided, night after night and week after week, however late the hour and uncomfortable the circumstances, for members to speak on the motion for the adjournment of the House. The honorable member for East Sydney, who is reliably reported to take his afternoon nap while the rest of us have to go ahead with the business of the House, so that he can remain fresh, comes in like a lion unleashed at about midnight and brings up matters for discussion, nine-tenths of which could be dealt with far more satisfactorily either by personal interview with Ministers, or by correspondence with them or their departments.

As I said in the House the other day, the honorable member for East Sydney, who claims the right of free speech, has done more to damage the prospects of free speech than any other man that I have known in this Parliament. This institution would become unworkable if the same lack of co-operation was forthcoming from all members of the Parliament that we have had from the honorable member for East Sydney. Even bis Leader and Deputy Leader cannot secure reasonable cooperation from him so as to ensure that arrangements they enter into for the smooth running of the House are carried out.

The matter that the Parliament has been debating over the last couple of days is most important. There is keen public interest in it. I understand there have already been some complaints that yesterday’s discussion was not conducted when Parliament was on the air. I suggest that we would be showing a lack of responsibility if we brought forward trifling matters now - because at this stage of the session they are not likely to be matters of great urgency or consequence - and deprive those who care to listen to the Parliament’s discussions of the opportunity to hear the remainder of the debate on the major social legislation that we have before us.

Let me point out that even in this week the Government has not denied private members the opportunity to raise matters of concern to them. I made special arrangements for an adjournment debate, if it was required, on the first night of this week’s sittings. Nobody chose to take advantage of the opportunity. Admittedly the hour when the House adjourned this morning was not the time when most people would have wished to speak, but, nevertheless, the opportunity was there. To-night there will be further opportunities.

Mr Calwell:

– Not to-morrow night!

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I must correct myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The late hour at which we took our truncated sleeping time has left me with the impression that we are a day behind.

Mr Ward:

– That is the trouble; you do not know what day of the week it is!

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I know where I am and what I am doing, which is more than the honorable gentleman seems to know most of the time.

To-night, there will be another opportunity, I would hope, for honorable members to deal with matters of concern to them, and the honorable gentleman will be able to shorten his list of 50 matters which, he says, is growing. I could refer to other opportunities. We still have a quite varied range of legislation to debate, and perhaps the honorable gentleman could vent some of his views then. We have the item of Advance to the Treasurer, which permits debate on a much wider range of topics than debate on legislation limited to some particular aspect. I am certain in my own mind that if we were to accept the suggestion of the honorable gentleman and protract the proceedings of the Parliament for another week or two beyond the date indicated, whatever prospects he may have of gaining the leadership of his party would diminish very rapidly. He would create more irritation there than he does here. The clear will of the House is that we proceed with the Matrimonial Causes Bill as speedily as practicable, and to that end, I move -

That the question be now put.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. T. F. Timson.)

AYES: 59

NOES: 36

Majority . . . . 23

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the motion (vide page 2899) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker- Mr. T. F. Timson.)

AYES: 59

NOES: 37

Majority . . . . 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2902

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL 1959

In committee: Consideration resumed from 18th November (vide page 2886).

Clause 27, paragraph (n).

Paragraph (n) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 31 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 31a.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I move -

After clause 31, insert the following new clause: - “31a. A decree of dissolution of marriage shall not be made upon the ground specified in paragraph (j) of section twenty-seven of this Act unless the court is satisfied that reasonable attempts have been made by the petitioner to enforce the order or agreement under which the maintenance was ordered or agreed to be paid.”.

This proposed new clause is designed as a precaution to ensure that the ground is not used collusively.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- A proposed new clause 31a has been circulated in my name, but, having had discussions with the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick), I do not propose to press it. May I simply say that the honorable gentleman has given me an assurance that if evidence is available to show that it is possible to assist to restore people as useful members of the community–

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bowden:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Order! Is the honorable gentleman moving a new clause?

Mr KILLEN:

– I am explaining why I am withdrawing my proposed new clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable gentleman is out of order as there is no question before the Chair.

Mr KILLEN:

– It is no skin off my nose.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! It may be irritating to the honorable member, but that is the effect of Standing Orders.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 32a.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After clause 32, insert the following clause: - “32a. - (1.) For the purposes of paragraph (m) of section twenty-seven of this Act, the parties to a marriage may be taken to have separated notwithstanding that the cohabitation was brought to an end by the action or conduct of one only of the parties, whether constituting desertion or not. “ (2.) A decree of dissolution of marriage may be made upon the ground specified in paragraph (m) of section twenty-seven of this Act notwithstanding that there was in existence at any relevant time -

a decree of a court suspending the obliga tion of the parties to the marriage to cohabit; or

an agreement between those parties for separation.”.

This proposed new clause was discussed in conjunction with clause 27 (m) last evening, when it was explained.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 32b.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move -

After clause 32a, insert the following clause: - “ 32b. A decree of dissolution of marriage shall not be made up on the grounds specified in paragraph (m) of section twenty-seven of this Act where the suit is defended.”.

I foreshadowed this proposed new clause last night and 1 do not intend to re-traverse all the grounds of my argument. There are some other points that I should like to make. I point out to the committee that clause 27 (m), in the form in which it was before us, broke new ground in two respects. First, to a certain limited extent and in certain circumstances, it recognized the principle of divorce by consent. I agree that that is something which must be expressed with the appropriate limitation. Secondly, it went further and recognized divorce by compulsion in certain circumstances as a possibility against the innocent party. I regard this new principle as repugnant, not only to this legislation but also to the general principles of law. Therefore, it should be opposed.

In doing so, I want to appeal to what is known as the Morton report on marriage and divorce in Great Britain. Many references have been made to it. In the first place, reference has been made to the extracts from the report that were circulated by the bishops of the Anglican Church. I have those extracts In my hand. It is perfectly true, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, that the quotations made were not statements which were endorsed by all members of the Morton commission. So far as 1 can understand it, the circular does not say that they were so endorsed. It would have been preferable if this had been pointed out earlier. However, I now point out to honorable members that against each quotation is given a reference to a page, a section and a sub-section so that any honorable member who had looked up the references, as he should have, would know precisely what was intended.

It may well be, in the words of the Attorney-General, that these quotations were cited, not for the authority which they had but for the way in which they expressed the views of the members of the commission. I agree with the Attorney-General that perhaps it would have been preferable if, in place of those references which we all should have looked up, the headings had been quoted in full. However, in general I think that the strictures that have been passed on this report by some honorable members are not entirely justified. But there is a rather more important point. I feel that the Attorney-General has seriously mis-quoted to honorable members the impact of that report, perhaps more by omission than by commission although, in certain respects, by commission also. It is less easy for him to be excused in such a case than it is for the bishops to be excused.

I want to bring specific points to the attention of the committee. I hope that the Attorney-General will answer them, not in the way that he might address a jury, by an appeal to uninformed prejudice - he had an unexampled facility for pleading - but in the way in which questions in this chamber should be answered, namely, by an appeal to reason, as my learned friend, if I may call him that, would appeal to reason when appearing, not before a jury but before the High Court where I know he is much more at home.

Let me come now to these misrepresentations of the Morton report. I direct the attention of honorable members to the remarks of the Attorney-General which appear on page 2772 of “Hansard” of 17th November. He said this when describing the views of Lord Walker -

The tenth member of the commission - he was a Scotsman - thought that the ground similar to that contained in our clause 27 (m) should be the the only ground, but the other nine thought that they should have the traditional grounds plus a prototype of clause 27 (m).

Let me now read what Lord Walker, in fact, said. His remarks, which are not the remarks that have been attributed to him by the Attorney-General, appear on page 341 of the Morton report. He said -

My view accordingly is that the doctrine of the matrimonial offence ought to be abandoned as the basis for divorce.

He suggested that we should have something else instead, not quite the same as clause 27 (m) but, I woud agree, something similar to that clause. However - and this is the point - he said that if there is not to be this wholesale new doctrine, then the new ground of separation should not be included. His exact words as they appear on page 341 are -

Should that view not be adopted the need for some principle - even though, as I think, it is not the best principle - requires that the doctrine of the matrimonial offence should be adhered to as closely as may be, and without the new grounds of divorce proposed by some of the members in paragraphs 70 and 71.

In point of fact, he said exactly the opposite to what the Attorney-General has put before us. Lord Walker said that if there was not a complete basic new doctrine setting aside the matrimonial offence in all respects as the basis for divorce, then we should not admit this ground of separation at all. So my honorable friend, if he is honest, must range Lord Walker on the side opposite to his own on all these matters, because Lord Walker’s statement is different from the statement that the Attorney-General attributed to him.

Let me come now to a much more serious matter - the views of the other nine members of the commission. The committee will recall that there were nineteen reporting members on the commission. Of those,

I have mentioned Lord Walker. Nine said that separation should not be a ground for divorce. What of the other nine? Their views are set out on pages 24 and 25 of the report, and they are germane to the argument which I am bringing forward. Five of those nine said that unless the suit was undefended the ground of separation should not be used. Therefore, of the nineteen reporting members of the Morton commission, fifteen are “ on side “ with the amendment that I have proposed. What of the other four? They go part of the way with the nine and subscribe to the view that the nine expressed, but they go a little further and state that, even in a defended suit, a divorce on the ground of separation can be granted if the applicant has satisfied the court that the separation was, in part, due to the unreasonable conduct of the other spouse. If the amendment that I have now proposed fails, I intend to put forward a further amendment to clause 33 (1.) to the effect that even in a defended suit a decree should not be pronounced unless there has been evidence to satisfy the court of unreasonable conduct on the part of the other spouse.

Let me summarize the position for the committee: Ten members of the commission would have voted against clause 27 (m). Fifteen, on their printed word, would have voted for the amendment which I have moved, and the nineteen would have voted for the amendment which I project if this present amendment is rejected by the committee.

Mr Roberton:

– And they would all be wrong.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-“ They would all be wrong”, says my honorable friend, another Scotsman. I appeal to the reason of the committee. I point out that the AttorneyGeneral seriously misquoted the impact of the Morton commission report when he said, as appears on page 2772 of “ Hansard “-

There were ten on one side and nine on the other.

He had the ten and the nine wrong. He even had the nine, of whom he was entitled to speak, wrong because they said the opposite to what he attributed to them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised at the attitude taken to-day by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth). We dealt with this matter for three and one-half hours last night.

Mr Wentworth:

– That was a different matter altogether.

Mr THOMPSON:

– It is all very well for the honorable member to say that. The whole point is that he is trying to destroy what was done last night.

Mr Wentworth:

– Piffle.

Mr THOMPSON:

– There is no question about it. The honorable member is not prepared to take a test vote of the great majority of the members of the committee, who were agreeable to the inclusion in clause 27 of paragraph (m) - the separation provision. The Attorney-General, last night, explained that he was not going to allow something harsh and unconscionable to be held over the head of a respondent. He pointed out that if a petitioner for a divorce on the ground of separation for five years could be shown not to have played the game fairly and squarely by the other partner to the marriage the divorce would not be given. We were told all about that last night and all about the division of opinion among the members of the United Kingdom Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. Of the royal commissioners who reported, nine supported the inclusion of separation for five years as a ground for divorce and ten were opposed to it. We talk about this being a responsible Parliament, Mr. Chairman. We say that we come here as responsible persons, but if all we do is to discuss what some other body in another place has said, what is the good of us being here? I claim that a majority view is not necessarily right as against a minority view. I have put in a minority report on some matters because I did not believe that the majority was right, and it has turned out in more cases than one that my minority report took the correct view. In matters such as this, I do not accept what the majority has said as being necessarily correct and as governing the rights of the people.

In my mind, there is no question that some honorable members have made up their minds what they are going to do. The honorable member for Mackellar has quoted what the bishops had to say. All I can say about that, in reply to the bishops, is that, while I am a member of Parliament, I shall act and vote as I feel a responsible person should act and vote in legislating in the best interests of the people as one of their representatives. I shall not be concerned with the views of some other body, regardless of the denomination it represents. I shall not allow my actions to be determined by some other body which says, “ Because we as a body do not believe in this, you must not do it “. I acknowledge the right of the bishops to say that they do not believe in divorce on the ground of separation for five years and that they in their Church, do not recognize it. They have every right to take that view. But, in this place, Sir, we are not speaking from the stand-point of any Church or denomination. We are speaking as the representatives of the great body of the people.

Let me ask the bishops what is their attitude to people who go to a registry office to be married, instead of to a church, because they do not believe in church services for that purpose. Should not such people have an equal right with any one else to determine the matter in a civil manner instead of its being determined by a body of opinion of any particular Church? I do much honour to the men who undertake church work. I know what the various denominations do throughout my own district. I say, Mr. Chairman, that a considerable number of the members of this chamber would not for a moment accept the directions of such people in a lot of matters.

Some honorable members have said that this ground for divorce does not exist in New South Wales. They suggest that there are reasons why it has not been included in the law in that State. I ask those honorable members, “ Why is that unholy thing, the one-armed bandit, as it is called, tolerated in New South Wales? “. Do the churches approve of it. Do the bishops approve of it, or do they come out and say to their followers, “ Wipe out the onearmed bandit.”? The one-armed bandit is doing more damage to our community than will be done by any of these divorce laws that we are talking about. It is ruining homes and disrupting the lives of the ordinary people, according to letters written by correspondents to the newspapers in New South Wales, to a greater degree than is anything else in the community.

If we are to accept the dictum of the churches in this matter of divorce, Sir, should we not accept their dictum when they come out on the subject of gambling and the like? The Reverend Gordon Powell has been quoted here as having said certain things. I know him personally. As a preacher and a Christian man, he is one of the finest persons one could find. But he does not stop at divorce alone. He condemns the liquor trade and what it is doing to the people. Do we then say, “ Because Gordon Powell has condemned the liquor trade, we have to wipe it out.”? We do not. Every one decides for himself what he should do in the matter. Therefore, in relation to this matter of divorce, I say, “ For goodness’ sake, let us forget for a while what has been said by some other body, whether it be a royal commission in another country, a group of church leaders or any other group “. Let us all do what we believe in our own consciences to be correct.

I believe, Sir, that, generally speaking, the great majority of the members of this chamber agree with this bill. Some honorable members are conscientious in objecting to it. I have no objection to them putting forward their views, and I claim the right to state my own views. We dealt with this matter very fully last night, and I feel that proposals like that made by the honorable member for Mackellar will just re-open the whole question and delay the passage of this measure, because every honorable member knows how he is going to vote. Therefore, I hope that we shall not have another long debate on this matter.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

.- Mr. Chairman, the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) does the members of this committee very small credit in making this proposal. We spent until the small hours of this morning debating the ground of separation for five years on the footing that it would be open to a man whose mar riage partner was not guilty of any matrimonial offence and would not take divorce proceedings. We debated all this right through, and the committee, in no uncertain fashion, indicated its view. Would I be saying something too strong if I said it was an impertinence for the honorable member for Mackellar to take the action that he has taken this morning? We have been all through this, and the purpose of the two amendments that he has in mind is simply to undo what the committee did last night. The honorable member has a great deal of knowledge and eloquence. I know that he is persuasive and industrious. But I do not agree with what he has extracted from the report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce in the United Kingdom. After all, the honorable member, I think, is more used to reading engineering journals than to reading reports of this sort.

I stand by what I said yesterday about this report, and, for my part, I do not propose to debate it further. But I do suggest that the further consideration of this bill should not be delayed by an amendment brought hard on the heels of a lengthy debate in which all these points were thoroughly discussed. I really believe that we ought to give the amendment fairly short shrift.

Dr Evatt:

– Will the Attorney-General help us by answering a question? The amendment proposes that a decree of dissolution of marriage shall not be made on the ground specified in paragraph (m) where the suit is defended.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– That would give to one party a right to veto. That is the very thing that we debated last night.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
Chisholm

.- Mr. Chairman, I have spoken on several clauses of this bill, but I did not speak on paragraph (m) of this clause last night, because I knew that a lot of other honorable members wanted to discuss it. I felt that the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Mackinnon) and the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) in particular, as well as several other honorable members, had probably expressed my point of view better than 1 could have expressed it myself. I make no apology for speaking on any of the remaining clauses in this bill if I feel that we are not doing the right thing or that amendments should be made.

Mr Duthie:

– Nobody is stopping the honorable member from doing that.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:

– I do not care what criticism is aimed at me. I am prepared to come here at 12.30 p.m., after having sat up until 3 a.m., in order to put forward points of view that I consider to be right.

Mr Duthie:

– No one is stopping you.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:

– No.

But criticism has been levelled at the honorable member for Mackellar for putting forward this amendment. He has proposed this amendment because, as was pointed out very clearly last night, clause 27 (m) is a new, if not a novel provision in our law, and with all the precautions which the Attorney-General, wisely, and after a great deal of thought put into this bill - that is, after clause 27 (m) was first drafted - - he found that a lot of injustices could occur, and he has tried to hedge the provision around with as many safeguards as possible. It is still admitted that we are reversing what has been enshrined in our law for a long time, and that, as a result, an innocent person might be dealt with unjustly.

As the honorable member for Hume said, the principle observed in the past has been that it is better for several criminals to escape rather than that injustice should be done to one innocent person. It has been admitted that, under this bill, injustice could still occur. The honorable member for Mackellar is not trying to wipe out everything that was put into the bill last night. I understand that he is trying to have inserted an amendment which will prevent injustice from occurring if the innocent person does not desire a divorce. I think that is perfectly reasonable. It is a major point. For that reason I support the proposed amendment and I shall support the subsequent amendment if we fail on the first one.

I have been many long years in Parliament. It is true that this bill of 116 clauses was introduced at a late stage of the session, and that it was debated until 3 o’clock this morning. But I have debated bills through three continuous all-night sittings.

I protested at the start of the debate about the time available for discussion. I do not propose to go on protesting because although the Attorney-General originally declared that he did not expect to get the bill through the Parliament this session, apparently it is now vital that it should go through. But please allow honorable members the right, on a bill such as this, to say what they believe and to move the amendments that they think should be moved.

I think that the honorable member for Mackellar is absolutely right in his proposed amendment. Maybe it does not cover the subject fully. The honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) said that he voted according to his conscience. So do other people. But in a matter as complicated as this, neither the lawyers nor the bishops are necessarily right and when an independent royal commission has come down so solidly in favour of a certain point I, for one, believe that we should take proper notice of its view. Some honorable members maybe feel so confident on the question already that they do not consider it necessary to consult other people’s opinions. I am not criticizing them for that. But I say that in clause 27 (m) something new is established and if the honorable member for Mackellar or anybody else proposes an amendment to ensure that no innocent person shall be put in a false position, I shall support it.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

.- The interesting thing about this debate has been that one can profoundly disagree with one’s friends. In the early hours of this morning, this committee resolved to accept divorce on grounds not including matrimonial offences, in certain circumstances and with certain safeguards. That is the principle established by clause 27 (m). The honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), supported by the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes), has proposed an amendment which is a direct negation of that principle. I am only a layman but I say that it is a direct negation. If this amendment is approved it will not be possible to grant a divorce if the suit is defended, yet the committee has established the right of divorce without matrimonial offence. Here, surely, is a direct negation.

I also oppose the proposed amendment because it would encourage connivance. If one party says, “ You will not get a divorce because I will defend it”, what will the natural corollary be? Here is a person who wants release from a marriage which has completely broken down, but the other party may say, “No. I will defend the application and there will not be a case for divorce unless you commit a matrimonial offence, and even then I will not give you relief.” That is the type of thing that we should try to prevent. The honorable member for Chisholm apparently did not understand what I meant when I referred to the criminal code. I explained, first, how difficult it was to decide who was the guilty party. There cannot be a quarrel unless there are two parties to it. You cannot quarrel by yourself. Both people concerned must quarrel. Therefore, to establish who is the guilty party may be beyond the wisdom of Solomon.

I strongly oppose this amendment, with great respect to the honorable member for Mackellar. In this case, I find that I am entirely at variance with him. I believe that paragraph (m) has ample safeguards. The adoption of the amendment would defeat the objective that we tried to achieve when clause 27, paragraph (m), was agreed to.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I hope the Attorney-General will not accuse me of impertinence when I say to him that I believe that he was a little ungenerous to the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth). Surely our vote on clause 27 (m) last night did not postulate that we were committed to every provision in the bill that related to clause 27 (m). May I put it to the Attorney-General that a member of the committee may well approve of the broad principle resident in clause 27 (m), but may refuse to accept the principle postulated by the discretionary power. It is not a matter of wanting to travel over the ground again. I would be the last person to suggest that we should do that. But I put it to the Attorney-General that surely members of the committee are entitled to consider the other provisions in juxtaposition to clause 27 (m).

Of course, differences of opinion exist. The honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) said that some members of the committee were relying on the authority of the Morton report, and that he preferred his own judgment. I believe that he is entitled to that attitude. But equally I believe that I am at liberty to look at the Morton report and see on what principles it could guide us. Equally I must say, without malevolence to the honorable member for Port Adelaide, that although I completely respect the views of the bishops or any other minister of religion, that does not mean to say that I am bound to accept them. I have said before in this chamber and I say again that I will exercise my own judgment on this, as on other matters. But I hope that the Attorney-General will not take it that because members want to deliberate upon provisions relative to clause 27 (m) they want to travel over the ground that we covered in the very small hours of this morning.

Mr WHEELER:
Mitchell

.- I guess that after sitting until 3 o’clock this morning people are a little testy on this matter.

Mr Ward:

– It was half-past three.

Mr WHEELER:

– The honorable member for East Sydney corrects me. It was half-past three. I think that the AttorneyGeneral goes a little beyond the duties of his office when he describes the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) as being impertinent for bringing forward a matter which is exercising his mind. It is suggested that the honorable member for Mackellar lacks the intelligence to appreciate the implications of what he is talking about and that he is accustomed-

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– Oh!

Mr WHEELER:

– The AttorneyGeneral has made these statements and he must accept the comeback. He cannot make statements in this chamber as he may in a court of law and expect to get away with them. He implied that the honorable member for Mackellar lacks the intelligence to appreciate what he is talking about and that he is more attuned to reading about engineering subjects.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Why do you not talk on the clause?

Mr WHEELER:

– I am defending the right of a private member to express bis view in this place. If a private member cannot express his view we might as well pack up and leave the whole blessed thing to the lawyers to fight out. That is the impression 1 want to leave with the Attorney-General. We are entitled to express our opinions in this place.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

.- I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) and I disagree entirely with the comments made by the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick) and the honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) who, with some feeling, this morning suggested that the honorable member for Mackellar had no right to rise in his place and propose an amendment.

Let it be remembered that the amendment moved by the honorable member for Mackellar does no more or less than condition paragraph (m) of clause 27. It does not seek to undo completely the work which was done last night. I should like to go on record as saying that if we could undo what was done last night I would be a very happy man indeed, because the means by which decisions were reached last night by continuing the debate until 3.15 o’clock this morning were not in the best interests of our parliamentary institution. I believe it would have been much better if the Attorney-General had accepted the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) at 1.30 a.m. to report progress and resume consideration of the bill this morning in a proper and orderly manner when all members of the committee would have the opportunity of being present and able to engage in a fruitful discussion.

What is wrong with the bishops of the Church of England expressing a point of view? There seems to be some bitterness about this. Why there should be bitterness because the Primate of Australia, on behalf of the Anglican bishops, has written a letter to honorable members, is beyond my imagination. Surely we should accept and welcome such information when it comes to hand just as we welcome information from the trade unions, financial houses or national fitness bodies on legislative proposals that affect them. Quite obviously, in this instance we ought to welcome information from those who deal with ques tions of ethics and morality. As far as I am personally concerned, I am pleased to hear the words of the bishops. I respect their point of view. I do not necessarily endorse it, but I respect it; and I am very pleased to receive it. In this particular matter they have put forward a point of view which I believe is deserving of the warmest possible consideration.

I was somewhat astonished to hear the honorable member for Port Adelaide go off at a tangent and mix up various ideas. He spoke about one-armed bandits and the liquor trade and all the rest. May I say to the honorable member that if he is so impressed by what the bishops have to say on the question of gambling and the liquor trade, one would expect him to give similar credence and respect to what they have to say on this matter which affects the lives and welfare of the people.

I say again that the amendment now before the committee appears to me simply to condition the provision contained in paragraph (m) of clause 27.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr MACKINNON:
Corangamite

– I do not think that anybody in this committee would have any illusion in regard to where my sympathies lie in regard to the amendment moved by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), which would remove from the action of 27 (m) undefended cases where it was proved that there was no justification for the petitioner to claim what could be described as unreasonable behaviour or difficulty in compatibility. So, Sir, I am completely in sympathy with the basis for the amendment. I have already expressed my view on it, and I believe also that by voting against clause 27 (m) I have signified my position. At the same time, I think that the trend of the argument presented in opposition to clause 27 (m) has been largely based on this principle of giving some form of protection to the innocent party in a divorce obtained under the clause. So I feel that the vote taken in the early hours of this morning was taken basically on this present issue and, whilst I am in complete support of the honorable member for Mackellars idea, I believe it would be defeating the forms of the House if we were to take this present amendment to a vote. So I must state my position again, that whilst I am in sympathy with it, I feel that I must either abstain from voting on the amendment, or vote against it.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
Chisholm

.- First, I should like to thank the Attorney-General for what he said to me this morning as we left the chamber for lunch. Some of us were rubbing the sleep out of our eyes this morning, and inclined to be a bit short. If my reply to the Attorney-General’s remark sounded at all in conformity with the tired mood of most of us, I apologize if he took it in the wrong way. I certainly do not think that the Attorney-General actually meant his remark about the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) early this morning to be taken to mean what some of us may have taken it to mean. All of us would like to see this debate brought back to the same level that it was on last night. Not for a very long time in this chamber have I heard a better debate than last night’s. Incidentally, I can assure the Attorney-General and everybody else that in speaking on this amendment, honorable members are not trying to delay the passage of the bill or defeat the forms of the House.

As I understand the position, in some instances clause 27 (m) could easily lead to what could be referred to under the broad term of “ divorce by consent “ after five years’ separation of a married couple. I do not know whether divorce by consent is the right term, but honorable members will understand what I mean. On the other hand, as the honorable member for Mackellar has pointed out, there is a big principle involved which, although it may not apply very often, we feel contains an -implication which should be guarded against. I refer to divorce by compulsion; in other words, if two people who cannot get on, separate, under 27 (m) the party who left the marital home could sue for a divorce. This could be divorce by compulsion, the innocent party being forced into court and, under the paragraph as it stands, “be divorced against his or her wishes. “Whether or not what the honorable member for Mackellar has drafted is correct I do not know, but I understand that it is to protect against the occurrence of such cases that he has moved the amendment. I think that irrespective of what people feel - and they are quite entitled to their own opinions - the amendment is backed by the opinion of 15 of the members of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce in the United Kingdom. I do not know whether the honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) wishes to take any notice of that. He is just as capable, perhaps more capable than I am, of forming an opinion; but I certainly feel that the subject is controversial, difficult and involved, and we should take very great care when we are introducing a new principle into divorce law.

The United Kingdom Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce was a very competent body which represented a large cross-section of some of the most intelligent people in England, and its recommendations showed that it came to the same decision as is involved in the amendment. So I ask the honorable members not to feel that I and other honorable members are hammering at this point - as some people seem to think - just to keep the debate going. A very big principle is involved and, that being so, I propose to support the honorable member for Mackellar in spite of what the Attorney-General thinks about the amendment.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

.- I wish to say only a few words. First, I wish to express profound regret that the proceedings of this chamber were not broadcast yesterday. I think it is a most unfortunate situation that apparently the procedure governing the broadcast of proceedings of the Parliament is so inflexible that it cannot be varied to provide for an occasion when a matter of great public interest and great public moment is being discussed in one or other chamber. I read in various newspapers this morning complaints from the public about the fact that yesterday’s debate in this chamber was not on the air. This is a democratic parliament in which we are trying to represent the democratic wishes of the people at large. There should be an inter-communication going on between the Parliament and the people and, just as I maintain that it was quite in order, and very proper, that the Churches and other responsible organizations in the community should be able to make their views on this measure known to their representatives in Parliament, so I believe that it should have been possible throughout yesterday’s debate for people in the community, with a high degree of responsibility comparable to our own, to know the kind of arguments that were used when we were putting through the provisions that we have put through.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I remind the honorable gentleman that in any event the broadcast of proceedings ceases at 11.30 p.m.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– That is true, but there was considerable debate before that time. However, I leave the matter by repeating that there is a necessity for intercommunication between the people at large and their representatives in Parliament. That is the essence of a democratic parliament, and I do not think that any of us would want to discourage in any way the right of sections of the community, no matter who they may be, to put their views to their representatives here, and to be able to know, wherever it is physically possible, the views expressed in Parliament during the debate on such an important measure as this.

We have had quoted in this chamber the profound experience, the thorough research and discussion attaching to the British Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. That royal commission did not meet for a month or for a few days or anything of that sort. Its taking of evidence and its deliberations, its extensive research into this important matter, went on for four years. That does not mean, of course, that we have to be subservient to that royal commission. We have our own particular situation in this country, and our own social and religious attitudes to consider. Nevertheless, we could, and can, learn from all the sources of intellectual inquiry used by that royal commission.

It does seem to me that some useful purpose could be served by this amendment. I have a profound regard for the overwhelming democratic wish of this Parliament, which demonstrated last night, in very substantial numbers, its attitude towards clause 27 (m). But no one can say that because we made a certain decision last night, that decision may not come under review on a subsequent occasion. Perhaps this is too early a time to make such a review, but it occurs to me that what is being put before us now is a much finer and more precise qualification of clause 27 (m) than anything that was mentioned to us in our discussions last night.

At this stage I do not feel inclined to accept the amendment, but I realize that I am leaving it to the courts to interpret what constitutes public interest and what would be harsh and oppressive to an innocent party. We are depending on the courts, and I hope the Attorney-General will recognize that fact. I am wondering what will be the position of, say, an innocent wife, in a case in which a petition is brought by a husband who has been separated from her for five years. What will be her position if the husband has vast financial resources and is able to brief highly qualified legal counsel, while she, being in much poorer circumstances, is not in a position to contest the matter in the courts? We are assuming, I remind honorable members, that this woman is innocent. The honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) said that if there is a quarrel there must be two parties to it. I am not so sure that this is always true. It might well be that a husband could desert a wife because his own appetites were not being continually satisfied according to his requirements, and, instead of being tolerant in the matter and recognizing that the relationship between them was a partnership, he might decide, “ If I cannot get my own way in this matter I will give it away “, and he might then move out of the partnership. I can quite easily conceive of a situation such as that, in which the partner could be almost perfectly innocent.

I suppose my whole outlook on thismatter has been conditioned to some extent by my religious affiliations, by my social allegiances in the community, by the education I have had, by all the things that havemade me what I am; but I do not think I am influenced unduly by church allegiances, in my consideration of this matter. I am trying to look at the position, as theAttorneyGeneral invited us to do, in termsof the most social good. I might have certain views on the dissolubility or otherwiseof marriage, but I am trying to assume- that marriage is dissoluble, and to ask myself what is the best course for the greatest social good of the community. One of the great social benefits for the community will be the preservation of respect for marriage as a permanent institution. Therefore we must consider every one of the provisions of the bill, and also every attempt that is made to qualify those provisions. What can we do, on the one hand to preserve public respect and reverence for marriage as a permanent institution, and on the other hand to provide, as we have a Christian duty to do, an opportunity for persons who are at present living in misery, and might otherwise continue to do so for the rest of their lives, to improve their lot and to form happy and harmonious marriages? That is the kind of dilemma with which I have been faced throughout this debate. While we must try to maintain public respect for the institution of marriage, we must also remember that the unfortunate people concerned have only one life to live, and they should be given opportunities to make that life as full and substantial as possible.

In the circumstances, without, I hope, laying myself open to an accusation of inconsistency, I think I am prepared at this stage to place reliance on the courts, hoping that they will have proper regard to the social mores of the community. I believe that the public has a high regard for and a keen interest in the maintenance of the institution of marriage, and I think I must give the Attorney-General and this Parliament credit for the same kind of feelings. I hope those ideals will be communicated to the courts in their interpretation of these vital provisions regarding harsh and oppressive results, on the one hand, and the public interest on the other.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Hunter

– I intervene to try to clarify the position from my own point of view. This committee last night agreed to the inclusion of paragraph (m) of clause 27 as a ground for divorce. This morning the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) moved an amendment to this effect -

A decree of dissolution of marriage shall not be made on the grounds specified in paragraph (m) of clause 27 of this Act where the suit is defended.

I do not want to say much about this amendment, because I want to pass on to what might be called another point of view, which is contained in an amendment also circulated by the honorable member for Mackellar. However, 1 will consider first the amendment I have just read. It seems to embody a rather contradictory idea, because the acceptance of paragraph (m) of clause 27 seems to imply that a divorce may be obtained in the circumstances set out in that paragraph, subject, of course, to the safeguards mentioned in the other amendment. I do not think there can be any question about that. The purpose of the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) was to provide safeguards and to add to those safeguards, always having in mind the fact that we are breaking new ground in a law of divorce. It is perfectly true that New Zealand has, to some extent, adopted the principle that without proof of matrimonial offence in the strict historic sense a divorce is obtainable after so many years’ separation. It is also true that Western Australia has had such a provision for fifteen or seventeen years. It does not matter how many members of the tribunal in England favoured acceptance of this ground. It was discussed, and some favoured it. The theory of it is, in modern times, that if there is a break-down of marriage the law cannot permit the marriage to be given away by the authority of the State.

The period of five years is an enormous period of separation. Western Australia has a provision under which, in certain circumstances, another chance is given to one or both of the spouses. I do not intend to argue the question of how far the principle of break-down applies or what limitations there should be. But certainly the Government, through the Attorney-General, has added various safeguards. Adultery by the petitioner, whether it took place before or after the separation, is reckoned against him. If the divorce would be harsh and oppressive, that is reckoned against the petitioner. Then we have the provisions as to financial payments in certain circumstances. From the practical point of view, the safeguards are not contradictory to the ground stated in paragraph (m). When we say that this is a ground for dissolution of marriage, we mean that a court exercising federal jurisdiction can, subject to these safeguards, grant a divorce.

Because of its form, there may not be a direct contradiction between the amendment of the honorable member for Mackellar and the proposed new section 32b. It is very like it, and no doubt many honorable members this morning thought that the amendment was an attempt to contradict the decision of the committee taken last night. I pass from that amendment.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– The other amendment is not before us yet. It has not been moved.

Dr EVATT:

– No, it has not been moved, but I can look at it as an idea. That is all I am doing, and I am only doing this to assist the committee. Somehow, we must try to break the deadlock that seems to have occurred. If it were removed, the passage of the bill might be assisted. The honorable member for Mackellar moved an amendment to provide that the decree of dissolution shall not be made on the ground specified in paragraph (m) of clause 27 where the suit is defended. If the suit is defended, then the person defending it - not by proving anything but merely by being there to defend it - can procure the result that the decree shall not be made. This amendment has been discussed. But there is a second amendment. I shall read it with the permission of the honorable member.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– I did not say to read it; I said it is not before the committee yet.

Dr EVATT:

– It is not before the committee yet, but I put it forward as an amendment which has been distributed by the honorable member, and which has been discussed by him with other honorable members. I merely put this as a possible view. I want to read it to show that there is another approach which may be acceptable to the Attorney-General. I want him to consider it, and unless I read it, he cannot consider it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think the right honorable gentleman is wrong. He cannot discuss proposed new section 33a until proposed new section 32b is dealt with.

Dr EVATT:

– I do not want to use the words; I want to put a proposition.

F.9421/59.- R.- [Ill]

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is not before the committee.

Dr EVATT:

– It is not formally before the committee; but an amendment can be foreshadowed or it can be said that other honorable members intend to move amendments.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is against Standing Orders.

Dr EVATT:

– I wish to read a possible formula-

The CHAIRMAN:

– You may refer to it incidentally, but you may not debate it.

Dr EVATT:

– 1 merely want to indicate, without debating it, that another alternative will be placed before the committee at some time. The proposition is that a further safeguard should be included in the bill. I have referred to the safeguards inserted by the Government through the Attorney-General. I think this would relieve the minds and hearts of many people who are concerned about the position of the spouse. This safeguard is -

A decree of dissolution of marriage shall not be made on the ground specified in clause 27 (m) in a defended suit unless the petitioner has satisfied the court that the separation was in part due to the unreasonable conduct of the other spouse.

I think the anxiety in the minds of quite a number of honorable members is-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The right honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I had not intended to intervene again, but I should like to point out to the committee precisely whence the amendment would lead. The amendment is that, if one party defends the suit, there can be no decree.

Dr Evatt:

– That is the first amendment.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– That is the one I am talking to. This amendment would give to one party the initiative in divorce, because the party has only to say, “ I will defend “, and that is the end of this ground. Honorable members will recall that one of the purposes of the ground in clause 27 (m) was to avoid just that situation. I will show what it means in a moment. We have had our eyes on guilt and innocence, but let me put a case, which frequently occurs, to show how this amendment would work. Two young people marry in the best of good faith and with every good intention. Suppose they try for a couple of years, and at the end of that time realize that they cannot make a go of it. Neither of them has committed an offence and very often - this pattern will be recognized - the girl goes home to her mother. The parents of the girl often say to the man: “ Sign a separation agreement for a year. Leave her at home for a year and perhaps she will settle down. You can then try again.” Being a sensible fellow and having no legal advice, he says, “ Certainly; let us see whether she can settle down “. Neither party can ever get a divorce under the existing law, unless they resort to perjury or malpractice. The proposal is that, after any number of years - maybe fifteen or twenty - if one party goes to the court, the other can say, “ No “.

Only yesterday I received a letter, as did the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen), citing a case exactly similar to the one I have given. A young girl of good family had been married to a man apparently of good family. After about eighteen months, the girl returned to her parents’ home and said, “ I cannot really do it; I cannot go on with it “. She went away. She became a trained nurse of some sort and then, seven or eight years later, found somebody with whom she fell in love. She wrote to her father and said: “ Will you see my husband and ask him to release me? “ but her husband said: “No, never”. The amendment proposed by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) will take all the virtue out of what we did last night. We debated the case of two innocents. We have our eyes too much on guilt in this matter. Last night we dealt with the people who had not done anything to one another. If I may refer to what the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) read out, when that comes before the committee I would point out that it has the same vice. It will prevent-

Mr Thompson:

– Decent people.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– Yes, who have not committed an offence against one another but who have simply parted - he saying that he will not desert her nor she him - from obtaining a release. Under the existing law they have no remedy ever. This clause is in part designed in my mind, and I thought it was in the minds of members of this committee, to cover those cases of young people who marry without much experience. After all, it is remarkable that so many marriages between the young last as well as they do. That is a great credit to our people, but many of them, with no real knowledge of the opposite party, find that they are ill-suited. Neither will commit sin against the other and they say that they will either have a cooling-off period, as I mentioned in my first illustration, or that they will simply part, thinking at that time that there will never be anybody else. But somebody else comes along and the community is deprived of the chance of a first-class marriage.

I do not know whether the honorable member for Mackellar has thought out his proposition carefully] but he must say that he is in favour, where two young people part with no bad conduct on the part of either one, of permitting one party to forbid the other ever to obtain a divorce. He must also say that it covers this case. But suppose the innocent one of a match, where an offence has been committed, says that he wants to use this ground. The honorable member for Mackellar will give the guilty one a veto. The honorable member must stand up to both those cases if he wants to persuade this committee.

I did not want to intervene in this argument, because I thought we had been through this mill so thoroughly yesterday. Like the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes), I thought it was a good debate. I am not able to say whether there has been a better one - I am too inexperienced for that - but I did think that honorable members last night were speaking with a great deal of honesty of purpose and a great deal of skill. Many of them, such as the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart), had gone to unending pains to read a very difficult document and to attempt to master it. I think that the committee having come to such a firm decision as it did last night, it is asking a lot of honorable members to go through it again.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I should like to refer very briefly to the points that have been raised, first with regard to the Morton report. I do not, of course, quote this as binding upon us any more than I quote church leaders’ pronouncements as binding on us. I have quoted those things as something of subStance and something that we cannot thrust lightly aside. With regard to the Morton report, the printed text of the report shows that fifteen of the nineteen members of the commission would vote for my amendment as it now stands. I say further that the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) has misrepresented the impact of the commission and its findings, and I have quoted from last Tuesday’s “ Hansard “ in that regard. I stand by those statements.

With regard to the second matter that has been raised as to whether it is proper to re-canvass something that has already been decided, I submit with great respect that this has not been done. Last night I foreshadowed this amendment and honorable members who voted will have voted in the knowledge that I had foreshadowed this amendment. Furthermore, this was the best conceivable way in which to do this. I have pointed out to the committee that clause 27 (m) covered not one class of case but two quite different classes. It may be that somebody would favour the first class of case being a ground and not the second. The only course open to him would be to vote for clause 27 (m), because if he had thrown it out he would not have covered the first class of case. He would then have to vote for a subsequent amendment to limit it, which is the proper thing to do. Furthermore, this is what the Attorney-General himself has done because in clause 33, for example, he has done precisely that. He has brought in a qualification to something which has been put out before. This is a very proper thing to do.

Finally - and this is something which the Attorney-General may not have known because I do not think he would have spoken as he did had he known - I was in consultation with his officers and I wanted to move my amendment during the debate on clause 27 (m). It was at the request of those officers that I moved my amendment not during the debate on clause 27 (m), as

I would have preferred to do, but in the form of an extra clause.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– I certainly did not know about it.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I was following the drafting of the bill, and in my procedural approach I was guided by the advice tendered to me by the AttorneyGeneral’s officers. I think that in all substantial matters there has been no recanvassing of the opinion of the committee. The vote has been taken. It stands, but both 1 and the Attorney-General are now seeking - and we must follow the way in which the bill is drafted - to confine and define the impact of the vote already taken by the committee.

Nevertheless, it is apparent to me, from the way the debate has progressed, that my amendment will not be carried. It is not so apparent to me that the subsequent amendment that I am about to move will be similarly treated. It may be that my subsequent amendment will commend itself to honorable members. My objective is to get maximum justice in this bill. I know very well, as other honorable members know, that any legislation that we pass, whatever it is, will bear hard on some particular cases. You can always cite a case on which any legislation will bear hard. What we must do is try to minimize that hardship. It is perhaps in point to remind the House that something like 90 per cent, of divorce cases are, I think, at present undefended on this ground in Western Australia - I think the figure is a little higher than 90 per cent. It has been pointed out in this chamber that last year on this ground there were only twelve defended cases in Western Australia.

Mr Freeth:

– The percentage on most grounds is similar to that stated by the honorable member.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Well, I am talking about this ground. So even if my amendment were accepted it would only refer to about 10 per cent, of cases. It would leave the ground operative in the other 90 per cent, of cases. Nevertheless, my objective is to get maximum justice, and I do not want to prejudice this debate because of my amendment. For that reason and for that reason only, still believing that my amendment is correct, I propose to withdraw it since I know that the committee will not support it. But I propose to proceed with all the vigour in my power in respect of the proposed amendment to clause 33a.

Proposed new clause - by leave - withdrawn.

Clause 33 (Court to refuse to make decree on ground of separation in certain circumstances).

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After sub-clause (1.), insert the following subclause: - “ (1a.) Where, in proceedings for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of separation, the court is of opinion that it is just and proper in the circumstances of the case that the petitioner should make provision for the maintenance of the respondent or should make any other provision for the benefit of the respondent, whether by way of settlement of property or otherwise, the court shall not make a decree on that ground in favour of the petitioner until the petitioner has made arrangements to the satisfaction of the court to provide the maintenance or other benefits upon the decree becoming absolute.”.

As I explained last night, this provision is designed to secure financial justice to the respondent party.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- I ask the Attorney-General whether I would be correct in assuming that the courts, in interpreting this provision would, by implication, assume that the provision relating to the maintenance of the respondent would apply also to the children.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

, - The provision relating to the maintenance of the respondent will apply also to the children. In addition, may I point out that the provision in clause 66 relating to the children of a marriage will apply also to this ground.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move -

After clause 33, insert the following new clause: - “ 33a. A decree of dissolution of marriage shall not be pronounced upon the ground specified in paragraph (m) of section twenty-seven of this act in a defended suit unless the petitioner has satisfied the court that the separation was in part due to unreasonable conduct of the other spouse.”.

I think that this proposed amendment will commend itself to the committee, and may even commend itself to the AttorneyGeneral because it only clarifies and, I think, makes more certain the justice of the provision which has now been inserted into clause 33. The Attorney-General has said that a divorce shall not be granted where it would be harsh and oppressive to the respondent or contrary to the public interest. My proposed amendment, which simply redefines the Attorney-General’s provision, is in conformity with the views that were expressed by honorable members on both sides of the chamber during the secondreading debate.

May I once again refer to the Morton report in relation to this particular amendment. I remind honorable members that there were nineteen signatories to the report, one of whom thought that there should not be divorce on the ground of separation unless the whole concept of matrimonial offence were abandoned; nine of whom thought that there should not be divorce on the ground of separation; five of whom thought that there should be divorce on the ground of separation provided only that in an undefended suit the other spouse did not object; and the remaining four of whom thought that there should be divorce only on the ground that I have included in my proposed amendment. Page 25 of the report is in these terms -

Our proposal is: An application for dissolution of marriage may be made to the court by either spouse on the ground that the spouses have lived separately for a period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the application, and the court shall pronounce a decree dissolving the marriage where this ground is established, provided that, if the other spouse objects to the dissolution, the applicant must first satisfy the court that the separation was in part due to unreasonable conduct of the other spouse.

My amendment has been lifted verbatim from that recommendation of the Morton commission. In effect, according to the printed word, the nineteen reporting members of the commission would have supported my proposal because it is exactly what they have said. I agree that the Morton report is not binding upon us, but I put to honorable members that the unanimous verdict of a royal commission in the United Kingdom should at least carry very great weight.

During the course of the debate honorable members have directed attention to the various kinds of hardship that may be experienced, and the difficulty of finding out where the guilt lies, in a broken marriage. That is always something for the court to decide. My proposed amendment is not restrictive in any sense. It states that the applicant for a divorce must first satisfy the court that the separation was in part due to the unreasonable conduct of the other spouse. Surely if a man or a woman seeks a divorce against the wishes of the other party, he or she at least must be in a position to prove some circumstances which, in part only, represent fault on the part of the other partner. We do not want to have the position where a man can say, “ I can prove nothing against my wife and she will not give me a divorce, but I want to get rid of her “. We cannot have the position where the court can pronounce a decree against a man or a woman who does not want the marriage broken up and his or her marital status changed completely when nothing can be proved against that party. All the instances of hardship which have been advanced by honorable members still would be covered by the amendment that I have proposed. In effect, the amendment provides that the petitioner shall prove in part, something against the respondent in the case where the respondent does not want a divorce.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I suppose the committee will acquit me of the charge of not having read the Morton report before this bill was drafted. Before the draft was settled in an early form I considered whether the proposal that was advanced by the four members of the commission to whom the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) has referred, was acceptable. I may say that I founded nothing at any stage on the authority of this commission. I thought then, and I still think, that the proposal was unacceptable for this simple and direct reason: I wanted to provide in this ground a means of dissolution in the case of parties who had done nothing amiss to each other but simply could not live together. That is not a rare case. This proposed amendment would destroy the utility of this ground in the case of the people to whom I have referred.

Mr Wentworth:

– If the suit is undefended, this proposal will not affect the case.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– The honorable member does not realize the weapon that he would place in the hands of one party. The whole purpose of this provision is to prevent such an eventuality.

Mr Crean:

– What is unreasonable in the honorable member’s proposal?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– I have considered what is unreasonable. A man may find that he cannot live with a woman because ,of some particular mannerism which she has. It is not her fault. Is she unreasonable in being herself? Is he unreasonable in being himself? There are these real cases in the community, and I thought I should like to cover them. This concerns such a substantial area of the incidence of this bill that I felt I could not put in such a clause. It would be all right if I were considering only cases where, of necessity, there was deliberate conduct on the part of one partner affecting the other.

I also thought that I did not have, in this word “ unreasonable “, a sufficiently firm criterion. For I do not know what the judges of this Commonwealth would get to by way of a common rule as to what was unreasonable in the conduct between two people. Other honorable members doubtless, and I have come home and found, very often that our good ladies, if they have taken up tennis, keep us waiting an hour for a meal. I can imagine some judge saying, “That is mighty unreasonable “. Where do you get to? It is imprecise. There is nothing that I can point to in the law. I know that we are supposed to have reasonable men on juries and that lawyers talk about the juryman as “ the chap on the Clapham bus “, but he would not be able to decide this question with any sort of firmness and regularity.

May I say, finally, as one of my reasons, that, when parties litigate in divorce, they litigate in bitterness. You very rarely find friendly suits in divorce. When parties litigate in bitterness, and they have such a sloppy criterion as “ unreasonable “, they have, of course, an unlimited charter to bring forward petty things and they will involve poor people - I mean, not poor financially, but to be pitied - in a litigation that is pretty unsatisfactory and will be pretty costly.

I think that the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Mackellar would, first of all, rule out the cases of parties who have not misconducted themselves in any sense or been unreasonable towards each other. Secondly, it would provide an imprecise criterion, anyhow. Thirdly, it would involve parties in very costly litigation. And finally, it would put into the hands of one of them the very weapon which this bill is designed to remove.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

Mr. Chairman, I think that the AttorneyGeneral is being a little unreasonable in this.

Mr Thompson:

– On a point of order, Mr. Chairman! Has not the honorable member for Wentworth already had two periods of ten minutes each?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No. This is his second amendment.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– As I have said, I think that the Attorney-General is being a little unreasonable in this. He does not want to give to the court the responsibility of deciding what is reasonable. That is something which is done quite often in legislation. However, the honorable gentleman does want to give to the court the responsibility of deciding what is in the public interest, and the expression “ in the public interest” is a much wider thing for which there is no precedent. It seems to me that the Minister has given a pretty good illustration of straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clauses 34 to 40 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 41 (Joinder of adulterer).

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

Omit the clause, insert the following clause:- “41. - (1.) Where, in a petition for a decree of dissolution of marriage or in an answer to such a petition, a party to the marriage is alleged to have committed adultery with a specified person, whether or not a decree of dissolution of marriage is sought on the ground of the adultery, that person shall, except as provided by the rules, be made a party to the proceedings. “ (2.) Where, in the petition for a decree of dissolution of marriage or in an answer to such a petition, a party to the marriage is alleged to have committed rape or sodomy on or with a specified person, whether or not a decree of dissolution of marriage is sought on the ground of the rape or sodomy, that person shall, except as provided by the rules, be served with notice that the allegation has been made and is thereupon entitled to intervene in the proceedings. “ (3.) Where a person has been made a party to proceedings for a decree of dissolution of marriage in pursuance of sub-section (1.) of this section, the court may, on the application of that person, after the close of the case for the party to the marriage who alleged the adultery, if it is satisfied that there is not sufficient evidence to establish that that person committed adultery with the other party to the marriage, dismiss that person from the proceedings.”.

The purpose of this change is really to ensure that the name of the co-respondent - the suggested adulterer - may be published. As the existing clause stands, he or she would not be a party to the suit and, under the terms of clause 113 - the publication provision - the names only of parties may be published. When that oversight was seen, it was thought better to express the clause clearly as it appears in the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 (Re-marriage).

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

Omit the clause, insert the following clause: - “ 42. Where a decree of dissolution of marriage under this Act has become absolute, a party to the marriage may marry again as if the marriage had been dissolved by death.”.

The only effect of this amendment is to make it quite clear that, once a decree has been made absolute, parties can safely marry again. As the existing clause has been drawn, there is some possibility of an appeal after decree absolute, but the amendment will make this no longer possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

Clause 45 (Incapacity to consummate marriage).

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

At the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause: - “ (2.) A decree of nullity of marriage shall not be made on the ground that the marriage is voidable by virtue of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section twenty of this Act where the court is of opinion that -

by reason of -

the petitioner’s knowledge of the incapacity at the time of the marriage;

the conduct of the petitioner since the marriage; or

the lapse of time; or

for any other reason, it would, in the particular circumstances of the case, be harsh and oppressive to the respondent, or contrary to the public interest, to make a decree.”.

The purpose of this amendment is to give to the court an additional discretion in the case of a suit for nullity so that the court may refuse a decree because of knowledge of the incapacity of the respondent at the time of the marriage, the conduct of the petitioner since the marriage - that is to say, the marriage may have been affirmed and allowed to go on, perhaps, with knowledge of incapacity - or the lapse of time, or for any other reason which, in the particular circumstances of the case, would make it harsh and oppressive to the respondent, or contrary to the public interest, to make a decree. In the notes incorporated in the list of amendments which I circulated originally in October, the committee will find a reference to two cases in which the divorce courts in England developed for themselves a doctrine of public interest. They said, although everything that entitled the parties to a decree of nullity had been proved, that the conduct of the petitioner, in the circumstances, was such as to make it contrary to public policy, or inequitable, to grant the decree. I have simply carried that distinction into this clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 46 and 47 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clauses 48 to 55 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 56 (Ground for decree of restitution of conjugal rights).

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

Omit the clause, insert the following clause: - “ 56. A petition under this Act by a party to a marriage for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights may be based on the ground that the parties to the marriage, whether or not they have at any time cohabited, are not cohabiting and that, without just cause or excuse, the party against whom the decree is sought refuses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the petitioner.”.

This amendment merely expresses in a simpler and more comprehensive way what is attempted to be expressed in the existing clause 56. There is no change in the actual effect of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 57 and 58 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 58a.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After clause 58, insert the following new clause: - “ 58a. When the court makes a decree of restitution of conjugal rights on the petition of a husband, the petitioner shall, as soon as practicable after the making of the decree, and at such other times as the rules so require, give to the respondent notice, in accordance with the rules, of the provision made by the petitioner, or which the petitioner is willing to make, with respect to a home for the purpose of enabling the respondent to comply with the decree.”.

In short, the reason for this proposal is this: In the restitution procedure it is necessary for the petitioner, as a rule, to maintain a home throughout the 21 days which is the time limit in New South Wales. In this bill the time is extended to twelve months, and, of course, it would not be reasonable to expect a person to maintain the home vacant, as it were, for all that time. This amendment is designed to enable the petitioner to satisfy the court that he or she was genuinely ready to receive the other party either by providing a home or notifying what he or she was prepared to do.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clauses 59 to 62 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 63 (Proceedings to be by petition).

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

.- I move -

Omit the clause, insert the following clause: - “ 63. - (1.) Subject to the next succeeding subsection, a matrimonial cause of a kind referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of matrimonial cause ‘ in sub-section ( 1 . ) of section five of this Act shall be instituted by petition. “ (2.) A respondent may, in the answer to the petition, seek any decree or declaration that the respondent could have sought in a petition. “ (3.) Proceedings of a kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of 1 matrimonial cause ‘ in sub-section (1.) of section five of this Act that are in relation to proceedings under this Act for a decree or declaration of a kind referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of that definition -

may be instituted by the same petition as that by which the proceedings for that decree or declaration are instituted; and

except as permitted by the rules or by leave of the court, shall not be instituted in any other manner. “ (4.) The court shall, so far as is practicable, hear and determine at the same time all proceedings instituted by the one petition.”.

The clause sought to be inserted does several things which are mainly procedural. It enables a respondent to seek, in answer to a petition, any relief that could have been obtained in a separate petition. It is designed to require a party to set out all the relief claimed in the first document - the petition - and it is designed to require a court, so far as may be practicable, to hear the whole cause at the one time. This is designed to develop a practice, if it is at all practicable, of parties having one hearing to decide the divorce and questions of maintenance, custody and settlement. If that can be achieved, as I think it can, it will make for a great deal of saving of expense and a quick resolution of problems. In country areas, it will be particularly useful.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 64 -

Subject to this Act, the court, upon being satisfied of the existence of any ground in respect of which relief is sought, shall make the appropriate decree.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

Omit “ Subject to “, insert “ Except as provided by”.

This is a purely technical amendment which is designed to avoid a collision between two clauses.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 65 agreed to.

Clause 66 - (1.) Where there are children of the marriage in relation to whom this section applies, the decree nisi shall not become absolute unless the court, by order, has declared that it is satisfied -

  1. that proper arrangements have been made for the welfare of those children; or
  2. that there are such special circumstances that the decree nisi should become absolute notwithstanding that it is not satisfied that proper arrangements have been made for the welfare of those children.
Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

Omit sub-clause (1.), insert the following subclause: - “ (1.) Where there are children of the marriage in relation to whom this section applies, the decree nisi shall not become absolute unless the court, by order, has declared -

that it is satisfied that proper arrangements in all the circumstances have been made for the welfare and, where appropriate, the advancement and education of those children; or

that there are such special circumstances that the decree nisi should become absolute notwithstanding that the court is not satisfied that such arrangements have been made.”.

The purpose of this amendment, is to make it clear that the court is to look to arrangements for the welfare and, where it is appropriate, also to the advancement and education of children. The need for the amendment flows from the use of an expression, “ education, maintenance and welfare “, in another part of the act.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- Whilst I appreciate that this amendment is proposed for a good reason - to preserve the welfare of the children of the first marriage - I notice that paragraph (b) of the proposed new sub-clause reads - that there are such special circumstances that the decree nisi should become absolute notwithstanding that the court is not satisfied that such arrangements have been made.

I was wondering what interpretation could be put upon that provision. Let us consider the case of a man who has had three children by his wife and three children by another woman with whom he has been living. Let us say that the man has an average salary of between £16 and £20 per week. He has two wives and six children to maintain. In an action by the wife for divorce and maintenance would the court, in making financial provision, lean towards the wife and children or towards the family that will become the man’s responsibility once the decree has been granted? I cannot help but feel that some of the provisions for the welfare of the children will be severely prejudiced by the fact that the man who obtains the divorce may find it financially impossible to maintain two families. I want to know whether there is anything in this bill which will give precedence to the first wife over the second wife or to the second wife over the first.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– As this is a provision that could prevent a decree from becoming absolute there could not at that stage be any question of a second wife. There would not ordinarily be a question of a second legitimate family to consider. Even if there were some children who were not born in wedlock, the court would still give priority to the children of the marriage that it was dealing with because this provision is a direction that the marriage bond shall not be severed until the appropriate arrangements are made. Of course, the arrangements will be appropriate to the circumstances. The level of the man’s income is a factor, but in working out claims on the income, the court now gives priority to the first wife. For a man to tell the court that he had now a second “ wife “ and that it would be difficult for him to pay alimony, would not be much of an argument. The court leans in favour of the first wife.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 - (1.) Subject to this section, where the last preceding section applies in relation to a decree nisi, the decree nisi becomes absolute by force of this section at the expiration of -

  1. a period of three months from the date of the making of the decree; or whichever is the later. (2.) Subject to this section, where the last preceding section does not apply in relation to a decree nisi, the decree nisi becomes absolute by force of this section upon the expiration of a period of three months from the date of the making of the decree. (4.) Where an appeal is instituted (whether or not it is the first appeal) before a decree nisi has become absolute, then, notwithstanding any order in force under the last preceding sub-section at the time of the institution of the appeal but subject to any such order made after the institution of the appeal, the decree nisi becomes absolute by force of this section- (5.) In this section, “ appeal “, in relation to a decree nisi, means an appeal, an application for leave to appeal or an intervention arising out of the decree nisi or arising out of an order under the last preceding section in relation to the proceedings in which the decree nisi was made.
Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.), paragraph (a), omit “ the date of”.

The purpose of omitting these words is to remove an ambiguity which the Queensland judges called to my attention. They said that in Queensland there might be some doubt as to the date of the decree. I have made it quite clear by the proposed amendment that this is the day of the pronouncement.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Sir Garfield Barwick) agreed to - la sub-clause (2.), omit “the date of”.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (4.), after “ decree nisi “, second occurring, insert “, unless reversed or rescinded,”.

This is merely to make the purpose quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

Omit sub-clause (5.), insert the following subclauses: - “ 5. A decree nisi shall not become absolute by force of this section where either of the parties to the marriage has died. “ (6.) In this section, ‘ appeal ‘, in relation to a decree nisi, means -

an appeal, application for leave to appeal or intervention, against or arising out of-

the decree nisi; or

an order under the last preceding section in relation to the proceedings in which the decree nisi was made; or

an application under section sixty-nine or sixty-nineA of this Act for rescission of the decree or an appeal or application for leave to appeal arising out of such an application.”.

The purpose of this is to explain and make clear certain of the times where there are appeals.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 68 agreed to.

Clause 69-

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Division, where a decree nisi has been made in proceedings for a decree of dissolution of marriage, the court may, at any time before the decree becomes absolute, upon the application of the party in whose favour the decree was made, rescind the decree on the ground that the parties to the marriage have become reconciled.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

Omit “the party in whose favour the decree was made “, insert “ either of the parties to the marriage “.

This enables either party to move to set aside a decree where there has been a reconciliation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new clause 69a.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After clause 69, insert the following new clause in Part VI.:- “ 69a. Where a decree nisi has been made but has not become absolute, the court by which the decree was made may, on the application of a party to the proceedings, if it is satisfied that there has been a miscarriage of justice by reason of fraud, perjury, suppression of evidence or any other circumstance, rescind the decree and, if it thinks fit, order that the proceedings be reheard.”.

This amendment involves a substantial addition to the bill. As drawn, the bill did not make provision for a judge who had heard a suit to set aside his decree before it had become absolute because of perjury or fraud or other miscarriage of justice of a like kind. It was pointed out to me that without a provision for a judge to be able to set aside his decree in these circumstances, the parties would have to go to appeal and have the expense of printing and the like. On reflection I thought it was only right that there should be such a provision, in order to do justice and also save expense to the parties, that the judge should be able to set aside his decree if he was satisfied of these things before it had become absolute.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- Perhaps I should have asked a question at an earlier stage, but there is a matter which has been exercising my mind. Earlier in the debate the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) said that the court was not likely to sit silent if a case was undefended. Just what jurisdiction would a judge have to query a party or parties in a divorce case in order to ascertain whether perjury was being committed or there was collusion or any of the other factors which might prevent a divorce from being granted? It appears that opportunities exist, if a divorce is urgently required by the parties, for collusion or other means to be used - even perjury - to get it. I was wondering just what authority the judge has or what jurisdiction the Parliament would have to stipulate that a judge should endeavour tofind out all these things rather than accept the word of the parties to the suit.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

.-A judge is always entitled to ask questions of a party who is giving evidence. A party could not obtain a decree without going into the witness box and giving some evidence. Judges utilize their power to ask questions, as they are entitled to do, to satisfy themselves. In order to be polite, if the party is represented by a legal man or woman a judge will ask the advocate to ask the party the things he wants to know. Judges are inquisitive; the honorable member may rest assured of that.

Mr Stewart:

– But it is not mandatory for him to be inquisitive.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– It is part of a judge’s general duty to ascertain the facts on any matter on which he has to be satisfied. But he is not to act as an inquisitor in the sense of running a case himself.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71- (1.) In proceedings under this Act for a decree of dissolution or nullity of marriage, judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights, or in relation to the custody or guardianship of children, where the Attorney-General . has reason to believe that there are matters relevant to the proceedings that have not been, or may not be, but ought to be, made known to the court, he may, at any time before the proceedings are finally disposed of, file an affidavit to that effect, and is thereupon entitled to intervene in the proceedings. (2.) Where an intervention under this section lakes place after a decree nisi has been made and it is proved that the petitioner has been guilty of collusion with intent to cause a perversion of justice or that material facts have not been brought before the court, the court may rescind the decree.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.), omit “file an affidavit to that effect, and is thereupon entitled to “.

The purpose of this is to facilitate intervention and not require an affidavit to be filed.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

Omit sub-clause (2.).

This is related to an amendment which I shall propose later.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72 (Delegation by AttorneyGeneral).

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After sub-clause (3.), add the following subclause: - “ (4.) More than one delegation may be in force under this section at the one time in relation, to the whole of Australia or in relation to the same part of Australia, and a delegation in relation to the whole of Australia may be in force at the same time as delegations in relation to parts of Australia.”.

The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that there can be more than one delegation current in Australia.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 73a.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After clause 73, insert the following new clause: - “ 73a. Where an intervention takes place under this Part after a decree nisi has been made and it is proved that the petitioner has been guilty of collusion with intent to cause a perversion of justice or that material facts have not been brought before the court, the court may rescind the decree.”.

This provides what is to happen on an intervention and it includes intervention by the Attorney-General or the Crown as well as private intervention.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clauses 74 to 76 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 77 - (1.) Subject to this section, the court may, in proceedings with respect to the maintenance of a party to a marriage, or of children of the marriage, make such order as it thinks proper, having regard to the means, earning capacity and conduct of the parties to the marriage and all other relevant circumstances.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.) after “marriage,”, second’ occurring, insert “ other than proceedings for an order for maintenance pending the disposal of proceedings,”.

I shall explain the purpose of this change, and also of the insertion of the sub-clause that is the subject of the next amendment. Honorable members will observe that the clause, as drawn, allows the court, when fixing the amount of maintenance, to have regard to the conduct of the parties to the marriage. There has been experience of a like provision in New South Wales in relation to orders for alimony pendente lite. What has been happening is that the whole cause has very often been tried at the alimony pendente lite stage. My desire is to avoid the expense to the parties of fighting the case twice, and I am hopeful that in the rules we will be able to provide a mechanism for alimony pendente lite proceedings which will be very simple, and that the conduct of the parties will not intrude into the matter unless the court decides so, or the rules are complied with in certain respects. Consequently, I think it best to exclude alimony pendente lite proceedings from sub-clause (1.) and to deal with it in a specific provision, which will be contained in sub-clause (1a), for the insertion of which I shall move later.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After sub-clause (1.), insert the following subclause: - “ (1a.) Subject to this section and to the rules, the court may, in proceedings for an order for the maintenance of a party to a marriage, or of children of the marriage, pending the disposal of proceedings, make such order as it thinks proper, having regard to the means, earning capacity and conduct of the parties to the marriage and all other relevant circumstances.”.

Honorable members will see that this is virtually the same as sub-clause (1.), but is qualified. It will enable us to try to avoid, in the rules, the need for any wasted or unnecessary expense in an attempt to obtain alimony pendente lite.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- Perhaps my legal knowledge is much deficient on this point, and I seek some information from the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) to clear up a couple of points that have been exercising my mind. My problem might be dealt with later in the bill, or it may not be dealt with in the bill at all. I do not know. During this debate we have heard quite a deal about the deserted wife who has to fend for herself and the children. The Department of Social Services has given me some figures which show that there are 10,234 deserted wives at present receiving the widow’s pension. Of this number 7,698 are mothers, with children totalling about 12,000. The total pension payment being made, plus allowances for the children, is £2,700,000.

Before a deserted wife can obtain the widow’s pension it is necessary for her to take reasonable steps to obtain maintenance from the husband after a period of six months has expired. The point is that at present there are 10,234 of these women receiving pensions. Some of them may be divorcees, some of them may be unable to locate their husbands and are therefore dependent entirely on social services. As I read the bill, I consider that the provision for the garnisheeing of wages, and the other stipulations in the bill for maintenance proceedings when a divorce petition is being heard, ought also to be made restrospective, if possible, to cover deserted wives who at present have to rely wholly on social services, as there is such a large number of husbands who have left their wives and families. I should like to hear something from the Attorney-General on that aspect.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I am alive to this problem. I have looked at the statistics and I notice that, peculiarly enough, in Victoria there is a very noticeable increase in the number of women who are claiming social services because they cannot recover from husbands who have cleared out. I have it in mind to discuss with the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) as soon as I can, along with one or two other matters, the possibility of devising some means of both protecting the revenue and of aiding those folk. The honorable member for Lang is quite right in thinking that the provision we are debating extends strictly only to alimony - that is to say, to the maintenance of a divorced wife. The question of the maintenance of a merely deserted wife who is not seeking divorce is left entirely to the States. We have no means of controlling the States in relation to the sort of provision they may make. However, I am hopeful that if the garnishee provision in this bill becomes effective it will induce the States to pass legislation in respect of deserted wives and children, which will include this form of enforcement and thereby greatly ease the position as it is now.

Mr Stewart:

– What about divorcees at the present time? Will they have any rights under this bill?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– Yes, they will. There is a provision that all the existing orders can be enforced as if they were made under this bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 78- (1.) In proceedings with respect to the custody, guardianship, welfare, advancement or education of children of a marriage -

  1. the court shall regard the welfare of the children as the paramount consideration; and
Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.), paragraph (a), omit “ welfare “, insert “ interests “.

The amendment is merely a verbal change to ensure that there is no confusion in the use of the word “ welfare “ at the beginning of sub-clause (1.) and its use at the beginning of sub-paragraph (a).

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- A point that arises here concerns a case in which a decree has been granted and an order made against the husband to provide for the welfare of the children, but the husband changes his name and moves to another State, effectually losing himself. What can be done to solve this problem? It seems that we shall only get back to the situation in which the deserted wife and her children have to rely on social services, because of her inability to locate her husband?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I am sure the honorable gentleman realizes that it is an enormous task to catch up with a man in this country who is willing to change his name and, in effect, bury himself. I quite realize that a woman who has been deserted has very little in her hands with which to trace the deserting husband. It was mentioned to me, I think during this debate, and it has been brought to my attention before, that the police forces of the States are not allowed, or are unwilling, to assist, and that the sheriffs of the courts as a rule will not assist unless some payment is made. In response to a request by Senator Wright some time ago I have been looking into this question. I have been trying to devise some mechanism which will assist in such cases. The honorable member can rely on me to endeavour to discover a practicable means of benefiting these folk.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 79- (1.) Subject to this section, the court may, in proceedings with respect to the settlement of property, being proceedings in relation to proceedings for a decree of dissolution or nullity of marriage or of judicial separation, make such order as it thinks proper with respect to the settlement of property to which the parties to the marriage are, or either of them is, entitled, whether in possession or reversion, or the application of the whole or part of the property dealt with by antenuptial or post-nuptial settlements on the parties or either of them, either for the benefit of the children of the marriage or any of them or of the parties or either of them. (2.) The power of the court to make orders of the kind referred to in the last preceding subsection may be exercised on the application of either party to the marriage. (3.) The power of the court to make orders of the kind referred to in sub-section (1.) of this section shall not be exercised for the benefit of a child who has attained the age of twenty-one years unless the court is of the opinion that there are special circumstances that justify the making of such an order for the benefit of that child.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

Omit sub-clauses (1.) and (2.), insert the following sub-clauses: - “ (1.) The court may, in proceedings under this Act, by order require the parties to the marriage, or either of them, to make, for the benefit of all or any of the parties to, and the children of, the marriage, such a settlement of property to which the parties are, or either of them is, entitled (whether in possession or reversion) as the court considers just and equitable in the circumstances of the case. “ (2.) The court may, in proceedings under this Act, make such order as the court considers just and equitable with respect to the application for the benefit of all or any of the parties to, and the children of, the marriage of the whole or part of property dealt with by ante-nuptial or postnuptial settlements on the parties to the marriage or either of them.”.

This change is made for the purpose of more abundant caution. This is a new power - the power to order a settlement. Honorable members will remember that I have made reference to it during the course of debate. I did not want to run the risk of having a court look at the language carefully and think it had power with respect only to existing settlements. I wanted to make it perfectly clear that the court could make a settlement for the first time, and this amendment is designed to make the position clearer.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Sir Garfield Barwick) agreed to -

In sub-clause (3.) omit “sub-section (1.) of”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause80

  1. The court, in exercising its powers under this Part, may -

    1. order that a lump sum or a weekly, monthly, yearly or other periodic sum be paid or secured and order that any security is to be either wholly or partly in addition to or in substitution for an order for a periodic payment;
    2. order that any necessary deed or instrument be executed and that such documents of title be produced or such other things to be done as are necessary to enable an order to be carried out effectively or to provide security for the due performance of an order;
    3. make a permanent order, an order pending the disposal of the proceedings or an order for a fixed term or for a life or during joint lives or until further order;
    4. in relation to an order made in respect of a matter referred to in any of the last three preceding sections, whether made by that court or by another court and whether made before or after the commencement of this Act -
    1. subject to the next succeeding sub-section, vary the order so as to increase or decrease any amount payable under the order;

    2. sanction an agreement for the acceptance of a lump sum or periodic sums in lieu of rights under an order made in respect of a matter referred to in any of the last three preceding sections, or any right to seek such an order;
    3. make any other order (whether or not of the same nature as those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this subsection, and whether or not it is in accordance with the practice under other laws before the commencement of this Act) which it thinks it is necessary to make to do justice; and
    4. include its order under this Part in a decree under another Part or make an order under this Part at any time before or after the making of such a decree. (2.) The court shall not make an order -
Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.), omit “may - “, insert “may do any or all of the following: - “.

This again is merely to make sure that a court will not conclude that only one of these things could be done at a time.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.), omit paragraph (a), insert the following paragraphs: - “ (a) order that a lump sum or a weekly, monthly, yearly or other periodic sum be paid; “ (aa) order that a lump sum or a weekly, monthly, yearly or other periodic sum be secured; “ (ab) where a periodic sum is ordered to be paid, order that its payment be wholly or partly secured in such manner as the court directs; “.

Perhaps the committee should receive an explanation of this change. There are several things a court can do in respect of maintenance. It can order the payment of a sum periodically. It can order that that periodic sum be secured; that is, that some security be lodged. Or it may simply order that a security be given for a sum with no obligation to pay. This would mean that the party could only go to the security to get the money. Again, the court may order a lump sum to be paid. These distinctions are very important when we come to a later clause which deals with the power of the court to increase a sum which has been ordered to be paid by way of maintenance.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.), after paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph: - “ (ba) appoint or remove trustees; “.

This is simply to ensure that the court has adequate power when dealing with settlements.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.), paragraph (e), omit “the”, second occurring.

This amendment has been proposed onlyfor purposes of clarity of expression.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.), paragraph (g) (iv), omit “ payable under “, insert “ ordered to be paid by “.

This again is merely a verbal change for purposes of clarity.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.), paragraph (h), after “ sums “, insert “ or other benefits “.

This provision is included because a court may need to sanction the settlement, as it were, of the application for maintenance by some transaction which is not simply the handing over of money, but may involve property or other advantages.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In sub-clause (1.), omit paragraph (j) and the word “ and “ immediately preceding it, insert the following paragraphs: - “ (j) include its order under this Part in a decree under another Part; and “ (k) subject to this Act, make an order under this Part at any time before or after the making of a decree under another Part.”.

This is a purely formal amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

Omit sub-clause (2.), insert the following subclauses: - “ (2.) The court shall not make an order increasing or decreasing an amount ordered to be paid by an order unless it is satisfied -

that, since the order was made or last varied, the circumstances of the parties or either of them, or of any child for whose benefit the order was made, have changed to such an extent as to justify its so doing; or

that material facts were withheld from the court that made the order or from a court that varied the order or material evidence previously given before such a court was false. “ (3.) The court shall not make an order increasing or decreasing -

the security for the payment of a periodic sum ordered to be paid; or

the amount of a lump sum or periodic sum ordered to be secured, unless it is satisfied that material facts were withheld from the court that made the order or from a court that varied the order or that material evidence given before such a court was false.”.

Honorable members will note that these provisions tie in with the distinctions that were made by an earlier amendment between a sum ordered to be paid, a sum ordered to be secured, and a sum which is both ordered to be paid and secured. It provides that the court can increase or decrease the amount, in short, but not increase the security, because once the security is given, other arrangements may be made by the man in the faith that the security will not be increased later on.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new clause 80a.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After clause 80, insert the following new clause in Part VIII.:- “80a. - (1.) Where a person who is directed by an order under this Part to execute a deed or instrument refuses or neglects to do so, the court may appoint an officer of the court or other person to execute the deed or instrument in his name and to do all acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to the deed or instalment. “ (2.) The execution of the deed or instrument by the person so appointed has the same force and validity as if it had been executed by the person directed by the order to execute it. “ (3.) The court may make such order as it thinks just as to the payment of the costs and expenses of and incidental to the preparation of the deed or instrument and its execution.”.

This provision is to give the court power to cause a settlement to be executed in any case where a person who is ordered to execute a settlement does not do so.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 80b.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After proposed new clause 80a, insert the following new clause in Part VIII.: - “80b. - (j.) Except as provided by this section, the court shall not make an order under this Part where the petition for the principal relief has been dismissed. “ (2.) Where-

the petition for the principal relief has been dismissed after a hearing on the merits; and

the court is satisfied that -

the proceedings for the principal relief were instituted in good faith to obtain that relief; and

there is no reasonable likelihood of the parties becoming reconciled, the court may, if it considers that it is desirable to do so, make an order under this Part, other than an order under section seventy-nine of this Act. “ (3.) The court shall not make an order by virtue of the last preceding sub-section unless it has heard the proceedings for the order at the same time as, or immediately after, the proceedings for the principal relief. “(4.) In this section, ‘principal relief means relief of a kind referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of ‘ matrimonial cause ‘ in sub-section (1) of section five of this Act.”.

This is another of the few substantial changes made by these amendments. I should explain that under the bill as presented the person who was not successful in obtaining a divorce would not get an order for maintenance or alimony. But as I have provided by another provision that the court should, as far as practicable, determine the whole case at once - the suit, the alimony, the custody and the like - it would follow that people would get ready all aspects of their cases so as to have them dealt with at the one time. If it should happen that the court refused a divorce, then, according to the bill as drawn, the parties would have wasted the expenditure involved in preparing their cases. I thought it would be better to give to the court a power to deal with the maintenance and custody when granting a divorce in the circumstances which are detailed in this clause.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 81 agreed to.

Clause 82 - (1.) If, in proceedings under this Act in a court, not being proceedings by way of appeal, a question of law arises which the Judge and at least one of the parties wish to have determined by the High Court before the proceedings are further dealt with by the court, the Judge shall -

  1. state the facts in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court; and
  2. transmit to the High Court the special case and the documents in the proceedings, or such of them as are required for the purposes of the determination, and a Full Court of the High Court shall hear and determine the question.
Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After sub-clause (1.), insert the following subclause: - “ (1a.) The High Court may draw from the facts and the documents any inference, whether of fact or of law, which could have been drawn from them by the court by which the case was stated.”.

This is purely a technical provision to ensure that the court can draw inferences of fact and of law.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 83 to 85 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 86 (Recognition of other decrees).

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

Omit the clause, insert the following clause: - “ 86. - (1.) A decree of dissolution or nullity of marriage -

made before the commencement of this Act by a court in Australia or made after the commencement of this Act by such a court in accordance with Part XIII. of this Act; or

made, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, by a court of a Territory of the Commonwealth other than a Territory to which this Act applies, shall be recognized as valid in the Commonwealth and all the Territories of the Commonwealth. “ (2.) A dissolution or annulment of a marriage effected in accordance with the law of a foreign country shall be recognized as valid in Australia where, at the date of the institution of the proceedings that resulted in the dissolution or annulment, the party at whose instance the dissolution or annulment was effected (or, if it was effected at the instance of both parties, either of those parties) was -

in the case of the dissolution of a marriage or the annulment of a voidable marriage - domiciled in that foreign country;’ or

in the case of the annulment of a void marriage - domiciled or resident in that foreign country. “ (3.) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-section -

where a dissolution of a marriage was effected in accordance with the law of a foreign country at the instance of a deserted wife who was domiciled in that foreign country either immediately before her marriage or immediately before the desertion, she shall be deemed to have been domiciled in that foreign country at the date of the institution of the proceedings that resulted in the dissolution; and

a wife who, at the date of the institution of the proceedings that resulted in a dissolution or annulment of her marriage in accordance with the law of a foreign country, was resident in that foreign country and had been so resident for a period of three years immediately preceding that date shall be deemed to have been domiciled in that foreign country at that date. “ (4.) A dissolution or annulment of a marriage effected in accordance with the law of a foreign country, not being a dissolution or annulment to which sub-section (2.) of this section applies, shall be recognized as valid in Australia if its validity would have been recognized under the law of the foreign country in which, in the case of a dissolution, the parties were domiciled at the date of the dissolution or in which, in the case of an annulment, either party was domiciled at the date of the annulment. “ (5.) Any dissolution or annulment of a marriage that would be recognized as valid under the common law rules of private international law but to which none of the preceding provisions of this section applies shall be recognized as valid in Australia, and the operation of this sub-section shall not be limited by any implication from those provisions. “ (6.) For the purposes of this section, a court in Australia, in considering the validity of a dissolution or annulment effected under the law of a foreign country, may treat as proved any facts found by a court of the foreign country or otherwise established for the purposes of the law of the foreign country. “ (7.) A dissolution or annulment of a marriage shall not be recognized as valid by virtue of subsection (2.) or (4.) of this section where, under the common law rules of private international law, recognition of its validity would be refused on the ground that a party to the marriage had been denied natural justice. “ (8.) Sub-sections (2.) to (7.) of this section apply in relation to dissolutions and annulments effected, whether by decree, legislation or otherwise, before or after the commencement of this Act. “ (9.) In this section, ‘ foreign country ‘ means a country, or part of a country, outside the Commonwealth and the Territories of the Commonwealth.”.

This clause deals with the highly technical and complicated question of the recognition of decrees of divorce. It has been worked over again since the bill was introduced; it is thought that the new provision is more acceptable and, as it were, codifies the law on the subject with more clarity.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 87 to 92 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 93 -

Subject to the rules, a court having jurisdiction under this Act may enforce by attachment an order made by it under this Act for payment of maintenance or costs or in respect of the custody of, or access to, children.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After “ attachment “, insert “ or by sequestration “.

The need for this amendment was borne in on me by an actual instance that I had of a man who went to gaol for a motor car offence. He refused to pay his wife’s alimony. There was no sense in attaching him, to put him in gaol, for he was there already. The only means of getting the money from him was by sequestrating some of his property. As this power existed in the New South Wales law, his wife obtained her alimony. I had not thought of the need for this provision, but when my attention was called to it, I felt that the power to sequestrate should be given in this legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

At the end of the clause, add the following sub-clauses: - “ (2.) The court shall order the release from custody of a person who has been attached under this section upon being satisfied that that person has complied with the order in respect of which he was attached and may, at any time, if the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so, order the release of such a person notwithstanding that he has not complied with that order. “ (3.) Where a person who has been attached under this section in consequence of his failure to comply with an order for the payment of maintenance or costs becomes a bankrupt, he shall not be kept in custody under the attachment longer than six months after he becomes a bankrupt unless the court otherwise orders.”.

This provision relates to the powers of the court to order the release of a person who has been attached for non-payment of alimony, giving him a right to get out in certain circumstances and giving the court power to release him in others.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 94 to 96 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 97-

An order under this Act for the payment of maintenance may be enforced in accordance with the Third Schedule to this Act and the provisions of that Schedule have effect in relation to the enforcement of such orders.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- I move -

At the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause: - “ (2.) The provisions of the last preceding subsection apply notwithstanding the provisions of the Navigation Act 1912-1958 in relation to the attachment of wages due or accruing to a seaman.”.

Clause 97 relates to the payment of maintenance and to the order of a court enforcing the payment of maintenance. Section 90(1.) of the Navigation Act provides -

As to wages due or accruing to a seaman or apprentice -

they shall not be subject to attachment or arrestment from any Court;

A lady in my constituency was deserted by her husband, who was a seaman. She had three children and she was very ill with cancer. He left Western Australia and obtained work on a ship sailing out of Sydney. He left her with a car unpaid for, that he had purchased - it was a debt upon her - and furniture unpaid for. She obtained a maintenance order from the court and, when an effort was made to enforce it, he refused to pay and it could not legally be enforced. That started correspondence between me and the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge). In the course of the correspondence, the Minister said - . . it seems clear that an unscrupulous seaman can use the protection granted by section 90 of the Navigation Act to evade his responsibility for the maintenance of his family. Accordingly I shall have this particular section examined when the next series of amendments to the Navigation Act are being considered.

Those amendments have never been introduced, and it remains a fact that of the people of Australia, as far as I know - the Minister may say that there are other exceptions - only a seaman does not have to comply with the order of a court to pay maintenance. I cannot see why that category of workers should be privileged above others. In clause 97 of this bill, we are providing for the attachment of wages and for the payment of maintenance, and unless some such provision as this is inserted, this category of worker will still be immune from the actions of the court. I again direct attention to the fact that the Navigation Act says that a seaman’s wages “shall not be subject to attachment or arrestment from any court “.

I understand that the section was included in the Navigation Act many years ago to meet situations in which seamen got drunk and signed away their rights to their wages, and so on, to women, who were not their wives, round the ports. They were then legally bound by documents that they had signed. The provision was designed to protect seamen against such fraudulent tricks but it clearly was not designed to enable them to evade their responsibility to maintain their families, and for that reason I have proposed the amendment now before the committee.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

, - The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) was good enough to call my attention to the position that he has rightly detailed to the committee, and he showed me the draft of the amendment that he has moved. I have had this question looked into and, if I may say so, I am satisfied that some provision ought to be included to make this bill paramount not only over the Navigation Act in respect of seamen, but also over any other legislation of a like kind that might be in either the Commonwealth statutes or the ordinances of the Territories. I have asked the honorable member whether he would be content with my assurance that I will see that, in another place, suitable words are inserted in this clause to give it paramountcy not only over the Navigation Act, but also over any other acts or ordinances that may stand in the way of the effectiveness of attachment. I understand that the honorable member is satisfied with that assurance.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 97a.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

After clause 97, insert the following new clause: - “ 97a. Subject to this Act, the rules may make provision for the enforcement of decrees made under this Act by means other than those specified in the preceding provisions of this Part.”.

The purpose of the proposed new clause is to enable us to provide by rules for other methods of enforcement.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clauses 98 and 99 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2931

AUSTRALIA-RHODESIA TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– by leave - Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the right honorable the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), I wish to inform honorable members of the results of a review of the trade agreement between Australia and the Rhodesian Federation. The review, which was conducted in Salisbury between Rhodesian officials and officers of the Department of Trade, acting on the instructions of the Minister for Trade, was formally concluded this week.

The Federation has agreed to reduce duties on fifteen Australian export items. These items include biscuits, cakes, puddings and pastry, malt barley, pudding, cake and jelly powders, bath and sink plugs, lamp fittings, petrol lawn mowers, pens and pencils, felt hats, and various types of insulating, film, masking and adhesive tapes - all items in which there seem to be good prospects for Australian exporters.

The Federation has a preferential tariff structure and, with the exception of felt hats, imports from Australia of the above items will now be subject to the lowest rate of duty levied. This means that Australian exporters of such items will now enjoy a tariff preference over most other suppliers, and any preference previously enjoyed by the United Kingdom or any other Commonwealth country over Australia will be eliminated. Thus, on these products Australian exporters will now be in an improved competitive position visavis all other overseas suppliers.

In return Australia has undertaken to give the Federation British preferential tariff treatment on six items, namely, copper, passionfruit pulp, graphite, unsweetened lime juice, nicotine sulphate and some selected essential oils. Copper is the only one of these in which they have substantial trade with Australia at present. The undertaking in regard to the tariff treatment on copper and nicotine sulphate will not affect imports into Australia as there is no duty margin under the British preferential tariff on these goods. However, it does assure the Rhodesians that if a margin of preference should be introduced, their products will be subject to the British preferential tariff rate.

During the review the Rhodesians requested release from their previous undertaking to grant duty-free entry on dried full-cream milk powder. This request was made because they wished to grant tariff protection to their developing local industry. We agreed but only after we were assured that any reduction in our exports of dried full-cream milk would be offset by increased exports to the Federation of other dairy products. The Rhodesians also agreed to continue duty-free entry of Australian dried full-cream milk until such time as local production reaches commercial proportions when it will be admitted at the lowest rate of duty payable by any other Commonwealth country.

I will move in committee the necessary tariff resolutions in connexion with the review of the agreement.

page 2932

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1959

Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Amendment (No. 1)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I move - [Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Amendment (No. 1).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) 1956-1958 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) 1956-1958 as so amended. **Mr. Chairman,** the tariff proposal which I have now tabled follows as a consequence of the trade agreement with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, which I have just announced in this chamber. Under the agreement, Australia has undertaken to accord, as from to-morrow, 20th November, British preferential tariff treatment to the following goods which are the produce or manufacture of the Federation: Non-spirituous essential oils of geranium, jasmine, lemon grass and peppermint; unsweetened lime juice; passionfruit pulp; graphite and plumbago; copper blocks, ingots and pigs; and nicotine sulphate spraying preparations. At present, all these goods are subject to most-favoured-nation treatment and, except in the case of the copper products and the nicotine sulphate sprays, where there is no difference between the British preferential tariff rates and other rates of duty, this will mean a reduction in the duties payable on the goods. The comparative statement that has been circulated among honorable members shows in detail the existing rates and the proposed rates applicable to the goods. I commend the proposals to honorable members. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 2932 {:#debate-39} ### MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL 1959 In committee: Consideration resumed (vide page 2931), Clauses 100 and 101 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 102- (8.) In this section - " petition " includes a writ of summons, a cross-petition, a counter-petition and a counter-claim; petitioner " includes a plaintiff, a crosspetitioner, a counter-petitioner and a defendant counter-claiming. {: #debate-39-s0 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- I move - >In sub-clause (8.), omit the definitions of " petition " and " petitioner ", insert the following definitions: - " ' petition ' includes a writ of summons, a cross-petition, a counter-petition, a counter-claim and an answer; " ' petitioner ' includes a plaintiff, a crosspetitioner, a counter-petitioner, a defendant counter-claiming and a respondent seeking relief in an answer.". This is merely formal to cover a decree being sought in an answer and not by crosspetition. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 103 to 107 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 108- (1.) Except to the extent to which the rules make provision for proceedings, or part ot proceedings, to be heard by a Judge sitting iri chambers, the jurisdiction of a court under this Act shall, subject to the next succeeding sub-section, be exercised in open court. {: #debate-39-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- I move - >In sub-clause (1.) omit " by a Judge sitting.". This amendment seeks to cover the case where an officer and not a judge may conduct proceedings. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 109 to 112 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 113- (1.) Except as provided by this section, a person shall not, in relation to any proceedings under this Act, print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any account of evidence in the proceedings, or any other account or particulars of the proceedings other than - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses, and the names of the Judge or Judges and of the counsel and solicitors; {: #debate-39-s2 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- I move - >In sub-clause (1.), paragraph (a), omit "names of the Judge or Judges ", insert " name or names of the member or members of the court ". This amendment is to enable the section to work should an officer who is not a judge be sitting as a court. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-39-s3 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .- I oppose this clause which involves a fundamental and vital principle. The provisions of the clause belong to a philosophy to which I certainly do not adhere and which, in my view, does not walk in company with the liberal tradition. I can think of no more illiberal - here I think of liberalism with a small " 1 " - expression in any part of this bill than is contained in this particular provision. Divorce is not simply a parental function. The court is not dealing with wards of the State, with children or with lunatics; it is administering justice. The provisions of this clause will, I believe, in a very real sense, turn a court of justice into an administrative tribunal. I know only too well the arguments that can be advanced in favour of restriction of publication of court proceedings. One argument is that divorce is a private matter. Another is that people do not want to hurt the children of a broken marriage by publishing evidence that is given in a divorce court. But that is not a principle that is involved. What is involved is that one particular form of justice will be singled out and a restriction will be placed upon publication of proceedings in that court. May I refer the committee to bankruptcy proceedings which, in a sense, are comparable to divorce proceedings. The situation could well arise of one person saying to another, " There goes Jones. He is a bankrupt, you know". All of Jones' affairs have been brought out and displayed for all the world to see. Is there any vital distinction between those two circumstances? It is perfectly true that this provision does not make for in-camera proceedings, but I submit to the committee that there is a desperately thin line of distinction between what this clause proposes and in-camera proceedings. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr Chaney: -- Well, what do you want? {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN: -- I am capable of developing my own case, and if the honorable member disagrees with me, as he is entitled to do, he can develop his own case at the appropriate time. Let me deal with incamera proceedings. The following statement appears on page 584 of Joske's " Laws of Marriage and Divorce in Australia ": - >Usually justice can best be achieved by a public hearing, and the burden of establishing that a private hearing is necessary in a particular case lies on the person so contending. That statement is pertinent to the matter that we are considering. Honorable members may ask, " What is the desperately thin line of distinction between what this clause proposes and in-camera proceedings? " In my view it is this: On one hand, there is a disturbance of the principle that justice shall be administered in open court, and on the other hand, the size of the court room must be taken into account. If there is a large court room, obviously quite a number of people can be accommodated, but if there is a small court room the attendance is restricted. You could reach the farcical situation of having divorce proceedings heard in very small court rooms and the number of people that can be accommodated considerably limited. A profound principle is involved. May I refer the committee to the points of view that have been expressed by some of the great figures in British justice. The Earl of Halsbury has said - >I am of opinion that every court of justice is open to every subject of the King. Earl Loreburn had this to say - >The inveterate rule is that justice shall be administered in open court. Lord Atkinson, who heard the well-known case of Scott v. Scott, stated - >The hearing of a case in public may be, and often is, no doubt, painful, humiliating or deterrent both to parties and witnesses, and in many cases, especially those of a criminal nature, the details may be so indecent as to tend to injure public morals, but all this is tolerated and endured, because it is felt that in public trial is to found, on the whole, the best security for the pure, impartial, and efficient administration of justice, the best means for winning for it public confidence and respect. Tn the same case, Lord Shaw quoted with approval the words of Bentham, who said - >In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in pro portion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. What is involved in this, **Mr. Chairman,** is that you are placing a limited restriction on what is to be published. I submit to the committee that the language used in the clause is rather arresting language, because it uses the words " a concise statement of the nature and grounds of the proceedings ". Earlier to-day, the Attorney-General said that the courts would have great difficulty in interpreting what was unreasonableness. I put it to him that " conciseness ", like " unreasonableness ", is essentially an emotive word. It is very difficult to find out where is the reference. What is concise to one person is not necessarily concise to another. The Attorney-General may argue that the courts have been interpreting for many years the meaning of expressions such as " a concise statement ". That is perfectly true, but it is equally true to say there has been heavy division of the courts in the interpretation of words that involve emotive qualities. I hope that the committee will realize what is involved here. This could well be but a beginning. This in an encroachment upon the domain of liberty, in my view. If we start with this provision, it could well stand as an undeserved and unwarranted precedent for the future. So I hope that the committee will not just lightly accept the clause as it stands, **Sir. I** believe that it involves a tremendously vital principle, and I invite the committee to examine it in that light. {: #debate-39-s4 .speaker-KZP} ##### Mr WHEELER:
Mitchell **.- Mr. Chairman,** I should like to support some - I say " some " advisedly - of the contentions made by the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen).** Before I do that, as this may be the last time I shall speak on this bill, may I be permitted to congratulate you, **Sir, on** the manner in which you have conducted the proceedings of this committee. The task has not been easy, and I think that the way in which you maintained order during the consideration of the one bill until 3.10 a.m. to-day was a feat quite beyond the normal call of duty. I may say, also, that I appreciate the spirit in which the consideration of this measure has proceeded. It restores one's faith in politics to think that honorable members on both sides of the chamber can discuss this bill with a common purpose on social matters such as this. May I add, also, that the solicitude of the right honorable member for Hunter (Dr. Evatt) in suggesting that the proceedings should be terminated at 1.30 this morning sprang from a happy but unproductive thought. I hope that it was not engendered by a junior counsel's fear that his senior was progressing too fast and that to-morrow should bring another day's fees. I think that, on the contrary, the taxpayers will warm to the fact that the honorable member for Parramatta **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** made his addresses to the jury at such a low fee. Lastly - you have been most tolerant, **Mr. Chairman** - may I commend the admirable restraint displayed by my good, kind, Christian friend, the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske),** who has sat through the proceedings more or less silently. Perhaps he sees the dawn after a long night of frustration. One hopes, for his sake, that, in the more sophisticated atmosphere where this bill will shortly go, the fates will be just as kind to him in the matter of divided thought in the Opposition. Come what may, I think that this bill will always be known as the Joske bill, although some body of opinion may prefer it to be called " the Joske bill, with variations ". But, as I suggest, **Mr. Chairman,** the honorable member for Balaclava may claim paternity of this legal problem child. So much deference has been paid to the practical knowledge of the honorable member on the subject of divorce that his opinion, in these discussions, seems to have weight, not only with his fellow lawyers but with honorable members generally. Therefore, the reference by the honorable member for Moreton to the hearing of evidence, which was taken from the written word of the honorable member for Balaclava, must impress the committee. The honorable member for Moreton, who pursues a course of legal studies, has shown a great capacity to follow his line of investigation. I am sure that the honorable member for Balaclava, as a senior counsel, will not fail to give this devil his due. I agree with a good deal of what the honorable member for Moreton has said with regard to closed hearings of evidence and the consequent restriction of publica tion by the press. It may be claimed that the paramount consideration in this clause is to meet the needs of the age. It is true that, in our time, the press - or some section of it - has an overwhelming tendency to destroy character. We who serve in public life know this only too well. The press seems to enjoy the process of lacerating a soul for a story. Notwithstanding this, one of the greatest guardians of public behaviour is public opinion, which the press still influences. Whether or not the press, in its striving for sensationalism, has the same influence on public opinion as it had in former times, when there were no distractions like wireless and television, is a matter of conjecture. Still, the press does continue to exercise an influence over public opinion. In my view, a great deterrent to divorce is fear of the publicity involved. If divorce courts are to work behind doors closed to the press, the effect, I think, will be to make divorce more attractive. It will become a more popular solution of marital problems because there will be no fear of publicity. Censorship of published matter is something that the Australian people do not appreciate, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** discovered to his dismay during the war. Although salacious reports of divorce proceedings are sometimes published, there is among newspapers, by and large, a recognition of their responsibility to serve public opinion in these matters. I feel that the arguments for suppression of evidence in divorce proceedings, strong as they may be, are outweighed by the arguments against it. {: #debate-39-s5 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE:
Watson **.- Mr. Chairman,** I believe that there is quite a lot in what the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** had to say about the need for divorce proceedings to be heard in public. However, I believe, at the same time, that a matter of paramount importance that we must keep in mind is the effect of such court proceedings. Publication of details in the way in which we have known them to be published in the past can greatly affect the children of a marriage. In their interests, I intend to vote for the clause as it now stands. {: #debate-39-s6 .speaker-JUN} ##### Mr CHRESBY:
Griffith .- During the course of this lengthy debate I have found myself continuously taking the opposite view to that of the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen).** On this occasion, however, I find myself on his side. Indeed, I find myself in the strange position of what one might call championing the cause of the press. I do not do so with any love for most sections of the press. Indeed, I am conscious, as many members are conscious, of the failure of a considerable section of the press to recognize its own moral responsibility in the correct reporting of incidents, whether within this chamber or in the courts. The Attorney-General and others may point to the fact that during the course of war, in the cause of national security, there must be a certain amount of suppression of what the press may print. I still believe that the newspapers, or some of them, fail in their moral responsibility to realize that what they print can have quite a damaging effect, opposite to the one intended, but I maintain that we must zealously guard the right of the press to print the truth. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr Chaney: -- That is what we are doing in this clause. {: .speaker-JUN} ##### Mr CHRESBY: -- I take the view that it will be hard, at times, to determine what is the truth. I believe, with the honorable member for Moreton, that we are establishing a very dangerous principle. I would like to see a provision in the law whereby an institution such as the Parliament would have the right to print its view alongside the view of the press, so that people could compare them and make up their own minds. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr Chaney: -- That is not your argument now. {: .speaker-JUN} ##### Mr CHRESBY: -- That is your point of view. It is not mine. I oppose this clause. I do not think it will achieve what it sets out to achieve and I do not think it is in the public interest. I intend to vote against it. {: #debate-39-s7 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie .- The desire of the Attorney-General to protect children and to improve the daily press is to be commended. But I believe that the daily papers are adopting a much more reasonable attitude to the reporting of divorce proceedings. I have examined newspapers such as the " Sydney Morning Herald " and I think, generally speaking, that they adopt a very reasonable, fair and just attitude. In this matter, I find myself torn between two emotions. First, I am concerned that there should be no publication of the sordid, salacious details of divorce court proceedings. I believe that the public should be spared these details and that, in any case, publication should be withheld to avoid hurt to any children who may be concerned. Decency should be the criteria in publication. However, whilst I agree with the AttorneyGeneral that there is need to protect the public from undesirable matter, I hardly think that, in these days, the press seeks sensational matter from the divorce courts to any great extent. In recent times, of course, the newspapers have had quite a considerable amount of other sensational matter to draw upon. I think, for instance, of the late Errol Flynn and his protégée - his concubine. Such disagreeable material1 is better left out of the daily press. There is another matter concerning which I would like the Attorney-General to say something. Clause 113 states - >The court may, if it thinks fit in any particular proceedings, order that none of the mattersreferred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the last preceding sub-section shall be printed or published or that any matter or part of a matter so referred to shall not be printed or published. What do paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d> say? Paragraph (a) refers to the names, addresses and occupations of the parties. What objection can there be, fairly, to the publication of the names of the persons involved? I would like the Attorney-General to say something about that. Paragraph (b) reads - a concise statement of the nature and grounds, of the proceedings and of the charges, defences and counter charges in support of which evidence has been given; In the course of debate on the bill, and particularly on clause 27 (m) and its associated clauses, a strong case was made that an innocent party might suffer. I believe therefore that the public is entitled to know the circumstances of a divorce. People ar& entitled to know the basis for the divorce and why a certain judgment has been given* If a party to the divorce considers that he or she is innocent, the circumstances ought to see the light of day and the innocent person's name ought to be cleared. Paragraph (c) refers to submissions on any points of law. What profit is there in denying the publication of any point of law that ought to be made known to the community? Surely that would not offend public taste. It ought to be made known for, undoubtedly, it would relate to the cause itself. I suggest that there is some basis for the publication of all these matters. Paragraph (d) specifies - the judgment of the court and observations made by the court in giving judgment. It is essential that a judgment of the court should be published. Surely the printing of a concise statement of the nature and grounds of the proceedings and of the charges, defences and counter charges in support of which evidence has been given, as provided for in paragraph (b) would meet with the approval of the House. Paragraph (a), as I have said, refers to the names, addresses and occupations of the parties. I have no doubt that influential people who may be the guilty parties in divorce proceedings would be happy to have their names, addresses and occupations suppressed. They might also consider it desirable to suppress the circumstances of the divorce. I feel that there is some need for the Attorney-General to make an explanation on this matter. I am in favour of the publication of the material mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). I believe that there should be a concise statement of the proceedings and that names, addresses and occupations, as well as the -submissions and the judgment, should be published. It is wrong that a court should be able to suppress those details. **Mr.** CHANEY (Perth) [4.451.- I think that this is one provision of the bill on which we should congratulate the AttorneyGeneral **(Sir Garfield Barwick).** The community is divided into two types of people - those who want to get their names into the press and those who try to keep their names out of it. This provision will protect people who cannot protect themselves. T do not know of any honorable member of this Parliament or any member of the community who feels anything but sympathy for a person who has been forced to take divorce proceedings whether he or she be guilty or not guilty of any matrimonial offence. What has happened in the past in many States is that certain sections of the press have had a Roman holiday per medium of the divorce courts. They have not been interested in any legal interpretation of cases before the courts but in headlining the type of stories that they think will increase sales of their publication. The result has been extremely damaging not only to parties concerned in the divorce actions but also to their families and relatives. No good purpose at all is served by that practice. I was amazed to hear the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Wheeler)** say that a closed door policy on divorce proceedings would increase the incidence of divorce, because people would think that they could get away with certain crimes or sins without being the subject of publicity. That is a naive piece of thinking, and it will not have that effect at all. If newspapers had complete freedom to publish anything they like in respect of divorce proceedings, such reports would probably be read by younger people and would put ideas into their heads which would have the opposite effect to that expected by the honorable member for Mitchell. No one in his right senses could oppose a clause such as this, which is designed solely to protect people who, after all, have suffered enough when they have reached the stage of having to go to a divorce court to end something which, perhaps, should never have been commenced. {: #debate-39-s8 .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT:
Lilley .- Like the honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Chaney),** I feel that this is one of the most humane clauses in the bill. Anybody who has studied this clause - and I think every honorable member of the committee has - will agree that the more responsible of the Australian newspapers have in most instances confined themselves, in reporting divorce cases, to the publication of the very matters that this clause will permit to be published in the press. But there is also the exceptional case involving people of some prominence in the community of which even responsible newspapers seem to enjoy featuring in headlines the most salacious aspects. There is one very small section of the press - and thank the Lord it is a small section - which seems to try to increase its circulation by filling its columns with the more salacious details and headlining divorce proceedings which only people with depraved minds enjoy reading. When we consider the way in which the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** has drafted this clause, it is hard to understand anybody with a Christian background opposing it. Whatever the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** might find in my remarks to object to, let me remind him, as the honorable member for Perth pointed out, that by the time a person goes to the divorce court, whether sinner or sinned against, he or she does so with great trepidation and possibly after years of suffering. There may be a family of young children going to school involved also. The parties go to the court because they have reached the very limit of endurance. They have found that life together is intolerable. Most responsible people will appreciate that their children are placed in a most invidious position, and that although the parents are going to be separated this may be possibly in the best interests of the children. But people who condemn this clause suggest that these parties should be subjected to the glare of publicity of the worst type of newspaper reporting. Whether the adults have sinned or have been sinned against, they will be hounded if there is anything in the divorce proceedings which will be detrimental to their character. Many will find that they are unable to continue living in the same district; and their children will not be able to continue at their schools because they will be the object of ridicule by their schoolmates. This clause will ensure that only the basic details of the divorce proceedings are published. The newspapers will not be given an opportunity to blacken or smear the characters of the parties and bring their children into ridicule and disgrace. If there is one innocent party connected with divorce proceedings, it is the children; and if there is one responsiblity we have as members of Parliament considering this legislation, it is to ensure that these innocent victims - and they are the victims of circumstance - are adequately protected from ridicule by their friends or forced to move away to another environment in order to escape it. We should try to make certain that a woman whose husband has disgraced her will not be brought into ridicule because her friends and neighbours gossip about what he did. These things have to be taken into consideration for the sake of protecting the innocent parties. Again I congratulate the Attorney-General on this most humane clause. I thought that every honorable member would support it wholeheartedly, recognizing that in it was an element of protection for the good name of the children - those who should not suffer. {: #debate-39-s9 .speaker-KEE} ##### Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
Chisholm -- If I remember rightly, the first measure I ever introduced in a Parliament was as a private member in the Victorian Parliament, and it dealt with much the same subject as is covered by this clause. It was recommended to me by a very eminent legal person who had had considerable experience in the divorce courts. Although I agree with the principle stated by the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** I think, in this particular case, we are right to include this clause in the bill. On the other hand, I think the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti)** asked a very pertinent question. Although I have not had the opportunity, perhaps I should have made the effort of comparing this proposal with the section in the Victorian act which, if I remember rightly, was put through Parliament as a government measure about 1931 or 1932. T do not know quite how the provisions of this clause compare with the Victorian provision. I do not recollect any authority being given to the courts to suppress everything except the barest details such as the names and addresses of the parties, the "rounds on which the divorce action was brought and the decision of the court. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- The court is given that power under this clause. {: .speaker-KEE} ##### Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES: -- I do not think that under the Victorian act the court was given power to suppress entirely the details of the case. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- The Victorian courts have never exercised that power. {: .speaker-KEE} ##### Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES: -- Although the power is in the Victorian act it has never been exercised. 1 shall look forward to the answer which the Attorney-General gives to the points raised and the pertinent question asked by the honorable member for Macquarie. {: #debate-39-s10 .speaker-K58} ##### Mr O'CONNOR:
Dalley .- I support, in general, the view expressed by the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti).** The only thing I am perturbed about is the provision that the court may, if it thinks fit, in any particular proceeding forbid publication of matters. I shall be very interested to hear from the AttorneyGeneral the reasons that might actuate a court in such a manner. While it is true to say the press to-day treats divorce proceedings differently from the way in which it treated them in the past, it is also perfectly true that the approach of the press to reports of divorce proceedings is not uniform. People who own newspapers have a power which is denied to ordinary members of the public. I know that some years ago certain people who own powerful newspaper interests went through the divorce courts, but none of the papers that they publish printed a line of the proceeding. Newspapers published by rival companies, of course, carried reports of these proceedings but, as I said, the newspapers owned by the parties to the divorce, or by one of them, suppressed the proceedings. That is an example of the kind of behaviour that the press is likely to resort to. I point out that the newspaper concerned is publishing, daily, reports of divorce proceedings that affect other people, in contradistinction to its attitude when the owner of the newspaper was concerned, when it published not a line. So I think it is advisable for us to have some assurances from the Attorney-General that there will be some degree of uniformity in the decisions that courts might make under sub-clause (2.). I say, with due deference to everybody, and with no desire to cast any aspersions on anybody, that it is quite possible that some member of the bench would be influenced by factors which should not influence him. I am not here to criticize the judiciary, but such things have happened in this profession as in other spheres. What I want the AttorneyGeneral to remove is my fear that we may have cases where a person may obtain a decree from a court and, because of that person's background, the judge may favour him and order the suppression of reports of the proceedings, whereas if ordinary **Mr. Jack** Smith were concerned the judge would not make a similar order. {: #debate-39-s11 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- First, may I say that I share with the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** a general dislike for any attempt to interfere with what is called the freedom of the press to publish things which have been said and done in a court of law. The press gets its ability to do this because fair and accurate reports of what occurs in a court of law are privileged, provided there is no malice in the publication. But there does come a time when a balanced judgment has to be exercised between the unbridled use of this right of publication and other interests in the community. I do not need to labour the considerations which tend towards the view that publication ought to be restricted. Honorable members have mentioned the consideration applying to children. As honorable members know, newspapers select parts of a case for publication - not the whole case, as I shall mention in a moment - and those parts do not do the community any good to know. The honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Wheeler)** provided, strangly enough, a reason for not having wide publicity. He said that wide publicity of divorce proceedings would discourage people from going to the divorce court because they would be frightened of the ensuing publicity. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- That is not my argument. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- No, I know. That is the view expressed by the honorable member for Mitchell. The proposition is that somebody who has a just cause for divorce will not pursue it because of the fear of publicity. Now, although the honorable member spoke against this provision, I should think that his reason is an excellent reason for enacting the provision. If it is true that publicity of this sort can discourage a person from seeking his or her proper remedy, then there is something wrong with this liberty of publication. There is nothing novel about this provision. There is a similar provision in the United Kingdom, a similar provision in Victoria, and a similar provision in South Australia. If I remember rightly, in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia there are provisions which give the court power to order that some, or all, of the proceedings shall not be published. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Do you not think that that is an approach to be preferred to this? {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- I shall answer that in a moment, because I want to explain to the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti)** how I think this has to be balanced out. Honorable members, of course, quite naturally think of the ordinary case of divorce, or of desertion cases and the like, when they object to restriction of publication of proceedings. But this bill covers a number of kinds of cases. It can, for example, cover a nullity case, where one person sues another for nullity of marriage on the ground of physical incapacity to consumate. The court has to go through the most intimate physical details of the two spouses. I have been engaged in such cases. The law, as a profession, has long thought that it is even improper to publish the names of the parties in the law report of the case. That is why you can see in the law reports such mentions as " the case of A v. B falsely called A ". They do not include the names, because it is thought only right that because of the intimate details concerned the name should not be published. Sub-section (2.) is in the bill for that purpose. It is not a direction to the court, but provides a power to enable the court to come to its decision on each particular matter. We have to trust judges with such powers for use in a proper case, when they may rule that publication of either part, or all, of the proceedings be restricted. Let me suppose another case, for instance a case in which a woman finds her husband committing incest in the home and brings this up as a cause of divorce. The judge would rightly say, "1 am not going to have the name of this party bruited abroad along with the details." This is the kind of case that is eminently suitable not to be disclosed in the press. The same applies in the case of rape, when it might be very proper not to disclose the details of the circumstances and the name of the raped person. It is a choice between giving the court the power, and letting it in every case make up its mind whether or not it will allow publication, and doing as I have done, that is to say, specifying - and it is a generous specification, because there is a good deal that can be published under this bill - what can be published and forbidding anything else, and giving the court, in a proper case, the power to say how much can be published. If I may say so with respect, the honorable member for Moreton tends to treat this bill as providing for private hearings of divorce cases. That is not so. The bill will not interfere with the hearing of cases in public. That is preserved, and I for one would not be a party to any general provision for having these cases heard in camera. There is a tendency to think that the newspaper extends the walls of the court. It does not, because it does not report everything that goes on. It selects. And what is the basis of the selection? On what basis does it select the part of the case that it will communicate to people outside? Well, you and I know that, being human, the young reporter - and I suppose the reporting of such matters falls to the lot of the younger reporters - does not take back to his office copy covering all the humdrum proceedings of the divorce. He wants the highlights. Then he must give the report a headline that will attract attention. Therein we encounter the difficulty. Honorable members say - and rightly, I think - that the press at the moment is, generally speaking, not playing up as much salacious material as it did in other times. But we are making the law for a long time, and we do not know when the press will enter upon another cycle. We do not want to be rushing back here after the horse is out of the stable and a whole spate of undesirable matter has been published, inserting amendments to try to catch up with the position. If it is reasonable to make a provision along these lines, then this is the time to make it. I consider that the press has been given a good charter, and I may say in passing that the two main daily newspapers in Sydney have stated that this provision is right, and that they are content with it. I have received only one request to alter this clause. Let me tell you frankly that it came from a judge of a certain court. He put it to me that if there was not publication, the Attorney-General of the day would not be able to learn of the circumstances of cases and of the grounds on which he might intervene. I know that judge well, and I said to him by way of reply, " You and I have been in practice for over 30 years. Can you count on the fingers of one hand the number of interventions you have known of? " And he probably could. Then I asked him the other question, " Have you known of an intervention that was caused by press publicity? " I asked him a third question, " Does the press publish those pieces of evidence that you and I might suspect had been perjured? " He has never answered me. He was not discourteous about it, but I think he realized that when you think it over, press publicity is not, in this sphere, an aid to justice at all. I would not deny that a witness might, conceivably, be attracted occasionally to a court because he read of some incident in the court reported in a newspaper. But, generally speaking, when a Crown Solicitor or an Attorney-General gets material on which to intervene, it is usually as a result of some spitefulness or jealousy on the part of those connected with the parties concerned. Some one wants to inform and try to upset some one else, and that is usually the way in which the information is obtained. I say, therefore, in answer to the honorable members for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti)** and Chisholm **(Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes)** that sub-clause (2.) is very necessary to allow a court to give appropriate directions in cases in which we would all agree that there should be no publication. I quite realize that judges differ widely, as has been suggested in this debate. I am not prepared to concede that a judge would suppress evidence about a socialite when he would not suppress it about somebody else. The honorable member may have had some such experience, but I have not. I would expect that over the course of not too many years the practice under this provision will become fairly uniform. I propose to take two or three steps to try to obtain uniformity. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- You refer to the practice in accordance with sub-clause (2.)? {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- I refer to all decisions made under the provisions of this bill, because the decisions will be made by judges all over Australia. It seems to me that it would be very proper to ensure that one common report of cases was circulated amongst them. A new set of law reports is about to be published, covering federal decisions, by a commercial house, and I have asked that firm to include the divorce decisions. In this way the judge in Tasmania, for instance, will get a report of what has happened in New South Wales. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- You refer to official law reports? {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- Yes. In addition, I have contemplated another method, although I have not made any resolution as to this. I am of opinion that my department should circulate a small bulletin, monthly or perhaps every two months, giving all the decisions and the practice decisions that are made in the divorce courts throughout Australia. Every judge would get a copy of this bulletin and so would be constantly kept up to date. Perhaps we could also consider the introduction of a procedure which is followed by our American cousins, involving the gathering together every year or so of all the judges who deal with a particular subject, so that they may talk over the problems common to their particular line of business. In addition to these possible methods of ensuring uniformity, of course, the High Court sits, as it were, behind this system, to try to regularize and make the practice uniform. While there is scope for difference, of course, in the application of any provision involving a discretion, I believe the preponderance of probability is that the courts will settle down to a fairly uniform practice. After all, in my own State the judges have had a power such as that set out in sub-clause (2.), and, except in extreme cases like the ones that I have mentioned, I have not known it to be exercised. If honorable members will look at what can be published, they will find that enough material is included to satisfy the public interest in seeing that there is no clandestinity about the actual procedure. I do not think it is correct, as the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** was inclined to think, that the newspaper enlarges the court. The newspaper is selective. It picks a bit - and we all know what bit. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: -- The newspapers do not do so in relation only to divorce cases. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- I know, but divorce matters are rather different from other matters. It does not matter very much what the newspapers say about you and me. We can take it. But in a divorce case children are involved, and very intimate details are brought to light. Very often the people concerned are in a position to be hurt. They are upset, and they can be easily hurt at that time by this sort of publicity. I think perhaps the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Wheeler)** was right - although he reached the wrong conclusion - when he said that the possibility of publication would probably scare away some people who are entitled to go to the courts. I think that in itself is a condemnation of unbridled publication. {: #debate-39-s12 .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Hunter -- In considering this bill the Parliament has been engaged on a very important assignment indeed, and I believe that there has been evident throughout the discussions a real determination on the part of honorable members, whatever the different views they might hold, to reach an Australia-wide, national conclusion on this subject of matrimonial causes. Coming to the part of the proposed law that we are discussing at present, what is permitted to be published is set out in clause 113 (1.), which refers to such things as the names and other particulars of the parties and witnesses, the names of judges, counsel and so on. It includes a statement of the nature and grounds of the proceedings and of the charges, defences and counter-charges in support of which evidence has been given, submissions on any points of law arising in the course of the proceedings, and the decision of the court on those points. Above all, it includes the judgment of the court and observations made by the court in giving judgment. The judgment of the court would cover the whole field of controversy and dispute, opinions on such vital matters as the credibility of witnesses and whether they had truthfully stated the facts, and comments made by the court in relation to the whole matter. That is a very wide charter and a very full report under those headings could be given. I think that such a report would be more comprehensive than the average report published to-day of cases where no statutory rules govern the publication. We come then to sub-clause (2.). I was impressed by what several of my colleagues thought about this provision. They feel that there is some danger in the power reserved to the individual court. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- It is, in effect, the controlling clause. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- It is, but I think everybody would know that in fact such power would not be exercised. In New South Wales, power is given under the Defamation Act for a court to prohibit the publication of evidence. I do not know of one case in which that power has been used, although it is contained in the statute. I am sure that we would find that the press would adopt the charter given by clause 1 1 3 (1 .). I do not think that the power in subclause (2.) would be used. However, if unfair practices arose in relation to it, the legislation would come back to the Parliament to be dealt with either by amendment or by the imposition of some restriction. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick: -- This is the New South Wales provision, if you would like to see it. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- I am referred by the Attorney-General to the power given to the judge presiding at a trial to forbid the publication of evidence. Failure to obey an order made under this provision would amount to contempt of court. I cannot recall a single case in which such an order has been made, and I do not think that the power has been used. I feel that a similar result would flow from clause 113. This is the law of England, Victoria and South Australia. We are introducing an Australia-wide measure. I think it is right that we should continue this law, knowing that the newspapers, for the most part, do not feature the reports of divorce cases as was done a generation ago. A good deal of moderation is exercised now, but this clause provides a safeguard. I personally have tried to follow this bill with every support that I could give to it, and I feel bound, at the commencement of its history, to support this essential portion of the legislation. {: #debate-39-s13 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .- I will not delay the committee unduly, but I want to make a few comments. I should like to thank the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** for his readiness to explain his point of view and to propound his particular philosophy that is involved in this clause. Before I comment on that, may I refer hurriedly - because that is all they deserve - to a few of what I call the fringe arguments. I turn first to my colleague, the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight),** who said that no person with a Christian background would oppose this provision. I mention that argument of the honorable gentleman not to dispute it but simply to despise it. It is a piece of intellectual humbug par excellence and implies that Halsbury, Shaw, Atkinson and Loreburn are a quartette of unchristianlike gentlemen and that I am something ranging between a follower of Genghis Khan and a heretic. I inform the honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Chaney),** without any malevolence but with respect, that the whole of my case was founded on this one point: I know that people can conceivably be hurt - I have conceded that - but I have argued that in other cases also people can be hurt. My dominant and basic argument has been that a restriction will be placed on a court of law. May I briefly turn to the comments of the Attorney-General, because this comes to the essential argument. He said at the outset that he agreed in broad outline with some of my comments; and then he went on to say that in this matter one must determine a balanced judgment. I ask the honorable gentleman and the members of the committee: Where do you draw the line? If this is the thinking to-day and if in the days of Bentham it was not the thinking, what will it be in twenty or in 50 years time? I believe that these principles remain as the years go on, and I do not believe that they warrant attack as convenience demands. The Attorney-General said that cases of great delicacy arise. I concede that that is so, but I ask, with respect: Does not clause 108 provide for that in its reference to special circumstances? I should imagine that that would have some bearing on this question. The honorable gentleman then said that it is wrong to assume that the newspapers extend the walls of the courts. That may be perfectly true, but I think that the entire literate world - I speak of Australia - is entitled to know what goes on in one of the Queen's courts. That is surely a respectable principle to propound in this National Parliament. The honorable gentleman also said that several Sydney newspapers had written to him approving of this provision. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick: -- No, I did not. I said that they published their approval. They did not write to me. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN: -- Then, they publicly acknowledge the benefits of it. That may be true, but I am not prepared to take my instruction in principle from any newspaper. I believe that I am entitled to proceed pragmatically to determine my own convictions. The last two comments I make quickly are these: I have never at any time suggested that the restriction on publication would lead to perjury. That has never been my argument. My dominant argument has been that a restraint is being applied to a court of law. Finally, I invite the Attorney-General, who has had a distinguished practice in the courts, and the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt),** who similarly has had a distinguished career in the courts, to define for me and for the members of the committee what isa " concise statement ". Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 114 and 115 - by leave - takentogether, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 11 5a. {: #debate-39-s14 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- I move - >After clause 115, insert the following new clause: - " 115a.- (1.) The court may, at any stage of proceedings under this Act, if it is satisfied that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious, dismiss the proceedings. " (2.) The court may, at any stage of proceedings under this Act, if it is satisfied that the allegations made in respect of a party to the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious, order that that party be dismissed from the proceedings.". The purpose of this proposed new clause is to enable the court to terminate quickly frivolous and vexatious proceedings and not to have parties waiting until there has been a trial. Proposed new clause agreed to. Clause 116- (6.) The power to make rules of court conferred by paragraph (h) of section eighty-six of the Judiciary Act 1903-1955 shall be deemed not to extend to making rules of court regulating the practice and procedure in courts (other than the High Court) having jurisdiction under this Act in matters arising under this Act. {: #debate-39-s15 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- I move - >Omit sub-clause (6.). While I am on my feet dealing with this general power to make rules I should like to mention that the honorable member for Shortland **(Mr. Griffiffiths)** brought to my notice the need, as he put it, to provide that notice of trial of action should be given to a respondent even if that respondent had not appeared in the suit. I want to tell the honorable member that I will give most sympathetic consideration to his suggestion. I see no reason why that should not be done in the rules. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. First, second and third schedules - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. {: #debate-39-s16 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- May I take this opportunity of endorsing what was said by the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Wheeler),** in which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** will join - that this has been a very onerous task for you, **Mr. Chairman.** This is a very complicated bill. It is a bill about which we all felt fairly keenly at some stage or another. The maintenance of the order and dignity of the committee in your hands has been beyond criticism or reproach. The handling of the bill right through the committee stage has been a credit to you. {: #debate-39-s17 .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Hunter -- I should like to support the remarks passed by the AttorneyGeneral **(Sir Garfield Barwick).** Your handling of this bill, **Mr. Chairman,** under difficult circumstances at times, has added to our admiration of you and our great affection for you. {: #debate-39-s18 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .- It is not necessarily in any spirit of exaltation because we have now finished the bill that I rise to speak, and I hope the AttorneyGeneral **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** will not think that it is impertinence on my part, but I wish to thank him for the great patience he has displayed in handling this bill throughout the committee stage. There are those of us who disagreed violently with some of the provisions in the bill, but he was most generous in the attention and, above all, in the patience and assiduity that he displayed during the consideration of this tremendously important measure. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- I strongly support the remarks just expressed by the honorable member for Moreton. {: #debate-39-s19 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I thank the AttorneyGeneral and the Leader of the Opposition for their generous remarks about me. I should like to say that in the seventeen years I have been here I have never enjoyed a debate as much as I have enjoyed the debate on this bill. I think all honorable members will agree with me in that expression. In fact, I venture to say that the debate on this bill has been the most enjoyable of any with which we have been associated. We should have more of them. {: #debate-39-s20 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- May I thank the committee for the remarks expressed about me, and may I say that behind the work that was done in the committee there has been an enormous amount of work done by the officers. They deserve great credit for that work, which was done without stint and well beyond the demands of duty. Title agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted. {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Third Reading Motion (by **Sir Garfield** Barwick) - by leave - proposed - >That the bill be now read a third time. {: #subdebate-39-0-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr STEWART:
Lang .- This debate is rapidly drawing to a close, and at this point I want to offer my congratulations to the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** and to honorable members who took part in the debate. It was an excellent debate. Some of the arguments that were used indicated that a great amount of research had been made into the bill not only by those who supported it but also by those who were opposed to some aspects of it. It was a non-party bill and on occasions we found that there was a great divergence of opinion among members of our own particular party. The bill was made a nonparty bill by all parties in the House because it was felt that there was a wide divergence of opinion on it, that there were religious differences and differences of approach to the subject of divorce. That being the case, we came here as private individuals permitted by our parties to express our points of view on the subject of matrimonial causes. In this morning's " Daily Telegraph " there is an editorial written by a person unseen, unknown and unnamed. That editorial is misleading, snide and biased. It seeks to cast aspersions on a minority opinion in this House in respect of a matter that was considered to be a non-party issue by all parties. In addition to casting aspersions on a mere sixteen members, the editorial casts aspersions on two of the Churches in this Commonwealth. It is a misleading editorial. On the one hand it states - >Such a large majority for the second reading indicates that no matter what their religious views might be and no matter what pressures may have been put to them by the clerics of the faith in which they believe, these members of Parliament treated the subject as Sh- Garfield Barwick wished them to. I have received two official communications, one from the Primate of Australia on behalf of the bishops of the Church of England, and the other - a printed document - entitled " An Analysis of the Matrimonial Causes Bill by the National Catholic Welfare Committee ". {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: -- All honorable members received them. {: .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr STEWART: -- I have studied both those documents and in neither of them is any pressure applied on any members of this House. Let me read the covering letter that came from the Primate of Australia. It stated - >I have been asked by the Bishops of the Church of England in Australia to forward you the enclosed memorandum containing the resolution passed at our conference last week. The memorandum states the views of the bishops. In the analysis of the bill which was published by the National Catholic Welfare Committee - an analysis which is most temperate in its wording, mild in its criticism and generous in its praise of some clauses of the bill - the following statement, which I shall read in its entirety, appears on page 21 under the heading, "Matter of Conscience " - >The merits of these and other proposed grounds of divorce will have to be weighed very carefully by Federal members in the present parliamentary session. One practical criterion, by which their desirability might be evaluated, could be an assessment of how far they assist or retard the declared " paramount endeavour of the bill to maintain marriage and protect the family ". Very wisely the Government is leaving its members free to vote on this measure according to their conscience and it may be that the Opposition will adopt the same course. Such an attitude suggests a recognition by the Government that many members regard civil divorce as a moral evil, something forbidden by the law of God. In moral matters, conscience, not party, must be a man's guide. Conscience will direct a man to oppose either the establishment or the extension of any moral evil in the community and if, in a particular case, the only choice presented to him is between two evils, he must choose the lesser. As has already been indicated, members are not being asked to vote in this bill on whether they believe there should be divorce laws in Australia or not. Neither are they required to indicate their preference for divorce laws as they exist in one State compared with some other. Their task is to make up their minds about this bill as it has been presented, both in its various parts and taken as a whole. Naturally, they will compare carefully the Commonwealth proposals with the existing State provisions, which will be superseded if the bill is passed. It may be anticipated that those who view divorce as a moral evil will oppose any extension of it either in the State in which they live or in the Commonwealth as a whole. If any one can suggest to me that pressure was applied on any section of this Parliament in either of the documents to which I have referred, he certainly is able to extend his imagination as far as has the writer of this misleading and contemptuous editorial has done. In numerous editorials that appeared in practically every newspaper in Australia we were told that this bill was a good one and that it should be supported. Time and time again honorable members receive communications from chambers of manufactures, chambers of commerce, private banks or from some other pressure group in the community, but rarely do any of the newspapers say that the pressure that is being exerted on honorable members by those organizations should be disregarded. I say quite emphatically that no church dignitary, from the highest to the lowest, approached me and suggested that I should either oppose or support any clause of this bill. I am sure that the same may be said of most honorable members. If any pressure has been applied, it has come from within the House and from the newspapers outside the House. I know that at this time last week the Attorney-General believed that certain clauses of the bill perhaps would have to be deleted, but pressures were exerted in certain quarters. However, I do not wish to open that aspect. When the vote was taken eventually, *84* honorable members supported the bill and sixteen opposed it. The editorial to which I have referred states - >The 84 members of the House of Representatives who passed the uniform divorce bill for its second reading ago Inst a No vote of sixteen deserve to be commended for sticking to their guns. Is it easier. **Mr. Speaker,** to vote with 84 or to vote with sixteen? Is it easier to vote with the majority or to vote with the minority? Since T have been in this place mv political career seems to have followed the line of sticking to the minority, and T stuck with the minority on this occasion on a matter of principle. I am a member of the Australian Labour Party which is in Opposition. We see our amendments to bills defeated continuously because we lack the numbers to carry them. Again, I am with the minority. I believe in the principles of the Australian Labour Party; I believe in the policy of the Australian Labour Party, and I am prepared to accept and stick to those principles and to that policy irrespective of whether the majority or the minority adopts the same course as I do. The same may be said of the bill that we have been debating. I stuck to my opinions because I believed that my conscience directed me to do so and that my attitude was the correct attitude to take. I stuck to my principles despite the fact that, as the debate proceeded, I could see honorable members, who had indicated earlier in the proceedings that they would oppose this clause or that clause, drifting away from those who would constitute the minority. I had no relish for this debate because I knew that I *would be* opposed to the AttorneyGeneral, one of the greatest constitutional lawyers in this country; to the honor-, able member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske),** who is an authority on divorce; and to the right honorable the Leader of the Opposi-tion **(Dr. Evatt),** and last Friday the indica-tions were that the Prime Minister **(Mr, Menzies)** would also support the legislation. For me, a humble back-bencher, to dare to line up against those honorable gentlemen gave me no happiness at all because I knew that the views that I intended to express would have opposed to them the weight of education, experience and ability. I congratulate the Attorney-General on the bill that we shall pass through this House. He, his departmental officers and other honorable members, particularly the honorable member for Balaclava, have devoted a great deal of time to it. The Attorney-General holds out high hopes torthe bill. I sincerely trust that his high hopes, and the high hopes of other members of Parliament, will bear fruit and that this legislation when it is placed on the statute-, book of the Commonwealth will be of bene-, fit to the people of Australia. {: #subdebate-39-0-s1 .speaker-KXW} ##### Mr PEARCE:
Capricornia -- 1 feel some sympathy for the honorable mem,ber for Lang **(Mr. Stewart).** I think that it is true to say that the 100 of us who voted upon this measure pleased ourselves and' cast our votes in accordance with our conscience. We did not cast our votes lightly and perhaps the votes that we have cast will not please everybody. But from this grand exercise that we have had of being allowed a free vote, and from seeing Parliament working in a truly democratic way, 1 believe that a great deal of good will result, not only for the people of Australia but also for each of us who has participated in the debate. I should not like the occasion to pass without paying tribute to the man who made this legislation possible; the man who came into this Parliament from a life-long association with people who have suffered because of the lack of uniformity in our divorce laws; the man whose courage and ability brought us to the stage where we were able to deliberate upon this measure and reach the conclusion that we have reached to-day. I refer, of course, to the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske).** When the history of this legislation is written, we shall realize that against great offers and against the advice of all the political wise men of this country, the honorable member for Balaclava pursued a noble purpose. It will be a great day for him when he can see this legislation, which is based on his original idea, put into effect. I am glad that I have had the opportunity to sit in this House and to see this much of his ambition being realized. {: #subdebate-39-0-s2 .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Hunter -- **Mr. Speaker.** I should like to say just a few words. First of all, T want to thank you for your assistance in the passage of this important bill. I support what has been said in recognition of what the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** has done in conducting the measure through the House and the committee. His work has been very important. I support, also, the graceful reference to the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske),** who was associated with the early days of the bill. I really want to refer particularly to two remarkable speeches delivered in this historic chamber during the consideration of this measure. One was the speech made by the Attorney-General in reply at the second-reading stage, last Tuesday night, at a very crucial point in the passage of the bill. I have heard very many famous speeches, both in this chamber and elsewhere. That speech appealed to me as one of the most impressive, important and decisive speeches of its kind that I have ever heard. I must say that. The second speech to which I want to refer is that just made by my colleague, the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart).** I do not think that I have heard a speech that touched one or impressed one more. One of the features of the two or three difficult days in the passage of this measure through which we have just passed has been the struggle waged by a comparatively few honorable members who resisted certain clauses. The honorable member for Lang and his colleagues were completely frank in making speech after speech. I shall not mention the names of the other honorable members concerned. They are known to us all. One thing that I will not forget is the eloquence and burning sincerity of the speech which the honorable member for Lang has just made, and the fact that, over and over again during the consideration of this bill, he showed qualities of study of and application to a difficult bill, not to say skill and, indeed, eloquence, in stating his case. We shall always be proud to remember his display of those qualities. {: #subdebate-39-0-s3 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Grayndler **.- Mr. Speaker,** I am sorry that I cannot support all the sentiments that have been expressed at this stage of the bill. Only time will tell whether or not this is a good measure. I am still opposed to the obnoxious provisions against which I voted earlier. I, too, commend the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart)** for bringing to the attention of this House the leading article in to-day's issue of the Sydney " Daily Telegraph ", which is quite in keeping with the low standard of journalism set by that newspaper. If ever there was evidence of the need for the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** to maintain that provision of this measure which forbids the reporting of certain aspects of divorce proceedings, we have seen it in the leading article referred to by the honorable member for Lang. Having said that, **Mr. Speaker,** let me say that I commend, naturally, the diligence, study and thought that the AttorneyGeneral and, possibly, the honorable mee. ber for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske)** have put into this bill. At the same time, I must say that I personally felt, on many occasions, that the Attorney-General was most unwise and unjust in implying that Opposition members, and some Government supporters, who opposed certain provisions of the bill did so purely on religious grounds. On many occasions, the Minister, who is a man of great legal eminence, dealt in a flippant manner with the objections of the honorable members concerned. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr Wight: -- That is not right. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- Those that will may speak for themselves. To me, the Minister's attitude was personally insulting, and I would not be a true Labour man if I were not prepared to say that his attitude detracted a lot from the credit due to him for his work on this measure. His reflections from time to time on the Churches of various denominations were commented upon by leading churchmen of most denominations, according to reports in to-day's issue of the Sydney " Daily Mirror ". I think that these things should be said. A lot of the good things that the Minister has done have been mentioned, and it is as well to know that there is another side to the picture. I do not say these things with any intention of reflecting on him personally. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr Wight: -- Of course not. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- No. I think that a man of the legal eminence attained by the AttorneyGeneral could well have given at least a little credit to those who opposed the measure for their adherence to their personal opinions. As the honorable member for Lang has said, it is quite easy to sit with 80 or 90, but it needs a little more courage and conviction to sit with the minority. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr Wight: -- Why did not the honorable member sit with one side or the other more often? {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I am interested to hear the interjections from the opposite side of the chamber. They are the only audible comments that we have heard from their originators during the consideration of this momentous bill. They would do well to listen to what 1 am saying instead of trying to talk me down. That, I remind you, **Sir, is** not exactly an easy task. I feel that I should say to the AttorneyGeneral the things that I have just said. Last night, 1 had occasion to clash with him because I thought his remarks were downright insulting and unjust to the honorable members at whom they were directed. When all is said and done, there is wide scope for differences of opinion in respect of the issues involved in this measure. We have seen that there are many conflicting opinions, and, where legal opinion is opposed to that of the layman, on many occasions the approach of the lawyer is to dismiss the layman as one who knows nothing of the law in the opinion that the lawyer's views should prevail. This sort of thing does not do the Attorney-General or any other lawyer credit. For my part, I consider that it was wrong of the Attorney-General to attribute f to honorable members who criticized provisions of this bill motives that were entirely false. Let me say, also, that I have experienced for the first time in this Parliament the taking of what is known as a free vote. If what we have witnessed during the consideration of this bill is an indication of what a free vote really means, I hope that this will be the last occasion on which we shall ever see a free vote in this Parliament. The only party which really treated the matter as one for a free vote was the Australian Labour Party, and Labour members voted in that spirit. I exclude from that criticism a very few Government supporters. When the major vote was taken - that on the motion to refer the bill to a select committee - only one Government supporter crossed to this side of the chamber to support the proposal. T am a tolerant individual and attribute to others the most worthy motives and the best of intentions, but it seems to me well nigh impossible that 70 or 71 out of a group of about 75 members really thought exactly the same way about this measure. I point out that only a handful of members from that side of the chamber crossed to the other side in order to exercise their right to vote freely on the issue in committee. I know that many more members from the Government side of the chamber would have crossed to this side had they not been dragooned into voting against their wishes. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr Wight: -- No. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- If I were put on oath, I would name the individuals who were approached. I know that members on both the Opposition side and the Government side of the chamber were approached in an endeavour to get them to vote in a certain way. I can name them, and I should do so if I were required to do it before any inquiry appointed to consider this matter. I know full well the attempts that were made to get some Government supporters to vote in a certain way on this issue regardless of their personal views although a free vote was allegedly to be allowed. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** indicated in this chamber the other night, clearly and distinctly, that Government supporters were expected to stand behind the Attorney-General and build up his prestige by supporting this measure regardless of their own personal opinions. I say to the House frankly that I should be prepared to go on oath and name the members who were dragooned into voting against their convictions in what was supposed to be a free vote. If what we have seen during the consideration of this bill amounts to free voting, I hope that never again in this Parliament shall we see what is called " a free vote", and that we all shall stand or fall as party men on any issue, because only if we do that shall we see a clear statement of a party's attitude. That would be preferable to the sort of dragooning that has occurred during the consideration of this measure. I know that these things are not palatable to the Government, whose supporters know that I am speaking the truth on this great issue. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- The honorable member knows that he is not. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I am speaking the truth on this great issue. I am not concerned about the flippant interjections of those opposite who have taken very little, if any, part in this debate. But I cannot let the great commendation of this measure pass without making these comments. I am not unmindful of the fact that this so-called perfect bill was accepted by some members of this Parliament as a perfect bill before the Attorney-General foreshadowed 56 amendments to it. Yet their opinion did not change when the 56 amendments were brought forward so, on that basis, they were not very good judges in the first place. First, I commend the honorable member for Lang for criticizing the editorial in the " Daily Telegraph " which was designed to promote in the community feelings which are undesirable in any country. Secondly, I give the Attorney-General little credit for the slurs and insinuations that he made concerning certain members who exercised what was supposed to be a free vote. {: .speaker-JUN} ##### Mr Chresby: -- What are you doing? {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I am answering the criticism. There was supposed to be a free vote; yet certain responsible members of the Parliament sought to dragoon certain other members into voting against their convictions in order that the bill could go through with a minimum of delay. If that is the basis upon which legislation is to be put through this Parliament when a free vote is allowed, I hope that never again will we see what is known as " a free vote " in this place. Members will be called upon to line up before a vote is taken in this chamber and people throughout the country will know that the voting here is in accordance with the majority decision of their party. I hope that the bill will prove successful because it means much to many people in this country. It will mean happiness or unhappiness as the case may be. I hope that it will work effectively and well, but in conclusion let me place on record again that I am opposed to the obnoxious provision of the bill against which I voted. {: #subdebate-39-0-s4 .speaker-KDY} ##### Mr JOSKE:
Balaclava .- I have been greatly moved by the tributes which, in the course of this debate, have been paid to the work that I have been endeavouring to do. I desire to thank honorable members most sincerely for all their kindness. I should like to add a tribute to the Attorney-General for all the work that he has done in this matter. In particular, I express my personal admiration for the restraint that he has exercised in the course of the debate, during which he has carried a tremendous burden - a restraint which the ordinary man certainly could not have exercised. His patience has been remarkable. {: #subdebate-39-0-s5 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle Very briefly, I wish to speak in opposition to the third reading of the bill because of the continued presence in it of what we knew as clause 27 (m), whatever it has now become by amendment. Notwithstanding what the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly)** has stated, I believe that people have been endeavouring to arrive at something that would do justice. Many have supported the clause to which I referred because they felt that it did justice in the case of broken marriages. But I have seen cases in Western Australia in which a similar provision - admittedly without the attempted safeguards that are included in this measure - did the greatest injustice to women and their families. Because of that, I opposed that part of the bill to the best of my ability. Its continued presence in the measure leads to my opposition at this stage. {: #subdebate-39-0-s6 .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON:
Hume .- I am certain that I am voicing the opinion of those who support the bill when I congratulate the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart)** on his high-level approach in leading the opposition to it. I assure him that nothing that has been said in the unfortunate speech of the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly)** will detract from the spirit that he has shown in this House. I would also like to congratulate the Attorney-General on the way in which he conducted the debate. I think it is most unfair and grossly misleading to suggest that he did not carry this debate on the highest plane, particularly in regard to the Churches. I feel that all members of this House, exercising an entirely free vote, approached this important legislation with a view to making it the best for marriage in Australia. {: #subdebate-39-0-s7 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- in reply - May I say, first, that I am much moved by the kind remarks of various members of the House. Next, I would like to say that I have not been conscious of being rude to the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly).** I do not want to mix any words with him. People throughout the Commonwealth have heard him. They have also heard me. I will be content to be judged by those who have heard both of us. I should like to thank the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt).** He has been cooperative in this debate. He has exchanged views with me from time to time, for he has had a much longer experience of the law than I have. He has had the experience of sitting in judgment and he knows how a statute appears to a judge. I know only how it appears to counsel. He has been able to discuss with me and, at times, weigh with me, whether or not any particular clause needed to be pressed. We have had very many happy exchanges. Finally, I would like to add my congratulations to those of the Leader of the Opposition to the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart).** He has been very sincere in what he has done. He has been careful to furnish himself with very precise information. I listened to him and I have talked to him privately. I admire him for the amount of precise knowledge he obtained for himself on this very difficult subject, for the very searching way in which he has looked at each provision, with conscientious regard and great courage, and for the eloquent way in which he has spoken. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.3 to 8 p.m. {: .page-start } page 2950 {:#debate-40} ### AIRPORTS (BUSINESS CONCESSIONS) BILL 1959 Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by **Mr. Townley)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-40-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-40-0-s0 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Defence · Denison · LP -- by leave - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The purposes of this bill are to facilitate development of the business potential of airports so as to obtain the maximum economic return from land, terminal buildings and other facilities not required for operational purposes and to meet the requirements of the travelling public for goods and services. The value of Commonwealth aerodromes and related facilities at present is approximately £52,000,000 and the annual cost of maintenance and operation exceeds £9,000,000. These figures will rapidly increase as further aerodromes and facilities are brought into operation. At present a portion of this cost is recouped through air navigation charges amounting to approximately £550,000, taxes on aviation fuel amounting to approximately £1,200,000, rentals of premises amounting to approximately £250,000, and business concessions amounting to approximately £50,000. But this leaves a gap of approximately £7,000,000 between revenue and expenditure. Overseas experience, especially in the United States, has shown that major airports can become virtually self-supporting if their business potential is properly developed, and many countries are making special efforts to reach that position. For example, the United Kingdom Select Committee on Estimates at its 1955-56 session on civil aerodromes and ground services recommended that " more urgent measures should be taken by the Minister to develop amenities and concessions at airports ". The Seattle-Tacoma Airport, as a further example, is an airport with traffic density comparable to that of Sydney or Melbourne and is associated with a city with a smaller population than Sydney or Melbourne. According to that airport's financial report for 1957, airport revenue not only met all maintenance, operating and other costs, but returned a profit of 79,300 dollars. This result was largely due to commercial development of the airport, non-aviation revenue comprising 57.5 per cent, of the total revenue. Larger airports in the United States, such as Los Angeles, returned profits exceeding 2,000,000 dollars. Under arrangements which this bill will facilitate, it is estimated on a conservative basis that revenue from business concessions on major airports will reach £160,000 by the end of 1960 and may exceed £500,000 within a few years. These financial benefits will, of course, be coupled with better facilities to meet the, needs of the travelling public. The current development of passenger terminal facilities at major airports will further increase the business potential at those airports. Some of the types of businesses which have succeeded at overseas airports are - advertising, baggage rooms and lockers, banks, barber shops, beauty parlours, car parking lots, children's nurseries, cocktail lounges, coffee shops, conducted tours, delivery service, drive yourself car service, flower shops, gift shops, insurance machines, news stands, photographers, restaurants, service, stations, snack bars, tobacconists, and vending machines. Market research conducted from time to time by the Department of Civil Aviation indicates a positive and urgent demand for the goods and services supplied by these types of businesses. The scope for the development of these activities is indicated by the size of the ready-made market, for example, at Melbourne airport, where there a<re more than 4,000 employees whose hours of work and distance from established business centres deprive them of normal shopping facilities and where there are approximately 1,000,000 passenger movements per annum, with departures and arrivals taking place from early morning to late night. At Sydney airport the corresponding figures are higher. In order to develop business concessions at airports, it is necessary to make some changes in existing administrative arrangements. Under existing legislation - I refer to the Air Navigation Act 1920-1950- there is provision for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of aerodromes including conditions for their use. There are also provisions to the effect that the DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation is responsible, subject to the Minister, for the control and management of Commonwealth-owned aerodromes. This undoubtedly contemplates important responsibilities relating to the development of business concessions at aerodromes. However, insofar as business concessions require the granting of leases or licences, the Department of the Interior at present has the primary statutory responsibility by virtue of the Lands Acquisition Act and the Administrative Arrangements Order. There has been, therefore, a division of responsibility which, it has been found in practice, retards the rate of commercial development. Under this bill, control of leases and licences and the granting of business concessions within Commonwealth airports will be the administrative responsibility of the Department of Civil Aviation. This will effect a substantial saving of time and administrative costs. Other land acquired for civil aviation purposes and the acquisition and disposal of land, including aerodrome land, will continue to be governed by the Lands Acquisition Act and remain within the administrative responsibility of the Minister for the Interior. I will now briefly outline the main provisions of the proposed legislation. The bill is expressed to apply to aerodromes owned by the Commonwealth and operated in pursuance of the Air Navigation Act and regulations. It also applies to any part of a military aerodrome which has been made available for civil aviation purposes as the result of arrangements made by the Minister with the appropriate defence authorities. The most important military aerodromes which may be affected are Darwin and Canberra where parts of the aerodromes have been set aside for terminal buildings and other facilities necesary for civil aviation purposes. Clause 6 of the bill provides that the Minister may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, grant leases and licences in respect of land within an airport on such terms and conditions and subject to the payment of such rent or other consideration as the Minister thinks fit. This power of the Minister to grant leases and licences is subject to reasonable restrictions. Clause 11 provides that in the case of building leases, or an authority associated with such a lease, the term granted shall not exceed 99 years. Very long terms are necessary, of course, where the lessee is involved in heavy capital expenditure for buildings. In all other cases of leases, licences or authorities under the act, the term granted by the Minister may not exceed 21 years. The Minister is also required to call public tenders in every case except where the term of the lease, licence or authority does not exceed three years or where the grant is made in pursuance of an option of renewal. Clause 7 prohibits the sale or supply of goods or services within an airport or the carrying on or soliciting for any business except in accordance with the terms and conditions of an authority issued under the act. It is important for the operators of a;r services that business activities connecter! directly with the operation or maintenance of aircraft or the promotion of airline business, as, for example, the supply of aviation fuel, maintenance services or catering for meals to be consumed aboard aircraft, should not require special authorization. Clause 7 (3.) therefore provides that such activities may be conducted without any special authority. Clause 8 authorizes the Minister to grant an authority to engage in business activities at airports for such period and on such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit and provides that the authority may be included in or granted in relation to a lease or licence. The most important clause in the bill is unquestionably clause 9. Sub-clause (1.) of clause 9 provides that the holder of an authority may act in accordance with the authority without obtaining or having any other authority, licence, permit or registration. Sub-clause (2.) provides that the Minister may, having regard to the special needs of the travelling public, specify, in the terms and conditions of an authority, the days on which and the times during which the authority may be exercised, and the authority may lawfully be exercised on those days and during those times. The intention of this clause is to permit the conduct of all businesses, other than the sale of intoxicating liquor, outside normal trading hours, but only in circumstances where the extension of trading hours is necessary to meet the needs of the travelling public. Sub-clause (3.) provides that an authority to sell or supply intoxicating liquor shall contain terms and conditions under which the holder is subject to requirements, prohibitions and restrictions as to the days on which, and the times during which, such liquor may be sold or supplied, corresponding to those that apply under the law of the State in which the airport is situated. Apart from restrictions as to days and times of trading, the authority must also impose other prohibitions and restrictions corresponding as nearly as possible to those that apply under State laws. Sub-clause (4.) requires an authority to contain terms and conditions necessary for the purpose of preventing the sale or supply of goods or services to persons resorting to the airport solely or principally for the purpose of purchasing or obtaining goods or services outside normal trading hours. Finally, subclause (5.) provides that a lease, licence or authority under the act does not exempt a person from compliance with other laws of the State or Territory in which the airport is situated. Before discussing the provisions of the clause in greater detail, I think I should complete my outline of the provisions of the bill. Clause 10 requires an authority to contain terms and conditions in relation to the inspection of premises and the sampling of goods, and also authorizes the Minister to make arrangements with the Governor of a State for the performance by members of the State police force or Public Service of any work required by the Commonwealth, including the payment for any such work. This clause, therefore, makes it quite clear that in appropriate circumstances the Commonwealth may make full use of State personnel in the administration of requirements of the Commonwealth which are based on State law. Clause 12 has the effect of saving existing leases and licences which have been granted by the Commonwealth before the date of commencement of the new act. Other provisions of the bill deal with evidentiary matters, delegations and the making of regulations. The provisions of the bill relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor are designed to meet prevailing points of view of the various States, as manifested in their licensing laws, to the fullest extent consistent with the Commonwealth's constitutional position. As regards intoxicating liquor, clause 9 maintains the principle that a licence under State law will not be necessary, but at the same time provides for terms and conditions, operating by force of federal law, corresponding to those applicable under State law. While the clause excludes State laws which might require an authority, licence, permit or registration it recognizes, however, that the terms and conditions of an authority under the act could themselves require the holder to obtain or have an authority, licence or permit under State law or under some other Commonwealth law. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the bill usurps State powers and functions in this regard, since section 52 of the Constitution provides that Parliament shall have exclusive power to make laws relating to places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes. The word " exclusive " means, of course, that the power is to be exclusive of the power of the Parliament of the State. It is envisaged that where a State has laws relating to the sale of liquor which, in fact, meet the needs of the travelling public, the Commonwealth authority may require the concessionaire to obtain a State licence and to comply with all its provisions. It follows, therefore, that State governments retain substantial initiative, because in any case where a Commonwealth authority is issued it must contain conditions and restrictions especially those relating to the days on which and the times during which liquor may be sold, corresponding with the provisions of State law which would be applicable in the State in which the airport is situated. I should also emphasize that there is certainly no intention of authorizing the sale of liquor at any airport unless the volume of traffic passing through the airport fully warrants the establishment of this facility. I do not envisage that during the foreseeable future it will be necessary to authorize the sale of liquor at more than six or seven airports throughout the Commonwealth and its Territories. In proposing this bill I am conscious of the need to ensure that the ever-increasing costs of operating and maintaining our civil airports do not remain a burden upon the Australian taxpayer. Other countries have proved to us that with proper commercial development of civil airports we can, under legislation such as I have outlined, do much to offset these high but very necessary costs. I am also equally conscious of the growing demand of the travelling public for adequate facilities at Commonwealth airports. There is a rapidly growing public demand for the type of airport facilities with which the bill is concerned, and it is essential to lay sound foundations for future development in this direction. I would emphasize that the bill does not mean that the Commonwealth will engage in business activities on airports. On the contrary, its purpose is to facilitate the extension to private enterprise of excellent opportunities to develop the valuable business potential which is generated on these airports. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Ansett will be the chief beneficiary. {: .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr TOWNLEY: -- I do not think that Ansett runs beauty salons and shops. Although civil aviation in Australia has kept pace both technically and operationally with other world leaders in the field, we have not until more recently been able to devote much effort to the provision of facilities and services required by the travelling public and other users of our airports. I feel certain that the scheme contemplated by this bill presents the satisfying prospect that, with greatly increased passenger facilities of many varieties, and with the resulting increase in airport revenues, our major airports will soon compare favorably with the more attractive and successful airports overseas. I commend the bill to honorable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Calwell)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2954 {:#debate-41} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: - >National Health Bill 1959. > >Therapeutic Substances Bill 1959. {: .page-start } page 2954 {:#debate-42} ### SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1959 {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 28th October (vide page 2376), on motion by **Mr. Freeth** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP .- The bill before the House seeks to amend the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. It can be said to fall into two parts. The first part deals with procedures for the making and tabling of ordinances and regulations of this Territory, and the procedures that can be adopted for disallowance by this Parliament of those ordinances or regulations. The second part of the bill deals with the procedures to be adopted for the presentation to the Parliament of any proposed variation of the plan of Canberra, and the procedure to be taken if any member of the Parliament, of either House, seeks to move for disallowance of those variations. With the first part of the bill, relating to ordinances and regulations the Opposition has no disagreement. It approves of the steps that have been taken. As to the second part, the Opposition feels that the safeguards which should be maintained in the act are not present in the bill which is now before the House, and therefore the Opposition will oppose that portion of the bill. Approving, as it does, of one portion of the bill, and disapproving strongly of another portion, the Opposition will not vote against the motion that the bill be read a second time, but at the committee stage I will seek to move amendments to give effect to what I believe, and what the Opposition believes, are necessary safeguards. It is necessary to refer to the provisions of the bill relating to ordinances and regulations in order to make one or two points which seem to me to have value. The principal act was the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1955, which provided that an ordinance of the Territory must be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within 30 days of the making thereof, or, if the Parliament was not then sitting, within 30 days after the next meeting of the Parliament. The bill now introduced proposes that an ordinance shall - be laid before each House of the Parliament within fifteen sitting days of that House after the day on which the Ordinance is made. That is a provision which is common to many acts of this Parliament, and we offer no objection to it. We believe that as speed of communication has increased considerably since the time when this provision was first enacted, there is no longer a need for the lengthy period stipulated originally. It has also become, of course, common practice to refer to sitting days rather than to days. The amendment goes on to provide - >If either House of the Parliament passes a resolution (of which notice has been given at any time within fifteen sitting days after the day on which the Ordinance was laid before that House) disallowing an Ordinance or a part of an Ordinance, the Ordinance or part so disallowed thereupon ceases to have effect. This does not greatly change the existing provisions, but it does clarify the language of the sub-section, and the Opposition approves also of this change. The bill makes certain other provisions, to which the Minister referred in his secondreading speech on 28th October. He said at that time - >Secondly, an ordinance would be void and ot no effect if not tabled within that time. That is, fifteen sitting days. The relevant portion of the bill is clause 3 which relates to proposed sub-section (5.) of section 12. The Minister went on - >At present the act is silent on this point, and it is doubtful what is the legal effect of failure to table as required. Thirdly, either House ot Parliament would be enabled to disallow part of an ordinance, whereas at present a part of an ordinance cannot be disallowed without disallowing the whole. Fourthly, if notice of motion to disallow an ordinance or part is given, it will have to be dealt with within fifteen sitting days: otherwise the ordinance or part will be deemed to be disallowed. Under the existing act, the Government may avoid a debate on a motion to disallow an ordinance by keeping it at the bottom of the notice-paper. We applaud the improvement that the Minister has made in this portion of the legislation. To my way of thinking, however, the major improvement is that effected by proposed new sub-section (6.) of section 12 of the act, which reads - >Where an Ordinance or a part of an Ordinance is disallowed, or is deemed to have been disallowed, under this section, the disallowance has the same effect as a repeal of the Ordinance or the part of the Ordinance, as the case may be, except that, if a provision of the Ordinance or of the part of the Ordinance amended or repealed a law in force immediately before that provision came into operation, the disallowance revives the previous law from and including the date of the disallowance as if the disallowed provision had not been made. Admittedly there are many words wrapped around that provision, but it simply means that where the amending ordinance or regulation - because the provisions of this section refer to regulations as well as to ordinances - amends or repeals a provision of another ordinance, then if that amending ordinance is disallowed the law as previously existing will remain. The importance of this comes readily to my mind, because towards the end of 1955, the then Minister for the Interior introduced a regulation No. 13 of 1955, to amend the Leases Regulations of the Australian Capital Territory. The particular part to which 1 want to refer now was paragraph 3 of that regulation No. 13 of 1955. Tt provided - >Regulation 7 of the Leases Regulations is repealed, and the following regulation inserted in its stead. The proposed new regulation was - >The period for which a lease may be granted for grazing, fruit growing, horticultural, dairying or agricultural purposes is a period not exceeding fifty years. The second part of it was as follows: - >The period for which a lease may be granted for the purpose other than those specified in the last preceding sub-regulation is a period of 99 years. My point is that the regulation which was to be repealed by that regulation had nothing whatever to do with the length of leases. It related entirely to a limit on the value of land to be held by one lessee. Regulation 7, which it was proposed to repeal, was as follows: - >No person shall hold under lease land of a greater assessed valued than £10,000 (exclusive of the value of buildings, fences, dams, ground tanks, wells and bores). In this Parliament, in March, 1956, I moved for the disallowance of the new regulation, paragraph 3 of amendment No. 13 of 1955, which proposed a limit on the length of time for which leases of rural lands could be granted. I opposed the regulation because it repealed what I believed was an essential provision of the Leases Regulations maintaining a limit on the amount of land which any lessee could hold within the Territory. My motion in this House to disallow that regulation was not successful, but subsequently in the Senate, in May of the. same year, the Leader of the Opposition, **Senator McKenna,** moved to disallow the regulation on exactly the same grounds as those on which I had based my motion in this House, namely that the regulation then introduced related entirely to the length of time for which a lease could be held, but that it also repealed a regulation which related solely to the limit on the value of land that any lessee could hold. In the Senate that motion for disallowance was successful, and the position then arose that the new Regulation 7, imposing a limit on the length of leases, had been disallowed, but the disallowed regulation itself had repealed the previous regulation placing a limit on the value of land that any one lessee could hold. Certainly I have had no legal experience, but my view was that if the Parliament, when considering a regulation which said, " Regulation 7 of the Leases Regulations is repealed ", disallowed that regulation, then it was saying, in effect, " Regulation 7 is not repealed ". But the legal authorities say that it was already repealed, because the new regulation had been substituted for it. While the intention of the Parliament was clearly to retain the provision of the former Regulation 7, the new Regulation 7 had already supplanted it, and had then been disallowed by the Senate. There was then no regulation at all governing either the value of land that could be held by any one lessee or the length of time for which a lease could be held. Clearly, I would have thought that the Parliament was saying that the regulation should not be repealed, but in terms of the act as it stands, the position was that, there having been one regulation which was replaced by another, which in turn was disallowed, the first one was lost, and there was no regulation and no limit. In fact, there was an open go, if the Minister had chosen to take advantage of it. The Minister referred to that position in his second-reading speech in these terms - >The precise legal effect of disallowance will be made clear by a provision that a disallowance has the same effect as a repeal, except that any law repealed by the disallowed ordinance is revived. Under the present act, a disallowed ordinance " shall cease to have effect "; but this leaves room for uncertainty- The legal experts in the Department of the Interior and elsewhere, who spoke to me, had no uncertainty at all; they said that there was just no regulation. The Minister continued - for example as to the position of accrued rights and pending litigation. Further, under the present act, the disallowance of a provision in an ordinance which repeals a provision in another ordinance does not revive the previous provision. This is unsatisfactory in that, generally speaking. Parliament would disallow such a provision because it considered that the previous law should remain. I applaud the Minister's decision to have this amendment included in this legislation. lt will not. of course, relate to the regulations of which I have been speaking, but in the future the provision will apply so that, when the Parliament disallows an ordinance, a part of an ordinance, a regulation or a part of a regulation, which has itself supplanted or repealed a previous enactment, the previous law will be revived. The Opposition most heartily approves of the provision, and we commend the Minister for it. The second part of the bill is, to my way of thinking, by far the more important. It contains a provision seeking to amend section 12a of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act, which lays down the procedure that must be followed in the tabling of any proposed variation in the plan of Canberra, and the action that can be taken by the Parliament or any member of the Parliament to disallow or to seek to disallow the variation. Sub-section (1.) of section 12a of the principal act provides - >The Minister may at any time, by writing under his hand, modify or vary the plan of lay-out of the city of Canberra ... as modified or varied prior to the date of the commencement of this section . . . The time laid down in the principal act for the Minister to give such notice was specified in this way - >No such modification or variation shall be made until after the expiration of thirty days after notice of intention, published in the Gazette, so to modify or vary the plan has been given. The Minister proposes in this bill to reduce the period from 30 days to twelve days. I can see no objection to that provision because, as I said earlier, great changes have occurred in the means of communication and travel, and the period of 30 days is no longer necessary for the notification. But the amendment also changes the period available to members of the Parliament to move for the disallowance of a proposed variation. Sub-section (2.) provides - >A copy of the instrument by which any modification or variation of the ulan has been made shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within fifteen days of the making thereof if the Parliament is then sitting, or, if not, then within fifteen days of the next meeting of the Parliament. Sub-section (3.) provides - >If either House of the Parliament passes a resolution, of which notice has been given at any time within fifteen sitting days after the instrument has been laid before it, disallowing the modification or variation made by the instrument, the modification or variation shall cease to have effect. The Minister proposes no change in subsection (2.), because it still requires that the Minister shall lay before the House any proposed variation within fifteen sitting days; but he does propose to reduce the time within which any member of the Parliament may move for a disallowance of that variation from fifteen sitting days to six sitting days. I propose to come back to that provision shortly. The national capital, **Mr. Speaker,** is not the property of the Parliament; it is not the property of the residents of the Australian Capital Territory. It is the property of all the people of Australia, and it is the duty of the Parliament, I suggest, to be ever watchful to protect and guard the rights of the people in relation to the national capital, because it is, in effect, the national estate. The Minister some time ago referred this proposal to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. This is a committee established by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament to report to the Minister on matters that he refers to it relating to the development of the national capital. The committee, having considered the proposals that the Minister then had in mind, expressed itself as opposed to them because they did not then adequately safeguard the rights of Parliament to overlook the plan and to act, in effect, as the watchdog for the people of Australia. A subcommittee of the joint committee reported in these terms - >That the committee considers the amendments proposed by the Minister to section 12a of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act would not adequately protect the rights of the public and the Parliament to consider proposed changes in the plan of Canberra and take objections thereto. The committee, therefore, proposes that the period of notice of intention to vary the plan required by sub-section (1.) be twelve days. The Minister has adopted that proposal; he has agreed that the period of notice of intention be twelve days. The committee approved the proposed second amendment, which referred to the tabling of the notification within fifteen sitting days, but it suggested that the Minister, when tabling an instrument of variation, should place before the Parliament, and make available for publication, a statement setting out in full the details of the proposed variations and the reasons therefor. That proposal also has been adopted by the Minister, and the bill we are now considering provides that, when he tables the variation, he shall also table with it an explanatory statement as to the reasons for the proposed change. The sub-committee went on - >The committee further proposes that proposed amendment 3- That related to the reduction in time from fifteen sitting days to, I think, five days- be eliminated and a provision written into the act requiring the Minister concurrently with the tabling of any instrument of variation to refer such proposal to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, that committee being required to report to the Parliament on the proposal within seven sitting days; and the committee proposes that the period provided by subsection (3.) within which notice of a resolution for disallowance may be given in either House shall be seven sitting days. The Minister, having adopted the first two proposals of the committee, did not see his way clear to adopt the third suggestion and the proposal that is now before the Parliament provides for the tabling of the proposed variation within fifteen sitting days of each House after the making of the modification or variation, but reduces from fifteen sitting days to six sitting days the period within which anybody in either House of the Parliament may move for disallowance. That period is inadequate and fails to recognize that this Parliament must act to protect the rights of all people in Australia. It is competent, surely, for any member or resident of Western Australia or Tasmania to express a view on the development of the national capital and to protest against what may be proposed to be done in this place. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- Your sub-committee recommended seven sitting days. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- -That is right, but it also recommended a provision requiring the Minister to refer the proposal to the Australian Capital Territory Committee. I do not think the Minister will disagree with that. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- No, I do not. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- The Minister split the difference between five days and seven days and made it six days, but I think he felt that he has been forced to disregard our recommendation for a mandatory provision requiring the proposal to be submitted to the committee. I know that the Minister has given an undertaking that he, as Minister, will refer each proposed variation to that committee. In his second-reading speech the Minister said - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . shorter times than those prescribed in the present act would provide adequate safeguards, particularly as all proposed variations are now referred beforehand to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. Later in his speech, he said - >As I have mentioned, arrangements have been made for all proposed modifications or variations to the Canberra city plan to be referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian > >Capital Territory for consideration before they are incorporated in a formal instrument for execution by the Minister. The Minister referred to the request of the committee that there should be some statutory provision providing that each proposed variation should be referred to it. He said that the six days represented a reasonable compromise between five and seven. I admit that it was. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- We could not have much less. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- But I disagree with the Minister's further reasoning. In his speech the Minister said - >The committee also suggested that some statutory reference to it of the proposed changes should be made. As the committee itself is not a statutory body, I have agreed to refer to it all proposed changes. There may be a valid reason in law preventing the Minister, by statute, referring something to a committee that is not itself a statutory body; but the Minister and the Government could easily overcome that difficulty, if indeed it is a difficulty, because they could promptly and with the full agreement of the Opposition pass a bill giving statutory standing to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, which at present is established under a resolution of each House of the Parliament. The Minister also referred, either in discussions with the committee or in discussing the measure before the House, to the fact that if any period longer than six days were given, that would run the time in which a member could act into a third week of the Parliament. Of course, that would occur when a variation or proposed variation was tabled on the first sitting day of a week. Six days would take us to the final sitting day of the second week, but it would not be true that all variations would be tabled on the first sitting day in the week. Therefore there is not a great deal of merit in that point. I see great merit, however, in the committee's original proposal that there should be a tabling for seven days, because then at least we would ensure that two week-ends elapsed, which would give people who may have been absent from Canberra, an opportunity to express opinions on proposed variations. From fifteen sitting days to six sitting days is a sharp reduction in the time available to honorable members to give notice of a motion or to move for the disallowance of a proposed variation of a plan. This is not something to be undertaken lightly. There have been many examples in recent years, referred to not only in this House but elsewhere, when better and longer thought would have paid dividends. [ should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the " Canberra Times " on Friday, 30th October, 1959. Let me say this of the "Canberra Times": It does, I truly believe, speak for this district and it seeks to speak fairly. I believe that it does speak fairly and without political bias one way or the other. It has only the interests of the Australian Capital Territory and the national capital at heart. The editorial stated - >Assurances by the Minister for the Interior notwithstanding, it is not surprising that the Parliamentary Labour Party has expressed concern at the Government's intention to reduce from 15 sitting days to six the period in which objection may be raised in the House to proposals to vary the Canberra Plan. The fact is that the Minister is on sensitive ground. The mutilations of the Canberra Plan which have taken place during the past 10 years, evidence of which is to be seen in far too many places, have resulted from changes which have been effected not so much with undue haste, but because of insufficient consideration. I think the Minister would agree with that and I think he would agree that the proposal to replace the west lake with a ribbon of water was one such variation which, with proper scrutiny, would never have got past this Parliament. The west lake has now wisely been restored, no matter what golfers may feel about the inundation of that area - the Minister himself found the area inundated one morning at 6 o'clock. I believe that proposal is an improvement. The editorial continues - >It has been demonstrated time and again that what is put forward as expert opinion can be painfully wrong, and because sufficient information has not been before it, Parliament has not had adequate opportunity to detect the damage before it was inflicted. Thus any suggestion to speed the process of amending the plan, no matter how well-intentioned and on whatever grounds of expedition it may be advanced, is bound to be looked at askance. More substantial reassurance is required, therefore, than the Minister gave the House when he explained his proposals for amendment to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act on Wednesday. > >There needs to be a positive assurance that the report which the Minister promises to give the House on changes proposed shall not only contain his own recommendation, but the views of the National Planning Committee and, most important of all, the views of the Joint Committee on the A.C.T. These precautions should not be at the Minister's discretion. They should be mandatory. They need not occasion delay. Proposals can be submitted to the Joint Committee as soon as they are prepared and the committee's findings can be tabled with the Minister's submission. The need for continuing supervision by the Joint Committee is underlined by the fact that the National Planning Committee is not, unfortunately, completely divorced from the National Capital Development Commission. The committees have an unfortunate quality in that the National Capital Commissioner is also chairman of the Planning Committee. That is the committee which advises the commission on planning. The editorial continues - >It is no reflection on the integrity ot the commissioner to point out that he is, in his dual post, in a position of strong influence over the findings of the Planning Committee. > >The essence of the situation is that Parliament, as the representative of the people, should remain the final arbiter in Canberra planning, and it should have at its disposal at every stage the fullest and most constructively critical material that is procurable. The Government should not resent such criticism as the Opposition sees fit to offer on this question; it should welcome it. The planning of the nation's capital city is not a matter for party politics. With that I agree. The editorial continues - >If the forthcoming debate in the House pinpoints means by which potential loosenesses in the handling of the Canberra Plan can be removed, the Government will draw credit to itself by listening with open mind and adopting such precautions as may be recognisably desirable. Here is a situation in which, while speed may possess certain merits and attractions, safety is far more important. With those views expressed by the " Canberra Times " I find myself completely in agreement. It has been said that the provision in this bill to reduce the time for disallowance from fifteen sitting days to six sitting days is necessary because of the rapid changes that are now taking place in the development of this city. The Minister has said that the reduced time will be particularly important when variations are tabled in the House towards the end of a session of the Parliament. I suggest that with the National Capital Development Commission now responsible for the development of the capital, having the advice of the National Capital Planning Committee available to it, and with the Australian Capital Territory Committee of the Parliament, there is no need for any proposed variation to be submitted to this Parliament in the dying hours or in the dying days of any session. I believe, and I think that the Minister must agree, that planning in this city is so far ahead that arrangements surely can be made to have these proposals tabled early in a session, or at least before the session has reached its final stages. I have said that the Opposition will not vote against the second reading of the bill because it approves most heartily the provision relating to regulations and ordinances, which is something that should have been introduced years ago. I give credit to the Minister for having taken action on n now. However, the Opposition is opposed to the sharp reduction from fifteen sitting days to six sitting days in the time in which members of Parliament can move for the disallowance of a proposed variation in the plan. It is regretted that when a debate on such a proposal takes place many honorable members who are required to vote come into the chamber without having specific knowledge of the procedures that have been adopted in the past and of the practical application of such procedures to the Canberra plan. They enter the chamber when the bells ring and vote according to where their party sits. I should be inclined to say, as the " Canberra Times " has said, that the planning of this national capital is not a matter of party politics. Certainly it is the responsibility of the party that is in government, but it should not be a matter of one party working against another party. We all should be working for the development of a national capital which truly can be a symbol of this nation, a symbol for which future generations will seek to praise rather than to blame us. In the committee stage I shall seek to give effect to the third recommendation of the Australian Capital Territory Committee with, I think, an improvement on that recommendation. The committee recommended that when the Minister has tabled the instrument of variation, it should be referred to the committee which will be required to report within seven days. The committee further suggested that seven days should be the period in which any member may move for disallowance. I foresaw the danger there that the two periods were concurrent and, in my view, would not give ample time for the committee to frame its recommendations, place them before the Parliament and still allow a margin of time for any honorable member, either a member of the committee or not, to move for a disallowance. In the committee stage I shall give honorable members the opportunity to vote on my proposal that, before the instrument of variation is laid -before each House of the Parliament, the Minister shall refer the proposal to the Australian Capital Territory Committee, which shall furnish a report to the Minister within seven sitting days. The Minister has adopted that practice, and I do not doubt that he will continue it. However, that being a very worthy practice, I can see no reason why it should not be incorporated in the legislation, thereby making it obligatory on any future Minister, perhaps one not having the goodwill of the present Minister, to see that the proposals are sent to the Australian Capital Territory Committee which would have the duty to inquire into these matters and to report on them to the Parliament within seven sitting days. The Minister has said that that is done, but let us make it statutory and obligatory on the Minister to refer the matter to the committee which must then report to him within seven sitting days and bring the matter to the "House, not only with the Minister's statement explaining the variation, but also with the report of the committee which, having .considered it, should have reached a judgment of some value to the House. Honorable members will have an opportunity to assess the value of my proposal during the committee stage. Further, I shall move that the period of six sitting days mentioned in clause 4 of the bill - the period within which any member may move ito disallow a proposed variation - be extended to ten sitting days. I say quite frankly to the Minister that if he were to agree to the first amendment that I shall propose relating to the mandatory reference of a proposal to the Australian Capital Territory Committee, and the responsibility of that committee to report within seven days, the Opposition would be content for the period to remain at seven sitting days, as suggested by the committee to the Minister. The important thing for all of us to remember is that the present provision has been in existence for a number of years. It has worked, I believe, quite well but, with the development that is now taking place, I admit the need for changes to be made. I admit also that the speed-up in communications and travel enables those changes to be made. The Parliament itself, and every individual member of Parliament, either in this House or in the other place, have a responsibility to the people of Australia to see that nothing is done which will mar the future of this city which is the nation's capital and something of which I believe the people of Australia are becoming increasingly proud. They are quick to detect the shoddy and the mistakes that have been made from time to time. The Parliament must be the watch-dog, and it can act in that role if the Minister will adopt the suggestions that I have put to him, and which I shall seek to move in the committee stage. I hope that other honorable members who have particular knowledge of the subject will speak on this proposal. Some honorable members in the chamber are members of the Australian Capital Territory Committee, and I hope that they will advance views, not necessarily paralleling my own but at least recognizing the duty of the Parliament to safeguard the rights of the people, and to ensure that the Parliament itself does not hasten too quickly with too little consideration and with too many mistakes, because far too many mistakes have been made in the past. Let us not create any set of conditions in which we can make mistakes which the rest of Australia in the generations to come will regret. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: >Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. Clause *4 -* >Section twelve a of the Principal Act is amended - > >by omitting from sub-section (1.) the word " thirty " and inserting in its stead the word "twelve"; > >by omitting sub-section (2.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: - " (2.) A copy of the instrument by which any modification or variation of the plan has been made, together with an explanatory statement by the Minister, shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within fifteen sitting days of that House after the making of the modification or variation."; and > >by omitting from sub-section (3.) the words " fifteen sitting days " and inserting in their stead the words " six sitting days of that House". Section proposed to be amended - 12a. - (1.) The Minister may at any time, by writing under his hand, modify or vary the plan of lay-out of the city of Canberra and its environs, published in the Gazette of the nineteenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and twentyfive, as modified or varied prior to the date of the commencement of this section, but no such modification or variation shall be made until after the expiration of thirty days after notice of intention, published in the Gazette, so to modify or vary the plan has been given. (2.) A copy of the instrument by which any modification or variation of the plan has been made shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within fifteen days of the making thereof if the Parliament is then sitting, or, if not, then within fifteen days of the next meeting of the Parliament. (3.) If either House of the Parliament passes a resolution, of which notice has been given at any time within fifteen sitting days after the instrument has been laid before it, disallowing the modification or variation made by the instrument, the modification or variation shall cease to have effect. {: #subdebate-42-0-s1 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** I move - >After paragraph (b) insert the following paragraph: - " (ba) by adding after sub-section (1.) the following sub-section: - (1a.) Before the instrument of variation is laid before each House of the Parliament, as required by the next succeeding sub-section, the Minister shall refer the proposal to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory which shall furnish a report to the Minister within seven sitting days.'; ". I do not propose to weary the committee by repeating the arguments which I believe favour the course proposed in this amendment, as I have already put them to honorable members in some detail at the secondreading stage, especially since I think the committee is at present constituted without any change by the same honorable members who were then present. However, I ask the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** to give very earnest consideration to this proposal. If he feels that at present it is not possible to adopt a statutory provision to refer proposals for variation of the plan to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, perhaps he will consider taking action to give statutory backing to the committee and thus not only give effect to his own present intentions and practice but also provide machinery that would compel any future Minister for the Interior, be he Labour, Liberal or a member of the Australian Country Party, to follow the practice which the present Minister says is a good practice and which he himself follows. {: #subdebate-42-0-s2 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP -- **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** I just want to reply briefly to some of the points which the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory **(Mr. J. R.** Fraser) made when he foreshadowed this amendment. I think it is correct to say that when the principal act originally laid down the timetable to be followed in respect of proposed changes in the plan for the National Capital, there were very few of what I shall call the external safeguards which now exist for the purpose of protecting that plan. The honorable member spoke quite truly when he said that Canberra belongs to all the people of Australia. His objectives and mine are similar. We do not want ill-considered planning here which may be perpetuated for generations. At the same time, as the honorable member has conceded in part, owing to the speed with which planning and growth are taking place in the National Capital and the speed with which it is necessary to move in making changes in these days, it has been found cumbersome and awkward to observe the intervals of time at present laid down. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- But the amendment relates only to reference of proposals to the joint committee. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- Yes. The amendment proposes that suggested changes be referred to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. The existence of that committee is one of the additional safeguards that have been introduced. There are others. When the time-table was originally laid down, there was not in existence, for example, the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council, which, although it is concerned generally with what are regarded more as municipal matters, takes an interest in all matters affecting the Australian Capital Territory. There was not the National Capital Development Commission. That is a body of experts, it is true, and there is a tendency to be a little scornful of planning by experts. It is true that the commission comes under a government department in that it is partly responsible to the Minister for the Interior. At the same time, it has semi-independent status. What is more important, it is guided in its deliberations by the National Capital Planning Committee, which is composed of distinguished Australians who are selected, not as expert planners, but to represent the best in taste and experience throughout Australia in determining what the requirements of the National Capital shall be. Finally, we come to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. As we have been reminded, that committee is created by resolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate. There may come a time when that joint committee will have a statutory basis, but, if I may say so, it is still in a probationary stage until we see how it is working out. If I understand aright, there are times when there is difficulty even in obtaining a quorum of the committee. At any rate, as yet, it has neither justified nor failed to justify its existence. I suggest that it has not proved conclusively to the Parliament or the nation its value or the justification for embodying it in statutory form at this stage. The challenge is there. The opportunity is there. I think that the committee does, and may well do, very valuable work. I hope that it will. As I have said, the committee is at the present time constituted by resolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate at the beginning of each new Parliament, and I think it is just as well at this time to leave the matter there. I hardly think that the House of Representatives would like to introduce a further permanent statutory committee that has not proved its worth. If it is acceptable, as 1 have suggested, to let the committee remain, as it is at present, a body constituted by resolution of the two Houses of the Parliament, it would hardly be realistic, it seems to me, to require by act of the Parliament reference of matters to a committee which may or may not exist in the future. Therefore, I cannot at this stage accept the suggestion by the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory that each proposed variation in the plan for the National Capital must be referred to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. I believe that all the external safeguards outside the Parliament which at present exist will, in practice, give fairly adequate warning to members of the Parliament and to citizens who are interested in the kind of thinking that is taking place, before that thinking is finally crystallized in a form which may be laid before the Parliament. I remind honorable members that, while all these planning and advisory bodies are considering proposals for changes in the plan, those proposals are still not finally formulated and have not reached a stage at which there is a final agreement or decision which can be referred to the Parliament for its verdict. Without closing the door forever on the suggestion that the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory may some day be a statutory body, 1 say that I do not think at this stage that the amendment is justified. **Mr. ANDERSON** (Hume) [9.91.- **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** as a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, 1 want to point out that the committee recognized the need for some alteration of the time-table for the tabling in the Parliament of proposed changes in the plan for the National Capital. The committee recommended that seven sitting days after the lodging of an instrument of modification or variation should be allowed for either House of the Parliament to initiate action for disallowance, instead of five sitting days as was originally proposed by the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth).** The question that we have now to consider is whether his compromise of six sitting days is satisfactory. I am not prepared to debate the matter at length. I think that the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory **(Mr. J. R. Fraser)** has made out quite a good case. The joint committee recognized that there was a need to speed up the procedure because of the present almost explosive expansion of Canberra. At this juncture, I am not prepared to oppose the compromise of six sitting days. As to whether it should be made obligatory, as is proposed in the amendment, for the Minister to refer each proposed alteration of the plan to the joint committee, I feel the same as does the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory. 1 think that the Australian Capital Territory Committee could well be made a statutory body. I do not think that this Parliament can rightly place on a joint committee, which is appointed by resolution only, the obligation to examine all proposed alterations. I commend to the Minister the idea of making this committee a statutory body. I believe that, with the tremendous growth of Canberra, a statutory body of supervision could be appointed by this Parliament and I hope that the Minister will examine this proposal. {: #subdebate-42-0-s3 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- I thank the honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** for the support that he has given me in this proposal that it should be made possible for proposed variations to be referred to the Australian Capital Territory Committee. I did not understand the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** to explain why the fact that the committee is not a statutory body prevents the Parliament from passing an enactment requiring proposals to be referred to it. If the Minister assures me that there is such a bar, I will accept that argument. It is in a period of the greatest and most rapid development of the national capital that we must be on our greatest guard against the mistakes that can be made. Everybody who has lived in this place for years knows that the scene is changing from day to day and from week to week. This is the time when we require the greatest safeguards against mistakes and maladministration. Surely in the leisurely days when the progress of the city was not by leaps and bounds as it is at present, there was ample time for everybody to see what was going on, to know what was being done, and to voice his protest, if he had one, to this Parliament. But I suggest that it is in this time of most rapid development that there is the greatest need for this Parliament to act as a watch-dog for the people and see that mistakes are not made in haste that will be repented over the years. It is evident to the people who have lived here for many years that great and grave mistakes have been made. It is not safe, always, to leave the planning of the National Capital to the official mind or to the expert. The expert tends to see a problem in the light of his own professional and expert experience in a particular field. His cannot always be the best mind to see the overall position - to see what the picture will be in the years to come. I believe that the suggestions that I have made will enable the Parliament and the people, through the Parliament, to express their views on the planning and the development of this city so as to prevent mistakes being made. I do not propose to go back and express criticisms, but let us point to one thing that has come to light recently. Some years ago, the Government embarked on a proposal to build multistory blocks of flats. There were people in the community who protested most vehemently, but the experts said, " No. We must build them. We must increase the density of the population." So the Government went ahead and built flats despite the protests of people who said that this was a mistake which not only would spoil the appearance of the city, but also would do less than justice to the people who would be forced to live in the flats. Considerable numbers of blocks of flats have now been constructed including some which tower to a height of eight stories. Recently, the National Council of Women conducted a survey amongst people living in flats and 62 per cent, of them said that they would prefer to move out into houses of their own. Only 25 per cent, of families resident in flats said that they preferred living in flats. Of those who objected to living in flats, 47 per cent, said that they would move out the next day into any type of house in any suburb of the city if they could. There we see a mistake which was made by the experts and the planners, which was perpetrated by the Government against the wishes of the people, and which has now proved to be against the best interests of the people. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- It would not have come before the Parliament. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- It could have done so. In fact, it was brought before the Parliament because I brought it before the then Minister for the Interior. We cannot leave all these things to the official mind and to the expert. The statisticians will say that it is essential to increase the density of the population, and, therefore, we must build three-story or four-story blocks of flats. The planner will say, "We will put the flats here, but we will put the Government offices over there on the other side of the river and the people who are transferred from Melbourne will live here and they will work over there and they will all have to cross the river by the four bridges or, if there is a little flood in the Molonglo, by one bridge." If the Minister sees some danger in referring these proposals to the Australian Capital Territory Committee let me remind him of another past mistake. In January, 1955, the Public Works Committee of this Parliament reported on the proposal to construct King's-avenue Bridge. Parliament adopted its report that this should be done as an urgent work. The committee recommended that construction should commence in June, 1955, and that the work should be completed in June, 1958. The Parliament adopted that report. By June of 1958, of course, there was no sign of the King's-avenue Bridge. Tenders were called in July, 1958, but one of the first acts of the National Capital Development Commission was to withdraw that bridge from tender. I have no doubt that the commission had good reasons for this in its own mind but only now are contracts being let for a bridge which the committee, in January, 1955, said was an urgent work that should be commenced in June, 1955, and completed by June, 1958. The Parliament, in all due solemnity, adopted that report but apparently somebody said that it was not to be given effect. I am illustrating that these things can happen. Mistakes do occur. It may be that there is yet to be an alteration in the height of bridges. I do not know. I say to the Minister that this is the very time when the greatest care must be exercised. We are seeking to expand the city in all directions at once. There is new development at Civic Centre, at Woden and in many other areas. It is a time when many changes are being made in the plan. This is when the greatest care should be taken. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that the amendment I propose is a sensible one. I believe that it should be carried. {: #subdebate-42-0-s4 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP -- I rise to try briefly to make clear to the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory **(Mr. J. R. Fraser)** the points which apparently I did not make clear previously, and which show why it is not desirable to embody in an act of Parliament a mandatory reference to a committee which exists only by a resolution passed by the Houses once every three years. This matter being entirely in the hands of the Parliament, a situation may arise, three, six or nine years hence, when the Parliament will not see fit to appoint a joint committee on the Australian Capital Territory. It may decide to do something else which, in its view, would safeguard the planning of the National Capital. Then the act of Parliament would be unworkable because it would contain a mandatory reference to a committee which did not exist. Therefore, at this stage, it is quite impossible to accept the amendment which the honorable member has moved. I have stated that the door is not finally closed. Possibly, some day, Parliament will create a statutory committee. But this committee has now been working for only a very short time. I do not know how many members are seriously and permanently interested in this National Capital, but I have heard that at times this committee cannot even get a quorum. It is up to the committee itself and those members in this House who do take a special and keen interest to justify the work of the committee. Then, I am quite certain, it will commend itself to the Parliament. The other point which the honorable member made was with reference to flats. I know that a survey was conducted, and the report was not that it was wrong to build the flats, but that possibly the wrong people went into them - people with families who want to move out. That may be true. But in any event I mention this matter only because the honorable member raised it. It would never have been referred to the joint parliamentary committee because that was a separate matter altogether. I am grateful to the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory reminding me that there is yet another body of this Parliament which exercises supervision to some extent over works being carried out in Canberra. I refer to the Public Works Committee. [Quorum formed.] I conclude my remarks by saying that the amendment suggested by the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory is not acceptable to the Government. Question put - >That the amendment **(Mr. J. r. Fraser's)** be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - AYES: 0 NOES: 0 AYES NOES **Mr. P.** E. Lucock.) Ayes . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . 53 Majority 24 Question so resolved in the negative. {: #debate-42-s0 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- I move - >In paragraph (c), proposed new sub-section (2.), after "Minister" insert "and the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory". The effect of the amendment would be that the Minister, when tabling any proposed variation of the plan, would be required to table, in addition to his own explanatory statement, the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. The committee of this House having defeated the amendment by which I proposed the statutory reference of those proposals to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, it may be held that there is no point in proceeding with this amendment. However, I would say to the Minister that he has agreed that reference of these proposals to the Joint Parliamentary Committee would be advantageous, and it is his present practice and his future intention to continue to refer these proposals to it, although he will not be required to do so by statute. I do not propose to ask honorable members to divide on this amendment, but I would say to the Minister that I hope that he will give the committee an assurance that, if possible, and while the Joint Parliamentary Committee exists, he will table, along with the instrument of variation and his explanatory statement on the proposals, the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, to which he has already undertaken to refer the proposals. {: #debate-42-s1 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP -- For the same reasons as I gave in regard to the previous amendment, it would not be desirable to provide, in statutory form, a requirement that a report from a committee which may or may not exist in future should be tabled along with the ministerial explanation. There is also, I think, a stronger reason than that. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, being composed of private members of the Parliament, should assert its own views. Therefore, I believe that there would not be any value in having in the bill a clause of the nature suggested. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- I wanted an exchange of views. Now, in view of the defeat of the previous amendment, I ask for leave to withdraw this amendment. Amendment - by leave - withdrawn. {: #debate-42-s2 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- by leave - I move - In paragraph (d), omit "six", insert "ten". This amendment relates to the proposal we discussed previously. The Minister now proposes that the provision in the act that each instrument of variation must be tabled in the House for a period of fifteen sitting days, during which any member of the House or of the other place may move for its disallowance, shall be varied to reduce the period to six sitting days. Had the Minister been able to accept my first amendment to provide for statutory reference of each proposal to the joint committee, and an obligation on that committee to report, I would have been prepared to say that seven sitting days would be ample time. But, as the Minister was not able to accept that amendment, and as the committee of the House has voted against the amendment, I must insist on proceeding with this amendment to provide for a period of ten sitting days, not six sitting days, during which an instrument of variation must lie on the table. For years the provision has been for a period of fifteen sitting days. The Minister now proposes to shorten that period to six sitting days, and I suggest that in the light of the rate of development taking place in this city a period of six sitting days is too short to permit any member of the Parliament to make himself familiar with the proposals and to allow him to study the plans, in conjunction with an inspection of the site of the proposed variation. There is more to a consideration of such plans than listening to the Minister explain them in the House, or reading an explanatory statement that may be laid on the table. Surely a member with an interest in those things, even if he does not himself live in the national capital, should be entitled to the opportunity to comprehend the proposals fully by visiting the site of any variation and informing himself on the plans. He would then be able to move for a disallowance of the variation if he disagreed with it. I suggest that in those circumstances a period of six days is completely inadequate. I would agree to the reduction of the period from the existing fifteen sitting days to ten sitting days and, with the complete approval of the Opposition, I have moved the amendment to provide for ten sitting days as the period instead of the six proposed by the Minister. {: #debate-42-s3 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP -- It may be thought, at first glance, that to insist on a period of six sitting days as against the ten sitting days proposed by the honorable member is being unnecessarily technical. I think I should make it clear that the Government has no wish to prevent this Parliament from having reasonable control over what is proposed with regard to the planning of the national capital. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- It must have absolute control. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- That is so. But there are difficulties, particularly towards the end of a parliamentary session, which apply here. Ten sitting days at the beginning of a parliamentary session would involve no difficulty whatsoever, but very shortly this Parliament will be going into a recess which will last through most, if not all, of December, and through January and possibly a good part of February. During that time it will not be possible, if any change in the plan is proposed, to put that change into effect. It would have to wait until the House meets again. The Joint Parliamentary Committee was willing to agree to a period of seven sitting days, subject to a reference to it. I have already outlined to honorable members the existing safeguards whereby any change which can be regarded as a major change, or one on which public attention focuses, will be drawn to the attention of the public by the very processes it has to go through. The National Capital Planning Committee and the National Capital Development Commission give publicity to their own operations. Their discussions are highlighted and conveyed to the public through the ordinary media of information before any plans arc crystallized to the point of being laid before the Parliament. Those bodies did not exist when the existing period of fifteen sitting days was provided for. I suggest to honorable members that what is required is not a longer period for the tabling of instruments of variations but. to use the words which the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory himself used, more thought to be given to such proposals. Gazettals of proposals can lie on the table for ten days without anybody being sufficiently interested to take any notice of them; but if the public is interested, and if the Joint Parliamentary Committee does its work properly - as I believe and hope it will - then both the Parliament and the public will be well informed of what is proposed. In those circumstances six sitting days which, at the barest minimum, will mean two weeks of the activities of the House, is plenty of time for thought to be clarified on any proposal. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- There is no requirement that matters shall be referred to the committee. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- I agree that there is no statutory requirement. I have given my own undertaking that while this committee is working I shall refer these proposals to it, and that is the best notice that I can undertake to give to the Parliament of what is brewing with regard to proposed changes in the plan of the capital. I do say, however, having regard to the fact that the original proposal stipulated five days, to make sure that a proposal would be tabled, in most cases, for two sitting weeks, and that the planning committee was willing, subject to the matter coming under its notice, to agree to seven days, that six days is not unreasonable in all the circumstances. As I say, there is very little danger, by comparison with what was the normal procedure formerly, that proposed changes will escape the notice of this Parliament. Therefore, I insist, as far as I am able to do so, that the period of six days should remain in the bill. Question put - >That the amendment **(Mr. J. R. Fraser's)** be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - **Mr. P.** E. Lucock.) AYES: 29 NOES: 50 Majority . . 21 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2967 {:#debate-43} ### AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY REPRESENTATION BILL (No. 2) 1959 {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 28th October (vide page 2376), on motion by **Mr. Freeth** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- This is a piddling little bill and should not occupy much of the time of the Parliament. The original enactment of 1948 gave to the member for the Australian Capital Territory the right to vote on a motion for the disallowance of an ordinance. An enactment of the Parliament earlier this year increased the right and gave him the power to vote on a motion for the disallowance of a regulation, in addition to the right to vote on any motion relating solely to the Australian Capital Territory. The present measure simply gives the member for the Australian Capital Territory the right to vote on a motion for the disallowance of part of an ordinance or part of a regulation. The word [ used earlier means trifling, insignificant and paltry. If the Government wishes to introduce trifling measures of this kind, we say, " It is your bill and we leave it to you ". {: .speaker-KWE} ##### Mr Timson: -- Would you rather not have it? {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- I suppose even a minor improvement can be made. The Opposition has stated its position quite clearly. It believes that no restriction should be placed on the voting rights of the member for the Australian Capital Territory. Other members of the Opposition and I have sought on a number of occasions to persuade the Government to amend the act so as to remove all restrictions. Last year, the Opposition introduced a bill to remove all restriction on the voting rights of the member for the Australian Capital Territory. It was taken to the first-reading stage, but the Government did not find opportunity for it to be debated. Earlier this year, when the Government introduced a measure to amend the act in the way that I have mentioned, I, on behalf of the Opposition, moved an amendment which would have removed all restrictions on the voting rights of the member. But Government members lined themselves up to vote against that amendment, reaffirming the view of the Government that the member for the Australian Capital Territory, representing more than 22,000 electors, should not have voting rights equal to those of every other member of the Parliament. Now, this bill comes before the House to grant a trifling improvement. If there should be a motion for the disallowance of part of an ordinance or part of a regulation, the member for the Australian Capital Territory pro tern shall have the right to vote on such a piddling little matter. This is a trifling bill, an insignificant bill and a paltry bill. We do not oppose it. We will not vote on the motion for the second reading of it. We leave it to you. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2968 {:#debate-44} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-44-0} #### CANNING-FRUIT CHARGE BELL 1959 Second Reading Debate resumed from 11th November (vide page 2546), on motion by **Mr. Adermann** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-44-0-s0 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN:
CP -- On a question of procedure, I suggest that the House agree to discuss the four canning measures together, since they are all related. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr Clarey: -- That procedure is acceptable to the Opposition. {: #subdebate-44-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- lt is the wish of the House that they be discussed together. {: #subdebate-44-0-s2 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- Four bills are now before the House for discussion, and to refresh the recollection of honorable members, I shall briefly outline the provisions of them. The first bill is the Canning-Fruit Charge (Administration) Bill, which provides the machinery for the payment of a levy by the canners to the Commissioner of Taxation. The second bill is the Canning-Fruit Charge Bill, which imposes a levy of 10s. a ton on canning fruit delivered to a cannery and accepted for use in the production of canned fruit. This relates to three types of fruit only - apricots, peaches and pears. The third bill is the Canned Fruit (Sales Promotion) Bill, which is divided into parts, two of which contain the essential provisions which are the germ of the bill. Part II. creates an Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee, which will consist of eleven members. Six of these members will be fruit-growers engaged in the production of apricots, peaches and pears; two will be appointed by the Australian Canned Fruits Board; two will represent the Australian Canners Association; and one will represent the Commonwealth. The board, therefore, will represent four separate interests. They are, first, the growers; secondly, the Australian Canned Fruits Board, which deals with overseas marketing of Australian canned fruit; thirdly, the Australian Canners Association, which in effect will be represented by a member from the co-operative canneries and a member from the proprietary canneries; and fourthly, the Commonwealth Government. The fourth bill relates to the Australian Canned Fruits Board and. provides for the appointment of an additional member to the board. This member will be a representative of the growers of apricots, peaches and pears. At present, the board consists of a representative of the Commonwealth, a representative of the co-operative canneries, a representative of the proprietary canneries, and a representative of the canners of pineapples. In effect, until this amendment becomes law, the board will consist of a representative of the Commonwealth and representatives of the interests engaged in the canning of fruit for export. The amendment will provide for the appointment of an' additional member to represent the growers of apricots, peaches and pears. That briefly describes the purpose of the four bills which are now before the House. The functions of the Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee are set out in Part III. of the Canned Fruit (Sales Promotion) Bill, and its object is to promote the sale within Australia and abroad of canned apricots, peaches and pears. So that there will not be any confusion it may perhaps be well to point out at this stage that whilst there is to be a representative of the pineapple canners on the Canned Fruits Board, it is not proposed to appoint a representative of the pineapple canners to the Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee. The reason for that is that in Queensland the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing already has in operation some scheme among the pineapple growers to enable more efficient marketing and greater sales of canned pineapples to take place. It will be seen that the fruit charge bill provides for a charge to be made on all apricots, peaches and pears delivered to the canneries and accepted for canning purposes. That charge will be 10s. a ton. The obligation to collect that 10s. a ton and pay it to the Commissioner of Taxation falls on the shoulders of the canners. They must deduct that 10s. a ton from the payments due to the growers and forward it to the Commissioner of Taxation. The growers will have control of the Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee. As they have six representatives on the board they will have a majority and as they are providing the money they will have the principal say in the administration, and activities of the board. Having said that, I make it clear that the Opposition raises no objection to the provisions contained in these four bills. We support the bills, but in turn we say that two of them do- not go far enough. At the committee stage we propose to move amendments to provide for the appointment of employees' representatives to the Canned Fruits Board and the Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee. The reasons for those amendments will be placed before honorable members at a later stage. While these bills are before the House, I feel that the people of Australia, as well as honorable members, should have some idea of the difficulties at present facing the canned fruits industry of this country, particularly the growers of apricots, peaches and pears. After the First World War, the canned fruits industry, which had grown fairly extensively because of the requirements of the times, found itself in a very difficult condition. Sales had fallen. The type of product that we were sending overseas was not satisfactory. Our product was not able to hold its own against competition from the United States of America and it was necessary at that stage to effect some drastic reforms im the industry. Those drastic reforms were gradually made. A very diligent system of fruit inspection was instituted. The classification of fruit into grades was brought into being and from 1926 onwards we were able to say that the canned fruit we were placing on the world's markets was as good in the main as the canned fruit being exported to England from the United States of America. But even in those days, when our production was relatively low, it was very difficult to sell surplus production over and above our own requirements. Between 1926 and 1939, the industry faced a series of crises which were not finally resolved until the outbreak of the Second World War. But during that period the industry grew enormously and since the conclusion of the Second World War the production of fruit in the first place and fruit for canning in the second place has increased tremendously. It will be of interest to the House to have some brief information on this matter in order to appreciate that the industry is again, in 1959, facing another crisis. In 1958, our total production of apricots, peaches and pears for canning purposes and mixed fruits consisting of two or more of those fruits was no less than 5,721,000 cartons each containing two dozen 30- ounce cans. Compared with production in 1926, production had increased almost four-fold. In addition, following the settlement of areas around Robinvale, Shepparton, Leeton, Kyabram and elsewhere, extensive plantings of these fruits had taken place and a constantly increasing crop of fruit was coming to the canneries. Because of the organization of the industry, however, the fruit-growers found in those years that their conditions were gradually improving. As a result of the operations of the Canned Fruits Board and the fixing of minimum prices by the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, prices received by the growers between 1939 and 1959 rose steeply. For instance, in 1939 the growers of apricots received £10 a ton for fruit accepted at the cannery door as suitable for canning. By 1958, that price had risen to £45 a ton. Where growers were supplying co-operative canneries of which they were members, at the end of each year after the profits had been made up, the grower received an additional bonus over the rate that had been determined as the minimum rate by the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee. The same thing applied to clingstone peaches. In 1939, clingstone peaches were fetching £9 10s. a ton, but in 1958 the price had risen to £56 a ton. In the case of pears the price rose from £10 a ton in 1939 to £48 a ton in 1958. Just as between 1926 and 1939 there were crises in the industry on several occasions because of inability to dispose of surplus fruit overseas, in the last two years difficulties have again been creeping upon the industry. Those difficulties arise very largely as a result of increased competition from the Californian canneries and from canneries in South Africa. In May last the United Kingdom Government issued permits to various merchants in the United Kingdom for the importation of £3,200,000 sterling worth of canned fruits from California. Because of the peculiar conditions that are operating in South Africa, and because of the extensive planting of fruit suitable for canning, the output from South Africa has increased enormously. As a consequence of the competition of those two countries, the capacity of the Australian Canned Fruits Board to dispose of canned apricots, peaches and pears upon the English market has been reduced considerably. At the end of the 1958 selling season the canneries had unsold stocks totalling 1,000,000 cartons each containing two dozen cans. During the last twelve months the industry has been endeavouring to straighten out the position. Prices on the United Kingdom market have been reduced substantially and there has been a fall in prices on the Australian market, but sales of canned fruits are still somewhat sluggish. In addition to competition from South Africa and California, there is also competition, to a lesser extent, from Spain and Portugal. So, once again, the industry is faced with a crisis which, unless it can be surmounted, could have very serious effects upon the fruit-growers, the canneries, the cannery employees and the economy of the Commonwealth, because the millions of pounds that are being earned each year by the export of canned fruits will be reduced. As a consequence of the conditions that are now prevailing, one can appreciate the effort that is being made to place the industry upon such a footing that it will be able to meet this increased competition. Sixty per cent, of the Australian production is sold upon the English market. That is a tremendous quantity of fruit. At present, canned fruits from many parts of the world, in addition to apricots, peaches and pears, are flowing very easily and in large quantities into Great Britain; so much so, that the Australian industry is in a very difficult position. In order to describe the competition that the Australian industry has to meet, I must refer to the conditions under which apricots, peaches and pears are processed in South Africa, because South African fruit is having a severe effect upon the market for Australian canned fruit. The wages and working conditions of workers in Australia are determined by awards of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Most of the awards made by the court in recent years for employees in this industry have been consent awards that have been reached as a result of agreement between the Food Preservers Union and the canners. For a 40-hour week, a minimum wage of £15 2s. 6d. is paid to males, and £11 6s. 6d. to females of eighteen years of age and over. In addition to those minimum rates, large numbers of employees receive margins. I regret to say that similar conditions do not operate in South Africa. My information is that employees in the canneries in that country work as many as 78 hours a week. The ordinary hours of work are 46 a week but, by legislation, they can be compelled to work an additional 32 hours a week if required. This applies to both men and women. Women receive overtime at the rate of time and one-half for all overtime, but males receive time and one-third for the first ten hours and time and one-half thereafter. Worse still from the viewpoint «f the employees engaged in the industry in South Africa - and this enables the South African canners to export their goods at prices much lower than we in Australia can export our goods - -is the fact that the trade unions of the natives are not recognized by the employers as legal organizations. The natives cannot have one union to cover all coloured workers. There are two unions, one to which the indigenous natives are compelled to belong, and one to which Chinese, Malays and Indians are compelled to belong. In addition, very harsh restrictions are imposed on these unions by the Government when, they try to improve the working conditions of their members. To illustrate the shocking wages that are being paid, let me state that males in the canneries receive £3 3s. 6d. a week and females receive £2 13s. 6d. a week. They are not allowed to negotiate with their employers in respect of their wages or working conditions, nor are they consulted by the employers when any changes in their working conditions are contemplated. I suppose the best evidence of the conditions that are operating in South Africa is the startling news that we received during the last few days to the effect that the president of the African canning workers' union, a **Mrs. Mafeking,** the mother of eleven children, has been banished from her home town because of her union activities, and with her family has been forced to go some hundreds of miles away from where she and her family had lived. The Food Preservers Union in Australia is doing its best, by advice and by other means, to assist the cannery workers in South Africa to improve their conditions and, as the trade union movement to-day is international in character, the last has not been heard of the case of **Mrs. Mafeking.** This is one of the ways in which the trade union movement can, and does, assist industries that are paying decent wages and giving their employees decent working conditions. I wish to address myself now to the question of the representation of employees on both of the bodies that are concerned with the legislation that is now before the. House. The Government has stated its desire to work in co-operation with the organized workers of Australia and to see that their rights are recognized. Therefore, I stress to the Minister for Primary Industry the desirability of the Government implementing the principles which have been expressed on more than one occasion of the recognition of trade unionism and its value to industry and to the community generally. The Australian Canned Fruits Board has been constituted to control the sale of canned fruits overseas, for the express purpose of protecting the economic interests of those who are engaged in the canned fruit industry. For that reason, the Government is represented on the board, because the Government is vitally concerned in securing the credits that result from the export of our exportable goods. The co-operative canneries are represented, because their investments and their economic interests are affected. The proprietary canneries are represented, because their interests are involved. The pineapple canneries also are represented, because their interests are affected. Now, because the economic interests of the growers of peaches, pears and apricots are affected, they also are to be given representation on the board. But those people are not the only ones who have economic interests in the industry. There are the employees, without whom it would not be possible for the industry to be carried on. Many of them have been working in canneries, to my knowledge, for 30 years or more. The employees who go along in the season and provide the labour needed to process the fruit have an economic stake in the industry, the same as do the canners and the fruit-growers. The employees are just as much entitled to have a say in the protection of their economic interests when a crisis occurs in the industry as are the other interests which are represented on the board. That fact is accentuated when one looks at the constitution of the committee to be appointed to control the sales promotion of canned fruits. The Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee will comprise representatives of the growers, the canners, the Government and the Australian Canned Fruits Board. The growing of all the fruit in the world, and the installation in a cannery of all the machinery that can be imagined, will be of no use for the production of canned fruit without the skilled men and women in the factories who control the processes and transform the raw fruit into the canned article ready for sale. Their livelihood depends upon the continuance of the industry just as much as does the livelihood of the canner and the grower, and the employees therefore are entitled to representation on the committee and the board in order that their knowledge of the industry, the requirements of the consumers, and conditions and markets in other countries, may be utilized by the other representatives on the two bodies in order to ensure that the greatest possible economic protection is given to all the parties engaged in the industry. I point out, further, that this principle that the employees should be represented, which I now put up on behalf of the Opposition, is no new principle. It has been recognized for years in measures passed by this Parliament. The employees are represented on the Australian Egg Board, the Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Meat Board and the Australian Dairy Produce Board. Under the wool marketing scheme that was established during World War II., the employees were represented both on the body originally established for the purpose of organizing the disposal and appraisal of wool and on the wool realization committee. Both those bodies are now wound up, of course. The employees. through their representatives, were able to give valuable advice and assistance, as a consequence of their knowledge of the industry, and help greatly to ensure that it was properly run. I should like to point out, also, that, in every crisis that has arisen in the canning industry, the employers have always sought and received the co-operation and support of the unions in making representations in respect of matters such as a proper form of organization, the constitution of the Australian Canned Fruits Board, and proposals for assistance as a consequence of the increase in the price of sugar - which resulted in the establishment of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee. On all such occasions, the unions have presented a case containing suggestions for the protection of the interests of the growers and others concerned in the industry. If the right honorable member for Cowper **(Sir Earle Page)** were present, I would remind him of a deputation that met him when he was Minister for Commerce and made suggestions for the protection of the canned fruit industry. I could call on my friend, the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard),** to detail the representations made to him by employers and employees in Victoria when he was Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. If the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** were in the chamber, I would ask him to confirm the fact that, when the canned vegetable industry was in trouble, representations were made to him by the canners and the trade unions in an effort to get the industry out of its difficulties and protect it. The point is that, whenever difficulties occur in the canning industry, the employers have always sought and received the full co-operation of the trade unions concerned in measures for the improvement of conditions. But, when it comes to the appointment of boards and committees for the protection of economic interests, the knowledge of the industry possessed by the employees is ignored and they are refused representation on these bodies although their livelihood is at stake. To the Opposition at least, that appears to be a clear discrimination against the employees as compared with the others who are concerned in the industry. I want to emphasize as strongly as I possibly can that the knowledge possessed by the employees in the industry can be utilized with great advantage in any industry in order to overcome many of the difficulties associated with processing and manufacture. The Government's failure to recognize the value of this pool of knowledge which could well be used represents, I put it to the House, a failure to take proper measures to safeguard the interests of the industry to the full. I know, from my own knowledge of industry, that employees have made valuable suggestions for the prevention of waste, the elimination of wasteful motions, and the improvement of handling and storage methods. The knowledge of all those matters possessed by the employees has been of great value in increasing production in various industries. I can say with confidence that the reduction of labour costs has been more marked in the canning industry than in any other. Since 1922, there has been more mechanization in this industry and more reduction of labour forces than in any other. The days when every apricot had to be cut and stoned individually have gone forever. It is no longer necessary to cut, stone, peel and remove the stem of every peach by hand. In the days when this happened, hundreds of men and women were employed in the canning season, but mechanization, with the introduction of machines for the peeling, cutting, coring, and stoning of pears, peaches and apricots, has eliminated this labour force and the work is now done by a type of automation. The consequence has been an enormous increase in the production of canned goods, not only fruits but vegetables and other edible commodities. This has been achieved with only a slightly increased band of workers compared with 1926. When people are playing such an important part in production, their right to some say in their economic conditions through representation on boards dealing with problems of the industry should be recognized without hesitation and granted without any objection whatever. The bills should be and will be supported by the Opposition, but we say that they do not go far enough. There is an essential problem in the industry which the bills will help to correct but, in addition, there is a section of the industry which is entitled to protection the same as other economic interests. The Opposition proposes tomove amendments to bring that about. We think that when that is done justice will be given to the employees as well as to the growers and the canners. {: #subdebate-44-0-s3 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- We are indebted to the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** for a history of the canned fruits industry and for certain other facts which are appreciated. I do not agree with everything that he said. The purpose of one of these bills is to impose a levy on apricots, peaches and pears accepted by canners. Another of the bills is a machinery measure which is designed to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the charge imposed by the Canning-Fruit Charge Bill. The main object of the third bill is to establish the Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee and to vest it with authority to utilize funds to be derived from a levy to be imposed on fruits supplied for canning. The purpose of the fourth bill is to provide for the appointment to the Australian Canned Fruits Board of a representative of the growers of canning apricots, peaches and pears. All the bills are designed to work together and it is natural that we should debate them together. Regarding the appointment of a growers' representative on the Australian Canned Fruits Board, the Australian Country Party and I, as a member of that party, have always advocated that the growers should have such representation. It has been pointed out by the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. Adermann)** that the bill gives effect to the proposal of the Australian Canning Fruitgrowers Association, the central organization of growers of canning apricots, peaches and pears, the members of which are said to account for about 95 per cent, of the production of these fruits used in canning. If they produce 95 per cent, of these fruits, surely they are entitled to representation. We appreciate this proposal and we shall support it. I understand that the Opposition, too, will support it. The Canning-Fruit Charge (Administration) Bill is designed to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the charge imposed by the Canning-Fruit Charge Bill. It is unnecessary for me to deal with this machinery measure, particularly as the honorable member for Bendigo has covered most of the ground. I think it is envisaged that an annual fund of about £50,000 will be made available to the Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee to enlarge in a rational manner the promotion work already being undertaken. I should like to compliment the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** on the great work that he has done in the promotion of the sale of canned fruits overseas. We have read about it and we have seen motion pictures and they are very impressive. The electorate of the Minister for Trade includes the Goulburn Valley, the centre of which is Shepparton which produces a large proportion of our canned fruit. The Minister, therefore, is in very close touch with the industry and, knowing it so well, has done everything in his power to promote sales overseas. I think it is very necessary that our trade representatives should study the buying methods of Asian countries. When I was in Malaya I found that there was some confusion over labelling. An instance was the Rosella brand. A young Chinese came to me and pointed to some Rosella tins of fruit that were on sale at a certain store at Malacca. He said, "Tinned parrot." He thought it was tinned parrot because the tin had a bird on it. We know the Rosella brand, but some people in Asian countries think that the tins contain parrot. Presumably all those things are taken into consideration by the Department of Trade, but I believe that they are not receiving as much attention as they were some years ago. If that is so, the matter needs to be looked into. These bills are greatly appreciated by the Country Party. When we come to the committee stage I will have something else to say on the Australian Canned Fruits Board. The honorable member for Bendigo claims that the employees should be given a voice on the Australian Canned Fruits Board. But suppose I said to the honorable member, " Why not give the growers a voice in the trade union?" How would he react to that? A lot of these workers are seasonal workers. As the honorable member for Bendigo said, they come along to pick the fruit when it is ripe. Then they go away to some other area to pick dried fruits or to do other seasonal work. It would be very difficult to give them representation as fruit pickers. It might not be so hard in the case of cannery employees, but a large percentage of the men who work in the canning fruit industry, apart from the canneries themselves, are seasonal workers. It would be very hard to give them representation. I believe that the appropriate place for their representation is in the trade union. The honorable member for Bendigo, as a successful union advocate, knows that the trade union is a vital body and that that is where the workers' representation should be. The growers are not asking for representation in the unions. Therefore I think it is not in the best interests of all .concerned that workers should have representation on a canning fruit industry body. I understand that the honorable member for Bendigo also said that the workers should have representation on the Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee. Of course, the money for the work of this committee will be contributed by the growers. They are not asking the workers in the industry to pay the levy. The honorable member's proposition has been brought up previously in relation to other industries and the same reply as I am giving now has been given. The honorable member for Bendigo said that this is nothing new. Of course it is not. It has been brought up before by way of proposed amendments to other primary industry legislation and has been rejected. I hope that the Minister will reject it again to-night. {: #subdebate-44-0-s4 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP -- in reply - I appreciate the support of members of the Opposition for these bills because they, like the Government, recognize the need for promotional activities more and more in any industry, and in particular in this industry. When I was introducing these bills, I expressed the appreciation of the Government at the attitude of the growers themselves in coming to it and recommending a levy so that they might contribute to a fund in order that promotional activities might be engaged in. The Government was happy to accede to their suggestion and introduced these three measures which are directly associated with the collection of the levy and its expenditure. The fourth measure deals with the appointment of a growers' representative to the canning board. 1 shall reply to the remarks of the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** on union representation at the committee stage. At this juncture, I content myself by saying that I am very happy to have the support of the whole House for these measures. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2975 {:#debate-45} ### CANNING-FRUIT CHARGE (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1959 {:#subdebate-45-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 11th November (vide page 2546), on motion by **Mr. Adermann** - >That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2975 {:#debate-46} ### CANNED FRUIT (SALES PROMOTION) BILL 1959 {:#subdebate-46-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 11th November (vide page 2547), on motion by **Mr. Adermann** - >That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time and committed pro forma; progress reported. Message recommending appropriation reported. In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral's message): Motion (by **Mr. Adermann)** agreed to - >That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act relating to the promotion of the sale of canned fruit. Resolution reported and adopted. In committee: Consideration resumed. Clauses 1 to 5 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 6 - (1.) The Committee shall consist of - {: type="a" start="c"} 0. two members to represent the Australian Canners' Association; and 1. one member to represent the Commonwealth. {: #subdebate-46-0-s0 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- The clause reads as follows: - (1.) The Committee shall consist of - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. six members to represent the- Australian. Canning Fruitgrowers Association; 1. two members to represent the Australian Canned Fruits Board; 2. two members to represent the Australian. Canners' Association; and 3. one member to represent the Commonwealth. I move - >In sub-section (1.), paragraph (c), omit " and It is not my intention to traverse the ground which I covered in my second-reading speech, but I feel I ought to correct what I think is the opinion in the mind of the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull).** Every one of the interests represented has its own organization or trade union as the case may be. The canners have an association and meet separately; the fruit-growers have their association, and they apparently have also been able to establish the Australian Canning Fruitgrowers Association which covers all the fruit-growers growing the kind of fruit concerned, in the four States covered by the measure. It is not a question of belonging to one another's organizations, because the fruit-growers meet as fruit-growers to discuss their particular problems, the canners meet as canners to discuss their problems, and the employees meet as trade unionists to discuss their problems. Where it is necessary the employees can, and do, meet the fruit-growers and the canners in conference. The body with which this bill deals is to consist of a number of representatives of various interests. The growers of the fruit are to have six representatives on it. There are to be two representatives of the Australian Canned Fruits Board, two representatives of the Australian Canners' Association, and one representative of the Commonwealth. To complete the economic link in connexion with this industry it is essential that the workers in the industry also have representation on the committee. Such representation can be valuable in more ways than one. As I said previously, over the years the union has shown its capacity to co-operate with all sections of the inindustry for the protection of the industry and in its own interest. Indeed, it can be said that there are very few industries in which better relations exist in regard to wages and working conditions than exist in this industry. In the main, wages and working conditions are fixed by agreement. This is an industry which has tremendous economic power when the season is on. If there were not harmony in the industry the whole industry could be ruined by reckless and unnecessary stoppages. But, because of the desire of the union to safeguard the interests of the workers, and of the industry, good industrial relations exist in the industry. The union has experience that can be utilized to the advantage of the industry, and it is desirable therefore, that the employees be given representation on this committee. I ask for leave to withdraw the amendment and resubmit it in a shortened form. Amendment - by leave - withdrawn. Motion (by **Mr. Clarey)** proposed - >At the end of sub-clause (1.) add the following word and paragraph: - " ; and (e) one member to represent the Food Preservers Union of Australia.". {: #subdebate-46-0-s1 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP -- Past governments have made appointments to commodity boards of persons who have been re-appointed by this Government. But the proposal made by the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** is a vastly different proposition. The committee with which the bill deals is not a commodity board like the boards to which the honorable gentleman referred earlier. The record shows that the Chifley Government took advantage of its power to have marketing board legislation passed, and placed union representatives on the boards controlling the marketing of meat, dairy produce, wheat, eggs and apples and pears. In fact, in recent days I have re-appointed to the Australian Wheat Board one of the persons appointed to it by the Chifley Government. But that is a marketing board with full trading rights. The honorable member for Bendigo's proposal in regard to this committee is a vastly different proposition, because the Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion committee is a promotional committee. It exists as a result of a decision made by fruitgrowers who, recognizing the marketing difficulties that lay ahead of them, formed the Australian Canning Fruitgrowers Association, which is not a statutory body. They got together as delegates representing their various districts and, in order to help themselves, they decided to impose a levy on themselves so as to produce a contribution for promotional purposes. All honorable members will agree that that is a commendable approach, and that it is only fitting that those people should have a majority control of this committee appointed for promotional purposes. The honorable member for Bendigo mentioned the representation on the committee of the Australian Canned Fruits Board and of the fruit canners. Certainly they are represented on this committee. The fact that the board is making donations to finance publicity and promotion, as the canners are also doing, provides the link, and the reason for the appointment of their representatives to this promotional committee. The desire is that this committee should act in unison, that interests represented on it should dovetail their activities and not allow them to overlap. Finally, it is only right that those who pay the piper should call the tune. There is to be a Commonwealth Government representative on the committee, since governments take the legislative action that may be necessary. I agree with the appointment of a government representative on such committees and boards. Government representatives can be useful to them in many ways. They keep a contact between the departments and the committees or boards. I can see no justification for the appointment of representatives of the employees, and accordingly the Government cannot accept the amendment. {: #subdebate-46-0-s2 .speaker-K6V} ##### Mr COURTNAY:
Darebin .- I support the amendment, and I am somewhat astounded by the argument which has been advanced by the Minister in opposition to it. It is stated that certain sections of the industry make monetary contributions and that the Government for its part is able to render assistance by way of advice and through the operation of various Government departments. I suggest, **Sir, that** the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** has amply demonstrated that the trade union concerned is also able to render assistance. As a matter of fact, if anything has clearly shown the assistance that the union could render in the particular circumstances that this industry finds itself in to-day, it is the case that the honorable member for Bendigo put here to-night. I doubt whether any of the departmental officers, and I am quite sure that none of the growers' representatives, could give such a splendid exposition of the industry's present circumstances as the honorable member for Bendigo gave. The honorable member for Bendigo said that the circumstances are so bad for the workers in the industry that they are prepared to make their knowledge available to the committee for the good of the industry and to help to solve its present problem. The honorable member's offer was rejected, so to speak, on specious grounds. I am somewhat surprised at that. I want to support in any event the proposition made by the honorable member for Bendigo, because it embraces certain principles that are now becoming widely recognized in most developing industries at least, not only in the Commonwealth but all the world over. These principles have become so widely recognized, in fact, that employers are now telling workers that they should take part in management, and not only as members of advisory boards. The workers are being told that they should play a part in actually giving directions. This is the principle that I want to say something about, because the Government professes adherence to it. I want to refer now to a publication entitled " Unions, Management and the Public", which comprises addresses to the first labour-management conference at the University of Western Australia in October 1955. I shall quote from an address given by **Mr. R.** G. Fry, Assistant Secretary of the Metal Trades Employers' Association of N.S.W., who has acted as advocate for employers in practically every court and every State in Australia. **Mr. Fry** said: - >I think that the most important point on which trade unions must decide their function is the extent to which they desire to participate in management. I do not refer to the desire to have access to management for discusions, to seek information, to have decisions reviewed, and so on. I am speaking of participation in management; that is, being party to the making of decisions and the giving of directions as management. Later in his address **Mr. Fry** said, when referring to trade union leaders, and, apparently, their responsibilities - >It is also important that such leaders should share the responsibility for the economic health of an industry and of the country. One British trade union official said this: - " We must produce goods of the required design, high quality, in sufficient volume, at the right price, to sell in exchange for our imports, and in doing so meet increasing and intensified world competition. This is the problem with which we are confronted and nothing less." When it suits the employers, they tell the workers that they should participate and take responsibility in management. When it does not suit them, when they feel that the circumstances of industry are not really as bad as they might be, they reject the workers' offer. We know that there is worker representation on many boards, and never yet has it been suggested that those boards have suffered because of that representation. Rather do I suggest that worker representation has improved those boards to the extent of the worker's knowledge of his industry, which is pretty considerable. I have referred to the desirability of worker representation, rather than to the right of the worker to have such representation. But, after all, the worker surely has a stake in his particular industry. I was quite surprised to read a document which was made available only to-day, and which is called, " Reports of the Australian Government Employers' and Workers' Delegates to the Forty-third Session of the International Labour Conference, Geneva, June, 1959 ". On page 33 I find the following remarks: - >In plenary session, the Australian Government member made a statement explaining that his Government, while strongly supporting the principle of consultation and co-operation at the industrial and national levels - He was referring to the principle of consultation and co-operation between union, government and management - could not subscribe to the Proposed Conclusions in the form in which they emerged from the Committee. However, these conclusions were finally adopted at that conference, which, I repeat, was held only this year. On page 49 of the publication we find - >The draft of a Resolution concerning the placing on the Agenda of the next general Session of the > >Conference the question of Consultation and Cooperation between public Authorities and Employers' and Workers' Organizations at the Industrial and National Levels was also . . . adopted. Surely it is obvious that what the honorable member for Bendigo has suggested is consultation and co-operation between public authorities - that is the Government - employers' and workers' organizations at the industrial and national levels. On page 104 of the publication I find the following: - >The General Conference of the International Labour Organization, having adopted the report of the Committee appointed to consider the eighth item on the Agenda, and having in particular approved as general Conclusions, with a view to the consultations of Governments, proposals for a Recommendation relating to consultation and cooperation between public authorities and employers' and workers' organizations at the industrial and national levels - It then goes on to give the decision arrived at. The point I am making is that not only do we find the most powerful employers' organization in Australia, the Metal Trade Employers' Association, advocating what the honorable member for Bendigo has asked for, but we also have the representative of the Commonwealth Government at an international conference putting up the same proposal, which, incidentally, was adopted, by 148 votes to 43, at that plenary session. I suggest, accordingly, that we would be very backward in our thinking if we did not give strong consideration to the tendency that is developing in industry along the lines to which I have referred. I wish now to read a passage from a book entitled, " An Introduction to the Study of Industrial Relations", by J. Henry Richardson. {: #subdebate-46-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-46-0-s4 .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON:
Hume .- The honorable member for Darebin **(Mr. Courtnay)** has referred to the co-operation which could well take place between labour and management in certain classes of industry. There is no doubt in my mind that there is room for such consultation and co-operation in the metal trades industry and in many other industries. But the legislation with which we are dealing relates solely to the promotion and sale of products of the land, and I really cannot see how the labour element in the industry can assist in the sale of these products. If the honorable member is sincere in his argument, then I suggest his sincerity should be proved by having the labour element provide part of the necessary finances. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- What about the canners finding part of the finances? {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- They are finding a part. I cannot see why trades unions should take part in consultations with the owners on the promotion and sale of goods. If they were prepared to put up a certain sum of money, then I would support the idea. Until that interest is shown I do not see any need for the co-operation of labour in this particular avenue. {: #subdebate-46-0-s5 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor .- It is the same old story. Government supporters go to the electors and talk about industrial relations between employers and employees. They talk about organizations having the support of the Government for all sorts of purposes. But they are never prepared to put into practice their preachings. On every commodity board which the Labour Government reconstituted in the post-war era provision was made for representation of the trade union movement. So successful has the trade union movement's association with those authorities been that even this Government, reactionary as it is, has not been prepared to remove that right of representation. It is true that all those organizations on which there is employee representation are termed boards and, as the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. Adermann)** has pointed out, they are commodity boards. It is true that the measures now before the committee provides for the appointment of a sales promotion committee and not a board. But after all, the people who will find the money for the sales promotion work are the growers, not the canners. But notwithstanding the fact that the growers find the funds for sales promotion work, this Government has seen fit to provide for representation of two other sections of people associated with the industry. Six members are to represent the growers; two members are to represent the Australian Canned Fruits Board. The board is very important to the industry because if it does not carry out its functions satisfactorily it will be a sorry day for the canned fruit producers. The board's functions under the act are concerned with the export side of the canning industry. Also on the committee will be two members representing the Australian Canners Association. That is an association of proprietors owning canning works. They do not contribute one penny piece to the cost of sales promotion. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- Yes, they do. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- No, they don't. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- Only if they grow their own fruit. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- Exactly. The fund will be collected through the taxation machinery of the Commonwealth, using as agents the canning works. The canners, in the sense that they are concerned with this committee, do not contribute a solitary penny piece. Why are they to have representation? It is true that they are important in the industry, but no more so than the employees. They are all part and parcel of a most important industry, and if it is correct to place representatives of the canners on the committee, if it is correct to have representatives of the Canned Fruits Board, which controls exports, on the committee, and if it is correct to have on the committee representatives of the Commonwealth Government, which likewise does not contribute under this measure one penny piece, surely it is right to recognize the importance of employees in the industry and to allow them representation on the committee. As for the Commonwealth's interest in the committee, the only contribution that it makes is the cost of policing and administering the act. The honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** made the excuse that this is not a commodity board. I am justified in assuming that if it were a commodity board he would ardently support representation of the employees. But when he had the opportunity on several occasions in this chamber since I have been here he was just as vociferous in his opposition to representation of employees on these commodity boards as he is with regard to the organization proposed to be set up under this bill. The same argument applies to the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull).** Those honorable members make excuses on all occasions why representation should not be granted to the people who are entitled to it. Why are these honorable members not honest? Why do they not say that they oppose any form of representation of employees? Those are my views on this matter, and the honorable member for Hume and the honorable member for Mallee will have an opportunity to prove their sincerity when the vote is taken on the amendment that will be moved to another measure after this bill has been disposed of. My friend, the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** will move to allow representation of the unions in the industry on the Australian Canned Fruits Board. Then the honorable member for Hume will be tested. He will not be able to say that the board is not a commodity organization. It controls exports, does it not? {: .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr Adermann: -- It does not trade. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- There will be no satisfactory trade without its operations. It trades as much as it is required to do under the charter that is given to it by the Commonwealth and under which it operates. It is high time the Minister and his Government and honorable members who support the Government brought their ideas up to date and showed the true spirit that they claim is necessary between employee and employer in order to stop the advance of communism in this country. Honorable members opposite continually prattle about the menace of communism; but the moment it is suggested that employee organizations be given representation and an opportunity to show their desire to co-operate for the advancement of the industry, honorable members opposite jib at the hurdle. In those circumstances the honorable member for Hume and the honorable member for Mallee, might, even at this late hour, reconsider the situation and support the amendment that will be moved by the honorable member for Bendigo. {: #subdebate-46-0-s6 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- The honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** has said that I and the honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** will be tested. One would think that the honorable member for Lalor was the only honest man in this Parliament. The honorable member for Lalor has been tested to-night- {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- And not found wanting. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- He has been found wanting - not in honesty, because I appreciate his honesty; but he has been tested and found wanting in knowledge. His whole case is destroyed by his lack of knowledge. If he would read the second-reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. Adermann)** he would see that the money to be collected by levy from the growers is expected to provide £50,000 annually to extend in a rational manner the promotion work already being undertaken. We have said that the canners are contributing, and the honorable member for Lalor has said that they are not contributing under this bill. But if the canners are contributing towards sales promotion of canned fruit, it does not matter whether they are contributing under this bill or in some other way. If I wanted to use the word " honesty ", I would have an excellent opportunity to do so now. One canning organization already contributes £100,000, but the honorable member for Lalor has said that the canners are contributing nothing. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- I said that they are contributing nothing under the terms of this bill. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- That is only begging the point. They are contributing and, because they are contributing, they have the right to be represented on the committee so that they can see how the money will be spent. It will be used in the best interests of the canning industry and of the men who grow the fruit. I regard the honorable member for Darebin **(Mr. Courtnay)** as a very friendly man who has created a good impression since he has been in this place. I understand that he also is a good union advocate. In this chamber we have the democratic socialist policy of the Australian Labour Party and the liberal policy of the Australian Country Party and the Liberal Party of Australia. The difference of policies is the basis of the position that now confronts us. Apart from the Government's representative on the sales promotion committee, the members are from employer organizations. The honorable member for Lalor and the honorable member for Darebin want to have a representative of the employees on the committee to have a say in how the money that is provided by the employers and by the men who grow the fruit shall be spent. On that basis, why should not the employer organizations have some say in the management of the unions? That suggestion has as much logic as has the suggestion of the honorable member's. What about the mert who pick the fruit? What about the men who work in the cannery? Who represents them? The unions represent them, and they do a very good job, too, as every member of the Opposition knows. If the employers do something that does not meet with the approval of the unions, they are very soon told about it. Having begged from the employers to a certain extent, the unions then try to obtain increasing advantages from them. Of course they are quite entitled to do that because they represent the workers. This whole problem may be regarded as a difference of opinion between the parties in this chamber - a difference of opinion between what is called a democratic socialist policy and a policy of free enterprise which Australia enjoys and which we hope to advance. I commend the Minister for the action that he has taken and for the action that he has foreshadowed. {: #subdebate-46-0-s7 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo -- A number of misapprehensions in regard to this amendment need to be cleared up. In the first place, I disagree entirely with the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. Adermann)** who has said that all of the organizations which are represented on this committee are contributing money to it. The committee will consist of six representatives of the apricot, peach and pear growers. They will be in the majority and they alone will provide the funds on which the organization will operate. The Minister has suggested that the Australian Canned Fruits Board has made some contribution. The board is financed by regular annual advances from the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee. Under this legislation the committee will not make any contribution to the fund. Neither the third body, the canners' association, nor the Commonwealth Government makes any contribution to the promotion of sales. The canners, the Australian Canned Fruit Board and the Government are represented because they are experienced in these matters and will assist the fruit growers to carry out the functions for which the committee has been created. The case that has been advanced by the Minister does not solve the problem in relation to the representation of employees. The fund has been created to strengthen the economic position of the fruit growers and to ensure that they get the best value for their money. They bring with them experience in the control, preparation and sale of canned fruits. The mistake has been made by the assumption that because the employees are not represented on the Australian Canned Fruits Board and on other bodies, they are not to be represented on the proposed committee because apparently they have no experience that they can offer. But if you want to promote sales, you will find that there are many faults that the employees alone can rectify. There may be faulty packing; there may be faulty labelling; there may be 101 other things on which the employees would be competent to speak. If they were given representation on this proposed body they would be able to bring their knowledge and experience to bear, and their sound advice would help to improve the economic position of the industry. Every section of the industry wants economic protection, and economic safety. It is wrong, when dealing with an economic problem, to leave out of consideration the economic effect on the employees. They have knowledge and experience that is worthy of consideration. I sincerely hope that the committee will adopt the proposed amendment. Question put - >That the amendment **(Mr. Clarey's)** be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 25 NOES: 51 Majority . . 26 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2981 {:#debate-47} ### CANNED FRUITS EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1959 {:#subdebate-47-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 11th November (vide page 2548), on motion by **Mr. Adermann** - >That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 - >Section four of the Principal Act is amended - > >by adding at the end of sub-section (2.) the following word and paragraph: - "; and (e) one member appointed by the Governor-General, on the nomination of the Australian Canning Fruitgrowers Association, to represent the growers of apricots, peaches and pears used in the production of canned fruit."; and Section proposed to be amended - >-- (1.) For the purposes of this Act there shall be an Australian Canned Fruits Board. (2.) The Board shall consist of- {: #debate-47-s0 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- I move - >Omit paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph: - " (b) by adding at the end of sub-section (2.) the following paragraphs: - > >one member appointed by the Governor-General, on the nomination of the Australian Canning Fruitgrowers Association, to represent the growers of apricots, peaches and pears used in the production of canned fruit; and > >one member elected by the Federal Conference of the Food Preservers Union of Australia to represent employees of proprietary and co-operative caneries.'; and ". The object of the amendment is to afford representation on the Australian Canned Fruits Board to employees engaged in the industry. It is not my intention, **Mr. Chairman,** to traverse the ground that has already been covered in the consideration of an amendment to the Canned Fruit (Sales Promotion) Bill 1959. Whatever may be said in respect of the rights of employees to representation on the Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee, the rights of employees to representation on the Australian Canned Fruits Board are an entirely different proposition. This board controls the export of canned fruits and has the responsibility of ensuring that the good name of Australian canned fruits is kept in the highest possible standing. The employees can help substantially in that task. {: #debate-47-s1 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP -- **Mr. Chairman,** the Australian Canned Fruits Board has the function of organizing the export, and the sale and distribution after export, of Australian canned fruits - peaches, pears, apricots, pineapples and pineapple juice. It is not a trading authority, its powers being entirely regulatory. The activities of the board are financed solely by a levy paid by canners on exports. The annual income of the board from this source is about £65,000. Here, again, is a body which is not a commodity board in the true sense of the term. The proposal for the appointment of an employees' representative on this board involves considerations similar to those that were discussed in relation to the Canned Fruit (Sales Promotion) Bill 1959. The honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** proposed an amendment to that measure designed to secure the appointment of an employees' representative onthe Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee. I pointed out then that the employees did not contribute to the cost of promotion. Indeed, one of the canneries makes a contribution of as much as £100,000 a year for promotion. Other canners contribute. The Australian Canned Fruits Board makes a contribution to publicity and the Commonwealth Government, which has a representative on the committee, contributes heavily to promotion and publicity overseas. Having the growers' representative on this board to provide contact with the canners does two things: It brings the growers knowledge of the quality of the product that they need to grow. They have a responsibility to produce the goods that the canners can handle and sell profitably. This brings them knowledge that they cannot acquire unless they are in direct touch. Secondly, it brings knowledge of promotion to the Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee. As I said earlier the activities should dovetail and not overlap. There is a contribution to promotion by the canners, the Australian Canned Fruits Board, and the Government. But the contribution to the promotion committee will be determined by what the growers themselves think should be levied. I think that issue is quite clear cut.I am very happy to accede to the views of the growers who put up this proposition.I would be false to my trust if, having made an arrangement with them, I agreed to anything else. Consequently, I cannot agree to the proposed amendment any more than I could agree to that relating to the promotion committee. It was the growers' proposition that they should advertise their own product because of increased planting. I think that they expect an increased production of about 40 per cent, by 1963. Therefore, they are wise in making forward provision for the market that they will need for the extra production. What the honorable member for Bendigo fails to recognize is that the more this industry expands and the more promotional activity brings extra markets, the greater the benefits that will come to the employees with whom he is concerned. Of course, he is directly concerned with them. I understand that he is president of the Food Preservers Union of Australia. Naturally, he cares for their interest. I am not decrying their welfare, but I can see greater benefits for the employees as I can for the producers and for those who are cann the product. Anyhow, the Government cannot accept the amendment. {: #debate-47-s2 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- We can see, through employee representation, greater advantages to the Promotion Committee than it has at the present time. There is valuable experience that the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. Adermann)** is declining to accept and utilize. Question put - >That the paragraph proposed to be omitted **(Mr. Clarey's amendment)** stand part of the clause. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 52 NOES: 27 Majority . . . . 25 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2983 {:#debate-48} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: - Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1959. Loan (Housing) Bill 1959. {: .page-start } page 2983 {:#debate-49} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-49-0} #### Ireland Motion (by **Mr. Adermann)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-49-0-s0 .speaker-JUX} ##### Mr MINOGUE:
West Sydney -- I have received a request from an association of 900 members in my electorate to bring a matter before the House, and I take this opportunity to do so. On the day that members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association arrived in Canberra, question time in this House lasted only three-quarters of an hour. I thought that that was a good opportunity for me to ask the acting Minister for External Affairs **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** a question on behalf of the members of this association. Its head-quarters are about half a mile from the central railway station in Sydney, and the 900 members include immigrants from all parts of the globe, particularly England, Ireland and Scotland. Many of them have recently arrived in Australia under our immigration scheme. Although they like this country and are doing quite well, the association might well be called a "wowsers' club ". It has no liquor licence or poker machine, but it tries in a charitable way to help local charities and very often assists people of Irish birth who come to Australia. I have mentioned many times the subjectmatter of the question which I put to the acting Minister for External Affairs. It concerns the partition of Ireland. As honorable members know, among the delegates to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference was His Grace The Duke of Abercorn, **Senator for** Northern Ireland who is also Her Majesty's Lieutenant for County Tyrone. I thought that it would be a very good opportunity to ask my question in the presence of that distinguished gentleman. I said - >I desire to ask the acting Minister for External Affairs a question without notice. In view of the world clamour for the principle of selfdetermination to be applied to the whole of Ireland so that the opinion of the Irish people - and the Irish people alone - will decide whether partition should be abolished or retained in that country of a little more than 4,000,000 persons, will he support the efforts of the representatives of Ireland in the United Nations to have this unjustifiable division of their country submitted to a plebiscite of the 4,000,000 inhabitants? The acting Minister for External Affairs replied to me, I think in good faith, as follows: - >Due partly to the noise in the chamber, and perhaps to a difficulty that I have with respect to languages, I did not hear all of the honorable member's question. If he will put his question on the notice-paper I will see that he receives an answer. I forwarded a copy of my question to the Clerk so that it might be placed on the notice-paper, but he informed me that there was some difficulty in doing so. I do not know for what reason. The question related to one of the British Commonwealth countries represented at the CP .A. Conference and I felt that at least I should talk to that representative when I had the opportunity. Now, it would seem that he was the wrong person to speak to and that I should have addressed myself to the Right Honorable William Shepherd Morrison, M.C., Q.C., ex-Speaker of the House of Commons, now Viscount Dunrossil. {: #subdebate-49-0-s1 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA Order! I warn the honorable member that any reference to that name or the subject with which it is connected is skating on thin ice. {: .speaker-JUX} ##### Mr MINOGUE: -- I will just mention one thing and I will be finished with the name. "Dunrossil", which is a gaelic word, means " small island ". What I want to bring before the House to-night is the question of the unity of Ireland. About five weeks ago the honorable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr. Nelson)** visited the north of Ireland and at Belfast he found that 25,000 workers there had been sacked from ship-building yards. Early next year Dame Pattie Menzies will be proceeding to this place to launch the third largest ship in the world. The completion of that ship means the laying-off of 25,000 men. That is the reason why those young people who have arrived in this country are anxious to contact somebody who will help them both here and at home. We have in this country a representative from the south of Ireland, a man named Butler, and people in Australia who come from the north of Ireland can also approach this representative. Time after time I have raised in this House the question of Australia's diplomatic representation in Ireland. The Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey)** has never given me a straight-out reason for the Government's failure to appoint a full representative to Ireland. Canada has sent a full representative to Ireland. This Government promised Archbishop Duhig of Brisbane to send a full representative to Ireland, but the only thing that came from that promise was that that reverend gentleman was knighted the other day. But that does not fulfil the promise that the Menzies Government made on that occasion, and for the life of me I cannot see why the Government will not send a diplomatic representative to Ireland. The Minister for External Affairs is abroad now, and the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies is about to go abroad. These two gentlemen dabble in all countries. They dabbled in the Suez affair and things like that. The Prime Minister visited de Gaulle and Adenauer, and intends to visit Soekarno. Surely a question like that which I have raised, which is on our very doorstep, should have some consideration. The people that I represent on this occasion tell me that in Fermanagh there are 30,000 nationalists on the roll and 24,000--** {: #subdebate-49-0-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable gentleman's time has expired. {:#subdebate-49-1} #### Friday, 20 November 1959 Question (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) put - >That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.) AYES: 45 NOES: 18 Majority . . . . 27 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.9 a.m. (Friday). {: .page-start } page 2985 {:#debate-50} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-50-0} #### Commonwealth Serum Laboratories {: #subdebate-50-0-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND z asked the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What type of research work is carried out by the research division of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in Melbourne? 1. Are consultant services at these laboratories available to State Departments of Agriculture? {: #subdebate-50-0-s1 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Research Division at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is engaged in a series of investigations aimed at producing new biological preparations for human or veterinary use. An example of this is a virus vaccine at present being developed to combat respiratory virus infections on a wider scale than at present possible. Another example is the development of the serum derivative plasminogen, for use in the treatment of blood clotting diseases. The division also undertakes a variety of tasks such as the preparation of special antisera for typing of organisms recently discovered, particularly viruses, and it also carries out field and laboratory tests for effectiveness of vaccines previously developed, such as the present polio vaccine and the proposed quadruple antigen. It is also engaged in a variety of other activities such as investigations with the -staphylococcus and its mode of action against the human subject, the leptospiral infections of animals and man, and venoms and antivenenes. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Consultant services are available and have -been drawn upon by State departments on various occasions, for example - {: type="i" start="i"} 0. In the field of animal nutrition, the laboratories have collaborated with the Victorian State Department of Agriculture in antibiotic feeding experiments, with poultry, at the Werribee Research Station, and with pigs at Rutherglen. 1. Technical advice was provided to the New South Wales Department of Agriculture recently, during the course of a survey of penicillin in milk. {: type="i" start="iii"} 0. More recently, advice and laboratory assistance have been provided to the Victorian Department of Agriculture in setting up preliminary trials to seek a means of controlling the level of penicillin in milk. 1. Veterinary advice is freely given by the veterinary consultants to State Departments with regard to immunization and animal health, involving the use of vaccines and antisera. {:#subdebate-50-1} #### Naval Stores Employees {: #subdebate-50-1-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister represent<ing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the payment of an allowance, usually referred to as " dirt money ", to naval stores employees engaged upon certain classes of work been discontinued? 1. If so, will the Minister state the date from which this allowance first commenced, the rate of payment, and why it has been discontinued? {: #subdebate-50-1-s1 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth:
LP -- The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Payment of allowances known as "dirt money " has not been discontinued. However a review of the work attracting such payment has been made. This review was carried out in consultation with the Trade Unions concerned. As a result " dirt money " will be paid in some cases where it was not previously paid, and in some cases where it was previously paid it will not now be paid. Overall it will be paid in fewer cases than previously. 1. Payment of " dirt money " has been made for many years and the rate was increased from 2id. an hour to 4d. an hour from 16th January, 1958. As stated above it has not been discontinued but modern methods of packaging and handling have led to a review of the cases in which the payment applied. Union Representatives in both Sydney and Melbourne have expressed themselves satisfied with the general principles of the method to be now adopted and with the specific cases at present involved. {:#subdebate-50-2} #### War Service Homes {: #subdebate-50-2-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On what date and for what period did the War Services Homes Division make its survey of interest? 1. What were the interest rates, and in how many cases was each rate charged? 2. What were the sources, and in how many cases was each source used? {: #subdebate-50-2-s1 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr Roberton:
CP -- The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers to the honorable member's questions: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The War Service Homes Division made a survey in June 1958 of interest rates charged on temporary finance. This survey covered applicants who were given approval to raise temporary finance during the month of April 1958. A further survey was made in October 1959 in respect of applicants who were given approval to raise temporary finance in July 1959. 1. Details of the interest rates being charged and the number of cases in each category as disclosed by these reviews, are as follows: - {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The review made in June 1958 disclosed the sources from which temporary finance was raised, to be as follows: - Details of the sources from which temporary finance was being obtained are not available in respect of the review made in October 1959. {:#subdebate-50-3} #### Interest Charges and National Debt Sinking Fund {: #subdebate-50-3-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Treasurer, upon notice - >What debt charges were paid by the Commonwealth and each State in 1938-39, 1948-49 and 1958-59? {: #subdebate-50-3-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - >Debt charges (interest and National Debt Sinking Fund contributions by the Commonwealth and the States) are shown in the following table. The interest component used for each State relates to interest liability, as figures for interestactually paid are not available. Calculations of interest liability are based on the debt outstanding at the commencement of each year, and include estimated figures for exchange on interest liability in respect of overseas debt. {:#subdebate-50-4} #### Commonwealth and States Finances {: #subdebate-50-4-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Treasurer, upon notice - >What amount of revenue and what percentage of its total revenue did South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, respectively, receive in 1938-39 and did each of the six States receive in 1948-49 and in 1958-59 from Commonwealth sources and from its own sources, apart from business undertakings? {: #subdebate-50-4-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - >So far as it is available, the information requested by the honorable member is set out in the following tables. As figures for 1958-59 comparable to those included in the tables for 1938-39 and 1948-49 are not yet available, figures for 1957-58 have been included in the second table: -

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 November 1959, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1959/19591119_reps_23_hor25/>.