Senate
20 May 1957

22nd Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 22nd Parliament
  3. 1957

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMuIIin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 831

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question relates to a matter which concerns both the Minister for Repatriation and the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Services. Is the Minister for Repatriation aware of the threadbare existence which is the lot of the recipients of burnt-out soldiers- pensions and invalid pensions who receive £8 a fortnight? Is he also aware that the wives of burnt-out soldiers have to eke out an existence on £3 lis. a fortnight, or 35s. 6d. a week, whilst the wife of an invalid pensioner receives only 35s. a week if under the age of 60 years? Will the Minister give consideration to allowing wives of burnt-out soldier pensioners and invalid pensioners,, when living with the pensioner, to be placed on the same basis for payments as an age pensioner when the pension is granted to the ex-soldier or invalid husband? Is the Minister aware that in the majority of cases wives of burnt-out soldiers and of invalid pensioners have to devote the whole of their time to the care of their pensioner husbands, and are thus unable to earn any money to supplement their meagre allowance? Will the Minister endeavour to have Cabinet give early attention to their plight?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I assume that when the honorable senator refers to burnt-out soldiers he has in mind service pensioners. If so, I point out that the amount payable to a service pensioner is subject to the same means test as applies to the age and invalid pension. The service pension was introduced in about 1923 or 1924 in order to compensate an ex-soldier in some degree for his service overseas. One aspect of the pension is that the ex-soldier is allowed to draw his pension at the age of 60 years, instead of 65 years as in the case of age pensioners generally. A female member of the forces is entitled-

Senator Cooke:

– My question related to the wives of burnt-out soldier pensioners.

Senator COOPER:

– A female who was a member of the forces may draw a pension at the age of 55 years, instead of at 60 years as in the case of other women. Some other benefits were granted to the wife and children of a service pensioner. They were given greater benefits than those granted to an invalid pensioner and his wife and children. I remind the honorable senator that, because of the generosity of this Government, a service pensioner is in a better position now than formerly. In 1948 ‘ legislation was introduced under which, in applying the means test for a social service pension, any amount he received as a war pension was taken into account. That was discontinued in 1955, and at the present time a war pensioner is on the same basis as a civilian pensioner who is in receipt of superannuation or other similar income; he is entitled to the service pension as well as the social service benefits. As the honorable senator knows, the question of increasing the pension is a matter of policy to be decided by the Government, and I have no doubt that it will be considered when the next budget, is being prepared.

page 831

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENTS IN AUSTRALIA

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National’ Development. In to-days Adelaide “Advertiser “, the noted London writer Trevor Smith states that Australia should attempt to get at the millions of pounds that are held in the United Kingdom by the great institutions, insurance companies, and elsewhere in private hands, and which are available for good investment. Will the Minister, consider whether there is any way in: which the Department of National Development or any other Commonwealth or State department can co-operate with private enterprise to attract this British capital into avenues of local investment? Does he consider that such an influx of capital could well point the way to lessening the burden of the annual taxation requirements of the Government?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have not seen the newspaper report to which the honorable senator refers, but the problem, which is one of attracting private investment to Australia from Great Britain and America, is constantly before the Government. It is; the view of the Government that the privateinvestment of overseas funds in industrial,- pastoral and other activities in Australia is one of the best methods of national development. That objective is constantly before the Government. I have not the figures in my mind, but I make the claim that we have been successful in attracting overseas investment to Australia, and we are certainly endeavouring to have the rate of investment increased.

page 832

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT AND SICKNESS BENEFITS

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service: Because unemployment is increasing, as is illustrated by to-day’s press reports that 1,001 more persons are jobless in Victoria, will the Minister have included in the next budget provision for an increase of the unemployment and sickness benefits? It is impossible for an unemployed person to exist on the present allowance?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have not seen the figures to which the honorable senator refers, but I do not subscribe to the view that there has been any drift in the position. As the honorable senator knows, the question of raising the benefits is a budgetary matter which, together with other matters, will be considered when the budget is being prepared.

page 832

QUESTION

CARPENTERS’ HAMMERS

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. By way of preface, may I say that the question is asked following representations made to me by officials of the Victorian branch of the Carpenters Union. Is the Minister aware that there is a shortage in Australia of the highest quality hammers essential for carpenters engaged in the building industry? Will the Minister take steps to enable these hammers, which have a steel handle fused Jo the head, to be imported from the United States of America, where they are made in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of the building trade?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the matter to which the honorable senator refers. I shall speak to the Minister for Trade and ask him to treat the honorable senator’s question as an official application and to see what he can do about the matter.

page 832

QUESTION

RAILWAY ROLLING-STOCK

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport: Is it a fact that last year a contract was made by the Commonwealth Government with a German firm for the supply of several railway carriages? If so, what was the cost of each carriage landed in Australia, plus any extras and modifications required after delivery? Is the Government aware that the tradesmen at the Commonwealth Railways workshops at Port Augusta are quite capable of building any type of carriage? Did the Government consider using its own men and facilities for the building of these carriages? If so, what was the estimated cost?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– It is a fact that during last year the Commonwealth Railways did let to a German firm a contract for the supply of a number of passenger rail coaches.

Senator Ashley:

– On Government advice?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Tenders were called in the usual way, and the contract was awarded after the usual close scrutiny. Naturally, I have not the precise figures in my mind, but I shall let the honorable senator have the information for which he has asked, together with any other relevant information. I am sure that he will agree, on examination, that the information supports the decision to let the contract to the firm to which it was let.

page 832

QUESTION

HOUSING IN TASMANIA

Senator COLE:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. What amount of money was made available to Tasmania under the Federal Housing Agreement?
  2. What amount of the grant was taken up by housing co-operatives within the State?
  3. What restrictions, if any, are there on the formation of housing co-operatives in Tasmania?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have obtained the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. The allocation to Tasmania for the purpose of the Housing Agreement, 1956, during the financial year 1956-57, is £2,000,000.
  2. Co-operative housing or building societies have not taken up any of the moneys available to Tasmania during 1956-57. In accordance with the terms of the Housing Agreement, a sum of £400,000 was available during this financial year for building societies or other approved institutions in Tasmania for the purpose of financing homes for private ownership. The building societies in Tasmania do not choose to rely on government moneys to finance their activities. Instead they preferred to continue to obtain funds from private sources.

The building societies did ask, however, whether the State Government would be prepared to guarantee the repayments of the societies to lending institutions with a view to encouraging those institutions to invest moneys in the societies. An arrangement was accordingly made with the State Government whereby the State agreed to legislate to enable the making of these guarantee arrangements, and the Commonwealth agreed to the available moneys in the Home Builders’ Account being distributed to approved institutions other than building societies. The Tasmanian Government passed the necessary legislation in the Building Societies (Guarantees) Act, 1956. In turn, the moneys available for private home ownership under the Housing Agreement during 1956-57 are being distributed to the Agricultural Bank and the Housing Department.

  1. I am not aware of any restriction on the formation of housing co-operatives in Tasmania. Such co-operatives are, of course, subject to State legislation in all States; in Tasmania the relevant act is, I understand, the Building Societies Act, 1876-1895.

page 833

QUESTION

CIVIL DEFENCE

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the British Minister for Defence stated in the House of Commons, in April of this year, that it was impossible to provide an effective defence against attack with hydrogen bombs?
  2. Is the same view held in Australia by those who control the School for Civil Defence at Mount Macedon?
  3. Will (he Minister make available to Senators copies of the British White Paper on Defence, which gives an outline of Britain’s future defence policy?
Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. The British Minister for Defence is reported to have made a statement to this effect when presenting the White Paper on Defence to Parliament in April. The intent of the Minister’s statement was made clear in the White Paper in the following words: - , “Though, in the event of war, the fighter aircraft of the Royal Air Force would unquestionably be able to take a heavy toll of enemy bombers, a proportion would inevitably get through. Even if.it were only , a dozen, they could, with megaton bombs, inflict wide spread destruction. This makes it more than ever clear that the overriding consideration in all military planning must be to prevent war rather than prepare for it “.

The implications of this statement with respect to civil defence were explained as follows in a subsequent paragraph of the White Paper: - “ While available resources should as far as possible be concentrated on building up an active deterrent power, it would be wrong not to take some precautions to minimize the effects of nuclear attack, should the deterrent fail to prevent war. Civil defence must accordingly play an essential part in the defence plan “.

  1. The School for Civil Defence at Mount Macedon is operated and controlled by the Commonwealth. The view of the Government is, broadly, in line with those quoted from the White Paper after allowing for obvious geographical and other differences between Australia and the United Kingdom.
  2. Copies are not available for the distribution suggested.

page 833

QUESTION

CANBERRA MEAT SUPPLY

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Has the Stores Supply and Tender Board provided facilities for the quality of the meat supplied to Government departments in Canberra to be checked constantly to ensure that the grades supplied and prices charged are in conformity with the contracts entered into by the departments?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following information in reply to the honorable senator: -

Contracts for meat supplies for government departments in Canberra are not arranged by the Commonwealth Stores Supply and Tender Board, but by the tender boards of the departments concerned. The contracts require the supply of best trade quality meat. Managers of establishments and departmental officers who make regular inspections regard the meat supplied as prime. Under the present contract, the meat is supplied from Goulburn, in New South Wales. All meat brought into Canberra from New South Wales must be to standards laid down by the Commonwealth Department of Health. >

page 833

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator ASHLEY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen a report in a Sydney newspaper, dated 26th April, 1957, which alleged that an officer of the Department of Social Services in Sydney called on a 72-year-old applicant for the age pension and told him to count out his cash savings?
  2. Is it a fact that, although the applicant for the pension ‘stated that he had saved about £200, the departmental investigation was of such a character as to cause the aged applicant to suffer shock and humiliation?
  3. If so, will the Minister state whether this is a common practice on the part of the department and take steps to see that this form of bureaucratic inquiry is discontinued in the future?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– My colleague, the Minister for Social Services, has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Yes.
  2. The law provides that the annual rate of an age pension shall be reduced by one pound for every complete £10 by which the property of the applicant exceeds £200. Where an applicant discloses that he has a substantial amount of cash in hand it is in his own interest to count out his money in the presence of an officer of the department. This enables the amount to be verified and ensures that the correct amount of pension is paid. The honorable senator may rest assured that the departmental officers responsible for investigations of this nature carry out their duties with tact and discretion.
  3. See answer to No. 2.

page 834

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What was the numerical strength of the Commonwealth Public Service in 1949, and what is its numerical strength to-day?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have been supplied with the following information: -

The total numbers of persons employed in the Commonwealth Public Service, under the terms of the Public Service Act, were as follows: -

page 834

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has the Treasurer considered the advisability of treating donations made by taxpayers towards the cost of providing amenities and facilities at State schools by school committees as allowable deductions for income tax purposes?
  2. If not, will the Treasurer give consideration to .the matter?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Requests for amendment of the income tax law to permit deductions for donations to school committees have been considered on a number of occasions in conjunction with comparable requests for the allowance of donations for educational, cultural and religious purposes generally. In view of the wide field of donations which such an allowance would involve, however, the Government has not been able to see its way clear to accede to these requests.
  2. The requests which have been made in this regard, including the representations of the honorable senator, will again be considered in connexion with the forthcoming budget.

page 834

QUESTION

ATOMIC RADIATION

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. Has the acting Minister for Health seen a published report that a German doctor claims to have successfully advised the Russians on how to treat blood diseases caused by atomic radiation?
  2. Has any research to this end been undertaken in Australia?
  3. Will the acting Minister have an investigation made of the German claim with a view to the use of the drug in Australia if the necessity arises?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– The following replies have been furnished: -

  1. Yes.
  2. Not to my knowledge.
  3. Action has already been taken to .obtain whatever information is available.

page 834

QUESTION

DANGER FROM X-RAY EXAMINATIONS

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen the article published in the Sydney “Daily Telegraph” of 13th May, in which Dr. Paul George, previously Director of Experimental Physics at Sydney University and now in charge of the Physics Department at St. Vincent’s Hospital, is alleged to have made some very sensational and frightening statements in regard to X-rays?
  2. Is it a fact, as allegedly stated by Dr. George, that British doctors, making a nation-wide survey of leukemia, reported last year that a diagnostic X-ray of pregnant women may predispose . the unborn child to a variety of complaints?
  3. Is it a fact that Dr. George is opposed to X-rays of the chest and X-rays of the teeth, and has publicly stated that he and his family take the same attitude towards such X-rays as they do the pedescope X-ray, viz., that “ they won’t be in it “?
  4. In view of the damaging nature of this statement, which in part cuts across accepted medical practice, and bearing in mind the Commonwealth’s commitment involving large sums of money annually under the Commonwealth-State T.B. agreement, which provides for a compulsory chest X-ray of every citizen, and in view of the prevailing practice of dental X-rays and pre-natal

X-rays, will the Minister consider the statement made .by Dr. George and provide the Senate with a considered report on the matter?

  1. Will the Minister also ask the British Medical Association to make a report on Dr. George’s views?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– The following replies have been furnished: -

  1. I have seen the article to which’ the honorable senator refers.
  2. J have not seen any report to this effect.
  3. Such is the statement attributed to Dr. George in the newspaper article to which you refer.
  4. The amount of radiation received by the organs of reproduction during a chest X-ray examination is negligible. The attention of the National Health and Medical Research Council has been directed to public statements suggesting that the exposure to radiation involved in mass X-ray surveys of the population might cause damage to hereditary elements and thereby adversely affect future generations. It has been shown that the amount of radiation received by the hereditary elements during X-ray of the chest and during radiological examinations generally is only a small fraction of that resulting from naturally occurring radiation. Regarding both present and future generations, therefore, the council is of the opinion that the risk associated with mass radiographic surveys is negligible. A copy of a conspectus of available reports prepared for the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives in August, 1956, will be made available to senators who desire it. It cannot be agreed that pre-natal X-rays are the “ prevailing practice “. It is however agreed that the X-ray dosage to the organs of reproduction should be kept to a minimum.
  5. It is proposed that the hazards of X-rays be subject to consideration by a committee on effects of ionizing radiation used for diagnostic and therapeutic radiology of the National Health and Medical Research Council, such a committee to consist of physicists, diagnostic and therapeutic radiologists.

page 835

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– As Chairman, I bring up and lay on the table of the Senate the twelfth report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee.

Ordered to be printed.

page 835

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– by leave.- I desire to announce to the Senate that during the absence abroad of the Minister for Defence (Sir Philip McBride) the Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production (Mr. Beale) will act as Minister for Defence.

page 835

QUESTION

DANGER FROM X-RAY EXAMINATIONS

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– by leave - During questions last week, I said that I would obtain from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission an expression of views on the hazards of using X-ray. I have obtained that statement, and, as it is comparatively short, I propose to read it to the Senate. The statement is as follows: -

The effect on the population of radiations such as the X-rays and gamma rays now used in various medical, dental, industrial and commercial processes is an extremely complex matter which cannot be disposed of in a short statement.

Two authoritative statements appeared in 1956, one issued by the National Academy of Sciences in America, and the other by the Medical Research Council in Great Britain, each report being the work of a large committee of expert doctors, geneticists and scientists, who were asked to examine the whole problem and report upon it.

The reports reach similar though not identical conclusions and should be studied in detail by those who are closely interested in this problem. The figures which follow are taken from the American report.

Man is exposed to three sources of radiation. The first is from natural sources, cosmic rays, the natural radioactivity of rocks and the earth, radon gas in the atmosphere and the natural radioactivity of the potassium in the body. Man evolved in this environment and it must be assumed that he is in no danger from this radiation. For the period of life, from conception to the age of 30, the average person receives from these natural causes about 4.3 units of radiation.

The second source of radiation is from X-rays used for medical and dental purposes, shoe machines and similar devices, from which the average civilized person to-day receives over the same 30 years about three units of radiation.

The third source, which is not relevant to this question is from the fall-out from weapons tests, from which the same average person receives about one-tenth unit of radiation.

It will thus be seen that the use of X-rays and similar devices has about doubled the amount of radiation received by the average citizen compared wilh what he would receive from natura] sources.

All radiation is probably harmful, but there is no reason to think that any major harm has been, or is being done by the medical and dental use of X-rays, and in many cases, such as the detection of tuberculosis or the treatment of cancer, the harm prevented by the use of X-rays may be far greater than that which the rays themselves may cause.

Nevertheless the increasing use of these radiations requires closer examination and control, and the medical profession is very much alive to this problem.

Unnecessary use of X-rays should be prevented. Shoe fitting machines come into this class. There is evidence which suggests that the exposure of pregnant women to X-rays may incline the child in later life to the disease leukaemia, and there is some uncertainty about the long-term genetic effects of all radiation.

The control of these matters is primarily a State responsibility, and Commonwealth officers have for some time been in consultation with State officers, and as a result most of the State governments have introduced, or are likely to introduce, legislation of a reasonably uniform pattern to provide for the control of all sources of radiation, X-ray machines, isotopes and similar substances. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Commonwealth X-ray and Radium Laboratory also watch the situation closely and keep in touch on behalf of the Commonwealth Government with the United Nations Radiation Committee which is organizing a worldwide survey of this matter. An Australian, the late Dr. Eddy was, until his death a short while ago, chairman of this important international committee, on which Australia is still represented.

An expert committee under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission has for some time been evaluating any possible hazards to uranium miners and advising the industry on the necessary safety precautions. The committee has drawn up a code of standards and safe working practice which has been adopted by the mining and health authorities in all the States and territories. Radiation biology research has, up to now, not been a major activity in Australia, but the Atomic Energy Commission has been engaged in discussions with several organizations, universities and research institutions, with a view to initiating more work of this type in Australia, and it is expected these efforts will succeed. The Commonwealth Government has recently announced the creation of the National Radiation Advisory Committee, which, while primarily concerned with radioactive fallout problems, will also watch the effects of other forms of radiation on the population, and advise the Prime Minister of any action, within the Commonwealth sphere, that may be required.

In summarizing, it may be said that the present intensive use of X-rays for medical, dental and other purposes has reached a stage where investigation is necessary. There seems no reason for any kind of ‘public or private alarm, but some legislative and administrative control is desirable, and steps to provide this are being taken.

page 836

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motions (by Senator McKenna) - by leave agreed to -

That Senator Devlin be granted leave of absence for one month, on account of ill health.

That Senator Fraser be granted leave of absence for one month, on account of ill health.

page 836

WHEAT RESEARCH BILL 1957

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is intended to institute expanded research into the scientific and economic problems of the wheat industry. The growers are providing their share of the money and the Commonwealth will add its share. The total amount will then be used for additional research. Wheat is the third industry whose representatives have agreed to a plan to finance research into industry problems. Similar arrangements, differing in detail to meet special circumstances in each case, exist for wool and tobacco. This legislation is a landmark in the history of the Australian wheat industry, because it opens the way to a concerted attack on industry problems by drawing on the skill and experience of specialist research workers in different fields. Second only to wool, wheat has provided the basis for Australia’s development. The Australian standard of living is founded in no small part on the economic health of this great industry. About onefifth of Australia’s farms grow wheat, and the value of the Australian crop in the last three years has ranged from £92,000,000 to £130,000,000.

In recent years, while maintaining its position as a major source of overseas income and of employment for Australians, the wheat industry has undergone significant changes in techniques of production. A whole range of scientific advances have found their application in the wheat industry, some based on the results of painstaking research under Australian conditions, others founded on advances in overseas countries which have had a role here in Australia. The work of Australian wheat-breeders has not been surpassed anywhere in the world. Sixty-one years ago, William Farrer started his wheat-breeding work at Lambrigg - not far from where we are now sitting. He pioneered new ideas in plant breeding and, in 1901, released his famous wheat called “ Federation “. Let me recall Professor Robert D. Watt’s comment: “ It is not often given to many men to alter the appearance of the whole landscape, as Farrer did with this variety of wheat, the dark brown heads of Federation ‘ replacing the pale golden colour of most of the varieties which it supplanted “.

Good as they were, few Farrer varieties are grown to-day, because they have been replaced by even better varieties, also bred in Australia. Men like Professor W. L. Waterhouse, who retired a few years ago from his work at Sydney University, have laid a foundation of new wheat varieties, and of trained men. Given the money, wheat-breeding can be expanded to produce new varieties suited to the special environments of our wheat-growing areas, fitting the requirements of our markets, and able to meet challenges from new diseases. The need to improve the quality of our wheat crop is being more widely recognized, and the spur to analysis of the problems involved in doing this can be provided by making more money available for research.

The basis of any successful research programme in the wheat industry must be the analysis of soil fertility problems and their relation to rotational and cultivation systems of various kinds. Associated with this are the studies of cereal chemistry designed to relate quality variations in the wheat grain to environmental factors and to different aspect of soil fertility. A good example of this is work in progress at the Wagga Agricultural Research Institute, in New South Wales, where new aspects regarding the quality of wheat starch are being investigated. Decentralized work of this kind, drawing on the special skill of different scientists, is the kind of work to which the funds from the proposed trust account can be devoted.

Recent experience in overseas markets indicates clearly that we have prospects of selling more wheat if we can produce a quality higher than our present f.a.q. There is little doubt that our market outlook would be greatly improved if we were producing more hard or medium-hard high-quality wheat. There are regions where more research is necessary into conditions under which quality improvements can be achieved without lowering yield. This will need field experiments and studies of rotational systems, including the economic aspects, fertilizing techniques and varietal trials and also fundamental plantbreeding activities. There is the additional need to increase our knowledge of quality in wheat as related to millers’ requirements in an age where baking techniques have changed and are still changing. Research into practical commercial techniques of testing wheat quality is also necessary.

Another phase of research of great importance in Australia is the problem of mechanization in the industry. We have a long history of pioneering and invention in this field. Ridley’s stripper and McKay’s combined harvester were early and remarkable examples of this work. An aspect of this research is development of machines better suited to cultivation operations under the wide range of soil types used for wheat-growing.

Many changes influencing production methods and the distribution of the wheat industry are under way in Australia. It is only by the establishment of a broadly based research programme that we can maintain our position in this fiercely competitive industry and ensure that Australia’s wheat-growers protect their competitive position against producers in overseas countries. We need to keep these changes under constant review, to assess their importance, and to be ready to use our research facilities so that they help the Australian wheat-growers.

While the emphasis has been on research into agronomic production problems, this alone would not constitute a well-rounded research programme for the industry. There is also a need for economic research into production and marketing problems, to provide more detailed information on the cost structure of the industry, the effects of changes in costs and prices on the incomes of wheat-growers, and the way in which new techniques of production founded on scientific research are introduced and how their acceptance can be encouraged. Analysis of the factors slowing up the adoption of technological change is also within the scope of economic research of this kind.

This bill is the outcome of negotiations that have been going on for some time. The wheat-growers’ organizations, the States and the Commonwealth, have all been concerned; and the proposals that have received the approval of all parties are now presented.

I should like to record my appreciation of the work done by the Australian Wheat Growers Federation which, as representatives of Australian wheat-growers, have endorsed the proposals submitted to introduce a tax on the wheat produced. The tax to be collected under the complementary tax bill, estimated to yield about £170,000 on a crop of 160,000,000 bushels, is to be paid into the trust account established under this bill. In addition, the Government has agreed to contribute substantially towards financing approved research programmes and these moneys will be received by that trust account. The Commonwealth contribution towards the costs incurred under approved programmes will be determined annually within a maximum of £1 for £1 against funds raised by way of the levy by the wheat industry itself.

The growers wish to have the disposal of the money they supply and there is to be a committee in each mainland State nominated by the State Minister for Agriculture. There will be a majority of grower members from the Australian Wheat Growers Federation on each of these committees, together with other members according to the varying needs of the different States. The State committees will allocate the tax funds to research. Wheat crops vary in size from State to State, and the effect of this provision is that each State committee will allocate the tax paid by growers in its own State. So, the State with the most wheat will have the most tax to allocate. That is the system that the growers want, and it is quite reasonable that they should control the funds that they supply.

There will also be a Wheat Industry Research Council. It will consist of representatives of the Department of Primary Industry, wheat-growers, the Departments of Agriculture, universities, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. The council will be a co-ordinating body, co-operating with the State committees, and avoiding duplication.

One of its important duties will be to> recommend the appropriate expenditure of the funds supplied by the Commonwealth. It will be seen that the additional work is to fit into the research scheme. Over the years, valuable work has been done by research workers in the universities, the State Departments of Agriculture, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. In the expanded programme that is made possible by this scheme, the existing research bodies will naturally find scope for additional work, and the money to carry it out.

The State committees can be expected to spend most of the money on research carried out by the institutions in their own State; but at times a State may benefit most by bearing part of the cost of research carried out in another State. Reciprocity of that kind will be possible under the act. It is obvious, too, that the Commonwealth council can do valuable work, because it will know what programmes are being carried out all over Australia. In consultation with the State committees, it will be possible to improve the efficiency of the scheme by passing on information about desirable lines of research in different places. The Commonwealth council will recommend the expenditure of the money supplied by the Commonwealth. Here there are obvious means of getting good results from the. scheme. The Commonwealth funds can be used as additional funds in a State where some project needs more money; they can be used to fill in gaps in State programmes; and they can be used for desirable research that for some reason is not being carried out elsewhere.

The ways in which research is to be carried out are not stated; they are left completely open for selection when the money is allocated for definite lines of research. In fact, there are research institutions in all States, and the amount already being spent year by year is much greater than the amount to be brought in by this plan. Nevertheless, the tax on growers, plus the Commonwealth appropriation, will add a substantial amount to the sum that is at present being spent for research into wheat problems. The point is that the money now provided will be spent on additional research that otherwise would not be carried out; but, obviously, the research bodies that have proved themselves over the years will not be supplanted. They will be given funds so that they can carry out the additional research.

The bill is the outcome of negotiations in the Australian Agricultural Council and with the organized wheat-growers. It gives expression to the wishes of the growers that research in their industry should continue and should increase; it gives expression to their conviction that the industry itself should supply funds for its own future benefit. It is one way in which growers express their appreciation of what wheat research has done for them in the past. They know that in wheat production they must keep fully in line with scientific developments here and overseas. Perhaps most of all, this plan expresses the determination of Australian wheat-growers to keep on producing wheat successfully in face of all the competition that the world can bring. I commend the- bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 839

WHEAT TAX BILL 1957

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Wheat Tax Bill is a bill to place a tax of a farthing a bushel on wheat delivered by growers to the Australian Wheat Board. With it goes the Wheat Research Bill, and that bill will provide that the tax receipts are to be used for research; and specifically for research that will benefit the wheat industry.

The wheat-growers, through their organization, the Australian Wheat Growers Federation, have endorsed proposals for a tax on the wheat they produce. Growers throughout Australia deliver their wheat to the Australian Wheat Board for marketing, and they are paid for it through the board. It is convenient therefore to tax the Wheat Board; and so to collect the total amount due in one sum, without troubling some 60,000 wheat-growers for individual payments of small amounts. The board will make an adjustment when it pays to growers the amounts received by the wheat pool concerned from the sale of the growers’ wheat. The growers then will get the normal pool return, less this tax. In practice, from the growers’ viewpoint, there will be a deduction from the first advance in each pool.

The tax is to be a farthing a bushel. The grower who delivers 3,000 bushels of wheat is often taken as a representative grower. On 3,000 bushels the tax will be £3 2s. 6d. Reckoning from crop deliveries, we have just under 120,000,000 bushels delivered in the present season. From that 1956-57 crop in No. 20 wheat pool the receipts will be nearly £125,000. In a normal season with deliveries of 160,000,000 bushels or a little more the tax will bring in about £170,000. This is roughly £1,000 income from every 1,000,000 bushels of wheat. Our wheat, crops vary so much that the amounts received must be expected to fluctuate greatly from year to year; but the figures given show that the wheat-growers will be making a notable addition to the funds for wheat research.

The tax is made retrospective so that it will include the 1956-57 wheat crop; and deliveries of that crop were completed some time ago. The growers’ organizations, and the Australian Agricultural Council, endorse the scheme. They want it to be brought into operation as soon as is practicable so that the funds for more research will be assured. In this case retrospective action is meeting the expressed wishes of the growers who will meet the tax.

One notable feature of the bill requires explanation. Voluntary contributions, made through the Wheat Board, for the purpose of wheat research are offset against the tax now imposed. The provision applies to donations made this season before the operation of the tax. This provision is te meet the position in Western Australia. That State has led the way with many notable innovations so far as wheat is concerned, and it has led the way with research.

In the West 80 per cent, of the wheatgrowers are making voluntary contributions of a farthing a bushel for research; and the money is deducted by the Wheat Board which pays it to the research institute. The contributions in Western Australia this year were £23,000. Naturally, no one wants to penalize these growers by making them pay double; and as that would be the effect of adding the tax to the voluntary payment, it has been agreed that the voluntary payment will, in effect, be treated as tax paid in advance.

A point worth mentioning is that the Western Australian figures show how much wheat-growers appreciate the need for wheat research. There 80 per cent of them are voluntary contributors of funds, and I think that shows how much the wheatgrowers there, and in other States, support the proposals. The proposals come as much from the wheat-growers as they do from all the Australian governments represented on the Australian Agricultural Council. This is a bill with a worthy object, and as such I commend it.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 840

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16th May (vide page 777), on motion by Senator Cooper -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– The bill under review deals substantially with the qualifications of members of the Legislative Council for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. I do not think it is possible for the Senate to review the qualifications of members of this council without making an excursion into their functions and individual responsibilities.

The council is comparatively new. The legislation which created it was introduced in 1949 and, if my memory serves me correctly, the council itself was established in either 1950 or 1951. It is similar in many respects to councils functioning in other Australian territories. It is rather interesting to learn that the council comprises 29 members, of whom seventeen are public servants. One is the Administrator. He and sixteen other public servants comprise the Government contingent on the council. With a representation of seventeen out of 29, the Government has taken adequate action to protect its own interests and to ensure that Government policy will be paramount at all times in the deliberations of the council. The other members comprising the council are three elected nonofficial members, three members representing the Christian missions operating in the Territory, three native members, and three other non-official members. It will be seen, therefore, that there are only three elected members of the council, and I am wondering why this legislation has been introduced to decide the competency of members of the council to carry out their functions in all circumstances.

One has to examine the act very closely to ascertain the precise functions of the council, but from just a brief examination of the act I have noticed that although the council may deal with various matters, its decisions on those matters have to be referred to the Commonwealth Government. Those matters are important and substantial, so I can appreciate the wisdom of the Government in framing the measure in the manner in which it is framed. The council can pass an ordinance dealing with divorce, but after the ordinary procedures of the council have been observed, the ordinance must be submitted to the Commonwealth Government for approval or otherwise. The council cannot dispose of land or make grants of government land. One can appreciate the wisdom of that provision also. Neither money nor land can be granted to the Administrator. I endorse the wisdom of that provision too. The council is not allowed to pass an ordinance dealing with Australia’s international obligations. I do not think that anybody in the Commonwealth would say that that provision was wrong in principle. The council cannot deal with naval, military or air force matters, the sale or disposal of lands by natives, or the employment of natives. There are two or three other matters of major importance in relation to which, although the council may pass ordinances, the Commonwealth Government decides whether the ordinances shall operate. So the council functions in a limited field. The legislation does not prescribe clearly what are its functions, and we must go through it thoroughly to discover them.

Although the council is not given absolute power in respect of major matters, it has very important duties to perform. The object of successive Commonwealth governments has been to administer the affairs of Papua and New Guinea in the interests of the native population. I believe that, at all times, the objective of the Legislative Council has been to improve the standard of living of the natives, to give them educational facilities and to ensure that the Territory is developed in such a way that food is available throughout the year for the native population. Quite recently,I mentioned in this chamber what had been done in the Territory for the health of the natives. That work is proceeding.

Any policy that the Government may adopt in respect of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea must be in accordance with the requirements of the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. In particular, Articles 11 and 12 of the United Nations Charter operate in connexion with the Government’s policy in the Territory. I have outlined briefly how the Legislative Council in Papua and New Guinea is to operate. Government policy must be observed and that policy must be shaped according to the requirements of the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. Notwithstanding the limited sphere of legislation that has been allotted to the Legislative Council, it has an important function to perform in connexion with the Commonwealth of Australia and the native population of the Territory.

The budget for 1956-57 shows that the vote for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea this year totalled £9,411,720 compared with £5,256,149 in 1952-53. It has risen by approximately £1,000,000 each year. It is interesting to break up the total vote so that honorable senators might understand how the expenditure is incurred. The figures are -

The men who form the Legislative Council are persons of experience who are capable of forming opinions as to what should be done in expending that money in the interests of the development of the Territory. Although the council cannot incur expenditure, or vote money towards expenditure, the discussions of the members of the council lead to the expenditure of money. When they are deliberating on the affairs of the Territory, they are able to point out how money could be spent to the best advantage.

I turn now to the qualifications of members of the council and the circumstances in which they can be disqualified on certain occasions. I have examined the bill, which deals specifically with these matters, and I am of the opinion that the Government has departed too far from the principles enunciated in the Commonwealth Constitution. Section 44 of the Constitution deals with the disqualification of members of this Parliament, and I believe that the Government could have allied this bill more closely with those provisions. As it has failed to do so, I propose to have something to say on those matters at the committee stage.

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales

– I do not propose to speak at length on the bill, which has a very circumscribed purpose relating to the qualifications of members of the Legislative Council of Papua and New Guinea. I had the honour of being a member of a parliamentary delegation which visited the Territory of Papua and New Guinea last year. We were privileged to see the Legislative Council at work and to see various local government authorities functioning. I believe it can be said that the Territory is moving towards a form of self-government in a satisfactory manner.

The existing legislation provides for all indigenous groups to be represented. I met some members of the native population who are members of the Legislative Council. They are men of some education, and I believe that two of them had magnificent war records. There is no doubt that, as time goes on, it will be necessary to widen the horizon of the legislative bodies in the Territory as they become educated to the functions they are required to fulfil, but the only question that one can discuss now is the- limitation of qualifications.

Practically everybody in the Territory - or at least, at the beginning, every European - has a definite interest, in the truest sense, in the Administration, because of the leasehold of land. The native population sells its land to the Europeans by way of long-term leases - not freehold - and it can be seen, therefore, that practically all those who live in the Territory are connected with the Administration by virtue of their ownership or tenancy of land. Therefore, according to the strict interpretation of the legislation, it is inevitable that some members of the Legislative Council and of local government authorities in such a territory must, at some period of their office, be disqualified persons. I wonder whether or not is it wise, in this bill, to pin the disqualification down as much as has been done. I did not realize this bill was to be debated this afternoon and I have not had a chance to verify this information, but from my experience of local government in New South Wales, I think I am right in saying that where a councillor or alderman finds himself confronted with a subject-matter on the businesspaper in which he may have some pecuniary interest in some form or other, he is at liberty to take part in the debate and the discussion but he is not entitled to vote, and would become subject to disqualification if he did. I am not certain whether the same position applies in Vic.toria. but before this debate concludes I may be able to verify the position. I do not want to trespass at this point on the committee stage of the bill, but it does seem to me that proposed sub-section (3.) which debars a councillor from not only voting on a subject - something with which I completely agrees - but also from taking part in the discussion, is going too far.

The position is that he may, above all people in the council, have something very worth while and real to contribute to the debate. In a place like the Territory where the franchise is narrow, his contribution may be the very essence of the whole discussion. He may have special knowledge which is not available to other members of the council, but because of the pecuniary interest he may have, which may only be a peppercorn interest and farcically small, the council is to be deprived of the value of his wisdom and knowledge. I am now looking at the matter from a normal point of view. Whilst I agree that these problems of disqualification have to be resolved - and in local government all over the Commonwealth the problem is probably coming up all the time - and whilst I concede that this bill follows the pattern of the Northern Territory act, I do not think it is altogether wise to make it as watertight as it apparently is.

Senator Wood, a past president of the Local Government Association of Australia, may approve or disapprove of what I am saying. I think he will probably agree that, generally speaking, in local government throughout Australia, an alderman is not debarred from making his contribution to a debate and bringing to the table his experience of a particular subject. He becomes subject to ouster or disqualification only if he casts a vote on the issue involved. I think that particularly in the Territory, which is just at the threshold of its development, where everybody, whether he likes it or not, is in some way connected with the Government by virtue of leasehold provisions, there would hardly ever be a situation where some councillor would not be connected in some way with the Administration. The way the bill is drawn at the moment, there is a tendency to deny to the Administration of the Territory in its formative years the benefit of the wealth of wisdom that a man may have accumulated.

Senator- Wood. - Is honorable senator referring to proposed new sub-section (3.)?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes, I think that is the provision. My only criticism is thatthe proposed new sub-section weighs the matter down too much. At this stage I am not being adamant, because- the Minister may have a point of view which is not apparent to me at the moment. However, from my experience in another sphere of government I think it would be better to allow a councillor to make his contribution in the debate and simply apply the principle that he must not vote.

As to the bill, I support it. Despite a certain amount of publicity that is being given to Papua and New Guinea at the present time I think that the term of trusteeship of the Australian Government and Australian people in the Territory is a success story. If one goes to the Territory, he is immediately impressed by the atmosphere of the place, which is one of energy and enterprise. If he talks to Australian officers there, he comes away with a feeling that they are all striving to do a job of work and are using all the natural characteristics of improvisation which we feel Australian character is prone to use. My personal impression, after a period in the Territory, is of the magnificent performance of the Australian officers up there. The Territory is the front door to Australia and is a land of opportunity for young Australians. If a young man wants to go out and make his place in the world, I could advise him of no better place than the Territory in which to stake his claim. That being so, the legislative side of the Territory should be placed in its proper perspective. It is right that we should give the indigenous population a form of local government.. That is being done at the present time, lt is right that we should have a legislative council which some day, in the fullness of time, will give these people an even wider sphere of self-government.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– I wish to say only a few words on this bill because after all it sets out only to validate what has already been in operation for many years. I should like to call the attention of the Government again - I have done it on numerous occasions - to the fact that the number of elected representatives in the Legislative Council is completely outweighed by the Government nominees, of which with the Administrator there are seventeen out of a total of 29. In the old days of New Guinea, the Legislative Council at Rabaul had eight governmentnominated members and eight elected members from private enterprise, the latter representing different businesses such as shipping interests and so forth. The Administrator had the deciding vote. To-day the elected representatives are completely outnumbered by the nominated members. 1 think that this bill is quite unnecessary because at no time could the private members muster a vote large enough to upset the vote of the Government nominees. 1 again call attention to the promise the Government made three years ago when it said it would look into the matter of increasing the number of elected members.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- 1 should like to support Senator Anderson in the remarks he made in connexion with proposed new sub-section (3.) in regard to a councillor’s right to debate and vote on a matter in which he may have an interest. My experience in local government, which was mentioned by Senator Anderson, leads me to believe that there is nothing wrong with a person being at the table when a debate in which he has an interest is taking place and from even taking part in that debate. The vital thing is the vote. The recognized procedure in local government, to my knowledge, is that in cases where a person has an interest, he leaves the table when the vote, is to be taken and does nol record his vote. I think that is the important thing.

The interest a person might have in the matter before the council can cover a very wide field.. If a councillor is a partner in a business, and if’ the council is discussing a matter in which that business is concerned, that is a very direct interest. But if a member of the Legislative Council had a few shares in a large company, that would not give him a very great interest in a matter concerning the company that was to be discussed by the council. That is an angle that might be. considered. If a person owned a few shares in a very big company which was tendering for a contract or was interested in a deal with the Administration in that area, I do not think his interest would be so great as to influence his decision in favour of the company. I ask the Minister to consider whether it would be advisable to delete the prohibition from entering into a discussion and to leave only the prohibition from voting.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I am interested in the contributions made by Government senators, seeking to break down the principle that the Government proposes to affirm by proposed new section 37 (3). If I understand them correctly, they believe that a. member of the Legislative Council will be debarred from participating in discussions or from voting if he has some contractual dealings with the Administration. I point out that the provision is not as wide as that. It refers only to a contract made by or on behalf of the Commonwealth under which goods or services are to be supplied to the Commonwealth or the Administration. It is purely a matter of supplying goods or rendering services. This is not an omnibus provision. It is provided that if a member of the council is interested, directly or indirectly, in a contract relating to either or both of those two matters, he shall not take part in the discussion and shall not vote. With that provision, I have no quarrel whatever. If I were a member of this body - which is, in effect, a toy legislature - and if I were interested in a contract pursuant to which somebody supplied goods or rendered individual services to the Administration, I should deem it to be a counsel of wisdom and prudence.

Senator Anderson:

– What would be your interest?

Senator McKENNA:

– I might be a member of a firm that is supplying foodstuffs to the Administration, or I might be providing a service. The prohibition arises only from a contract made by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, under which goods or services are being supplied to the Commonwealth or the Administration.

Senator Anderson:

– What about a lease?

Senator McKENNA:

– A member could be a lessee, but he would be debarred under the provision we are discussing now only if he were interested in a contract pursuant to which goods or services are supplied to the Administration. I deem it to be a counsel of wisdom and prudence that a person with a pecuniary interest in the subject-matter under discussion shall be debarred from discussing the matter or voting on it.

The suggestion has been made that he should be debarred from voting only. There are many grades of persuasiveness, and some individuals who are particularly glibtongued can be very persuasive. They might prefer, in fact, to be given an opportunity to exercise their persuasive powers in a discussion, rather than to have one vote. Their persuasiveness might be a very potent thing. I find myself, speaking from the Opposition side, resisting Government senators who are criticizing their Govern ment’s measure on this one point. I will part company with the Government later, but on this point I confess that I cannot agree with the thoughts that are in the minds of those honorable senators. I suggest that they have overlooked the fact that the prohibition that we are discussing relates to a case in which a member either supplies goods or services to the Commonwealth or the Administration, or has an interest in doing so. Surely this is a proper principle in such a case. I do not argue with it at all. I shall be joining presently with Senator Benn, if he needs any help, in a criticism of proposed new section 37 (4.) Quite frankly, I think that that is a matter that can be more appropriately considered in committee, although I have intervened at this stage in what is, in effect, a committee discussion of one point.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– in reply - I appreciate the manner in which this bill has been received by the Senate. I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has shown that proposed new sub-section 37 (3.) deals with specific cases, and that it is not a general provision. Some people who were interested in supplying goods or services to the Commonwealth could influence the outcome of debates on those subjects. I think that such people would be well advised not to take part in debates of that kind, because then there could be no suspicion that they had influenced the decisions. Section 37 of the principal act provides - (1.) A person shall not be qualified to be elected or appointed or to continue as a member of the Legislative Council if -

  1. he is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent;
  2. he has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory of or under the authority of the Commonwealth, by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
  3. he, in any way otherwise than as a member, and in common with other members, of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five members-

That covers a holder of shares.

Senator McKenna:

– But that provision is being deleted by clause 3 (c) of the measure before us.

Senator COOPER:

– That is so. That is how the matter stands at present. It has been suggested that we should develop a legislative council that will give a greater degree of self-government to the Territory. I can assure honorable senators that that is the view of the Government. Personally, I think that great progress has been made during what might be called the experimental stage of this council. After all, it has been in existence for only about six years, which is a relatively short period.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Disqualification for membership of, or voting in, the Council).

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- It is our responsibility to safeguard the interests of the people of the Commonwealth and the Territories, and I submit that an examination of proposed new subsections (3.) and (4.) discloses that they have been very loosely drafted.

A moment of two ago, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) read proposed new sub-section (3.), and I shall not read it again; but honorable senators will see that the sub-section refers to goods or services, while proposed sub-section (4.) provides -

All questions concerning the application of the last preceding sub-section shall be decided by the Legislative Council, and a contravention of that sub-section does not affect the validity of anything done by the Council.

I do not believe that we should have any loosely worded legislation relating to the supply of goods or services to the Commonwealth. The Australian Constitution is rigid in its provisions relating to that matter, and I do know that section 44 of that Constitution cannot be applied to the Legislative Council of Papua and New Guinea, because seventeen public servants are members of that body. If we applied that provision of the Constitution to the Legislative Council, those public servants would be disqualified immediately because, as public servants, they hold offices of profit under the Crown. I suggest that under proposed new sub-sections (3.) and (4.) we could provide an exception, and the wording could be similar to section 44 (5.) of the Australian Constitution, which reads, in part -

Any person who -

Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than 25 persons

Shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives.

In my opinion, that is a proper provision to apply to this Parliament, and I believe that it would be equally proper to apply it to the members of the Legislative Council of Papua and New Guinea, other than those public servants who represent the Australian Government on that body. My reason for making that statement is sound. I mention the sum we vote annually for expenditure in Papua and New Guinea. Last year, we made more than £9,000,000 available for services and so on there. That being so, it is our obligation and duty to see that this money is adequately safeguarded. If we agree to the loosely-worded provisions in this, we do not know what may happen in the future. We should be careful at all times to ensure that, where government contracts are concerned, we guard against any “ hokey-pokey “ business.

A moment ago I put a question to myself, and I now propose to submit it to the Minister. I hope he will take the opportunity to answer while we are discussing this proposed new sub-section (3.). Suppose an elected member of the Legislative Council of Papua and New Guinea, who supplies goods to the Commonwealth, does take part in a discussion of a matter in which he has a business interest. Whether he does so wittingly or unwittingly does not matter, for the purposes of my argument. Suppose action is taken against him and he is served with a complaint. That complaint would probably read something like this -

Mr. B, being a member of the Legislative Council of Papua and New Guinea, and a party to a contract under which he is to supply goods to the Commonwealth, committed a breach of section 37 of the Papua and New Guinea Act on the 20th day of May, 1957 by taking part in a discussion on a matter relating directly to the said contract by a meeting of the said Legislative Council.

Let us suppose that is the charge he has to answer before a court, and a magistrate is asked to consider it. Will the Minister say that under the provision as at present drafted, the magistrate will have jurisdiction to deal with that complaint? That is a simple question. The complaint which I have read is, I submit, the complaint which the Crown Law Office itself would prepare under this legislation. The two complaints could differ slightly in the matter of a few words, but the substance would be the same. I am submitting that under proposed new sub-section (3.) as at present worded, it would not be possible to take proceedings against such a person because proposed sub-section (4.) provides -

All questions- “ All “ is all-embracing - concerning the application of the last preceding sub-section shall be decided by the Legislative Council, and a contravention of that sub-section does not affect the validity of anything done by the council.

Therefore, if a person does commit a breach of proposed sub-section (3.), the matter goes to the Legislative Council for decision. I emphasize the importance of this legislation, because it is essential that the Legislative Council be free of all suspicion when we vote £9,000,000 annually for that body to allocate for expenditure upon services and other things in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. Its members should be disqualified from holding office if they intend to supply goods or services to the Commonwealth.

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales

– I bow to the superior legal knowledge and experience of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). When I spoke on this matter earlier, I founded my case on what I envisaged to be the problem of a leasehold, because everybody is affected by leasehold in the Territory. I have been assured by Senator McKenna that a contract under which goods are supplied is not a lease. I am not a lawyer, but I thought that a lease was a contract. As 1 am completely out of my depth on this matter, and in view of Senator McKenna’s assurance, I “ go quietly “ on it now.

Senator Gorton:

– The provision refers to goods supplied to the Commonwealth.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The Commonwealth is a party to every lease in the Territory. I felt that a lease was a contract, and in those circumstances the position would become difficult.

On the point raised by Senator Benn, in connexion with proposed new sub-section (4.), however, it does seem to me that he has answered his case in his own words. Clearly, we all have had the experience of men taking part in proceedings when their pecuniary interest in the matter under discussion has been so small that they have forgotten it even existed, and then finding themselves in the position of having voted on a matter in which they have some interest. I take it that this provision is designed to uphold a decision taken by the Legislative Council when one of its members, acting in good faith, has voted on a matter in which he has a pecuniary interest and has, therefore, technically committed a breach of the law which prohibits him voting in such cases. I do not see any difficulty about that. The only point about which I was concerned was the situation :in the Territory under which everybody is affected by Commonwealth leasehold. I interpreted “ contract “ as applying to leases, but, in view of the assurances given by the Minister and Senator McKenna that I am wrong, anything I have said in connexion with this provision falls .to the ground.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Last year identical legislation was passed for application to the Northern Territory, and it has worked satisfactorily since then. There is more leasehold land in Papua and New Guinea than there is in the Northern Territory. In the absence of some provision of this nature, members of the council would be in a difficult position if the law officers of the Crown took out a writ against them. A similar provision regarding persons having a direct pecuniary interest in any matter being considered is contained in the Constitution of the Commonwealth in section 44 (v).

This question of members of parliaments and similar bodies having a direct pecuniary interest in matters that come before them has been considered on many occasions. The courts of this country have had great difficulty in interpreting .such provisions and applying them to the varying situations that have arisen .from .time to time. If the courts have experienced that difficulty it is reasonable to conclude that laymen, or even members of the legal profession generally, would experience even greater difficulty in doing so. The honorable senator has not mentioned anything factual, but has merely indicated certain tilings that might happen. I cannot see that any argument has been presented -to justify an .amendment of the proposed new section.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– My main concern with clause 3 is in relation to the last words of proposed new sub-section (4.) “ a contravention of that -.sub-section does not affect the validity of anything done by the council “. I shall not -discuss that subsection now, but shall lead into it. My first comment is that this body, the Legislative Council, is in the nature of a purely tentative experiment in legislation. Its powers to legislate are severely limited under the act. There are various matters to Which the Administrator may assent, but all major decisions are reserved -for the assent of the Governor-General, which means the Governor-General acting -on the advice of the Executive Council in Australia. That is the first great qualification. The second qualification has already been mentioned, namely, that when an ordinance has been passed it must be tabled in this Parliament. That means that it .is capa’ble of being disallowed. By and large, .it can be seen that the new body has very limited powers. The third great qualification upon it is one that puts it in real contra-distinction to this Parliament. It is that members of the Legislative Council are not elected to any .degree. Out of 29 members only three are elected upon any kind of franchise; all the others are appointees. It is true that three of them will come from the ‘Christian .missions, the members of which will no doubt combine and submit a panel of names ‘from which the Administrator will select three. The Administrator will make the appointments.

An examination of the constitution of this body shows that it is designed to educate the local people and ito give them some representation of a preliminary ;and [tentative kind so that gradually they will be trained to undertake a scheme of democratic go vernment. It is not ;a .final or an authoritative :body as is this Parliament, in which every member must be elected. Under our own Constitution, . any -person who holds an .office of profit under the Crown - and, of course, that applies to any member of the Public -Service - is disqualified from becoming a member of this .Parliament. It would be absurd ito apply that rule to a body of the -character of the .Legislative Council of Papua and New Guinea where, for a start, the majority of members must be officers under -the Crown. Sixteen of them must be officers holding an office of profit under the Crown. Accordingly, there can be no [comparison between the two bodies. Certain complete prohibitions which apply to membership of this Parliament have never been applied in Papua and New Guinea. On -the contrary, it is specifically provided that a majority of members of the council must >be men who hold offices of profit under the Crown. That is a great distinction between this Parliament and the Legislative Council of Papua and New Guinea. -A section of our own Commonwealth Constitution is, at the minute, before this amending bill is passed, repeated in section 37-(l.)(c), of the Papua and New Guinea Act. It provides that a member is disqualified if he has any interest in a dealing with the council, except as a member of a company in which there are at least 26 members. He is completely disqualified from membership, and anything he does would accordingly be invalid and ineffective., That lis the present position. The Government has set out to rectify the existing state of affairs. As the Minister has pointed out, we had before us last year a similar measure relating to the Northern Territory. A flaw in that legislation escaped my notice at the time. I am sure that the Minister would be the last to argue that if the Opposition missed a flaw in a similar bill last year that would preclude either the Opposition or the Government from rectifying the matter at the first opportunity. The Minister would not be so illogical as to take such a stand. The Opposition sees in this measure something that it believes requires reconsideration.

I thought I understood Senator Anderson, speaking for himself and expressing also, 1 believe, the views of other senators, to express the opinion that if a man had an interest in a particular contract he should be allowed to discuss it, but not to vote upon it. I would oppose any such provision, but in a minor matter I would go so far as to say that, so long as he discloses his interest, he should be permitted to discuss it and may even be allowed to vote upon it provided the other councillors concur. In what may be described as a toy parliament of this nature, some such provision as that might be allowable. . I am objecting to a provision relating to a clear matter where a person who is there in a responsible and representative capacity has an interest in a major matter with which the council is dealing. He should not be permitted either to vote in relation to it, or even to discuss it. That is a principle with which I entirely agree. It is set out in proposed sub-section (3.). However, as I have said, I am concerned about proposed new sub-section (4.) which reads -

All questions concerning the application of the last preceding sub-section shall be decided by the Legislative Council, . . .

I do not find much in that to query, but I point out that one of two situations may arise: The question of a member’s interest may be decided before a vote is taken, or his interest may not be discovered until after the vote has taken place. A man might have an interest and disclose it, and so bring the matter to light. Then the council would consider -whether or not he had an interest and whether, accordingly, he may discuss or vote upon the particular matter. That situation would be clear and above board, and T have no objection to a majority of the council deciding that matter.

But let us suppose that a man, either through lack of memory or carelessness, or deliberately, refrained from placing before the council the fact that he had an interest in a contract that was being considered, that he discussed it, that he used his persuasive powers to have it approved and then voted: What he has done has been to vote in his own interest. Let us suppose, too, that the matter is later discovered. My objection to proposed sub-section (4.) is that, if a member of the council acts in that way, which is forbidden by proposed sub-section (3.), the vote stands good. That is the point at which I join issue.

Senator Anderson:

– If the council so decides?

Senator McKENNA:

– No, not necessarily. The words which worry me are -

  1. . and a contravention of that sub-section does not affect the validity of anything done by the Council.

I am referring to a case where a man has joined in the discussion and has voted, the motion has been carried, and it is later discovered that he has committed a breach of proposed sub-section (3.). Proposed sub-section (4.) asks us to affirm that the mere fact that he has breached proposed sub-section (3.) does not affect the validity of anything that is done by the council. I should think that the proper provision would be that, if it is discovered that such a breach has occurred, the vote in relation to the particular resolution ought to be disregarded and the resolution determined as though it has proceeded without his vote.

Senator Scott:

– The members of the council would know that that person was interested at the time the vote was taken.

Senator McKENNA:

– Not necessarily.

Senator Scott:

– In a place like New Guinea?

Senator McKENNA:

– Of course, I am not speaking with local knowledge. One would expect that the activities of members of the council would be generally known, but I am putting what is possible. A man may be indirectly interested, as a member of a company, in a particular transaction but the company might, entirely without his knowledge, enter into a contract. For him to discuss that contract or to vote upon it would be an offence against proposed subsection (3.). The company of which he is a member might sell a certain article to the Administration. He would have an indirect interest in the transaction but might not have any knowledge of it. He might not hold any executive office in the company but only be a shareholder, and the transaction could easily escape his notice. He could then easily discuss the contract and even vote upon it without his interest in it being discovered until later. By having discussed it or voted upon it he, innocently, has acted in contravention of proposed subsection (3.).

On the other hand, a person might act deliberately in breach of that provision, and his action be discovered later; but I repeat that proposed sub-section (4.) provides -

All questions concerning the application of the last preceding sub-section shall be decided by the Legislative Council, and a contravention of that sub-section does not affect the validity of anything done by the Council.

I should think that, if there has been a breach of proposed sub-section (3.), the council should disregard the vote.

Senator Gorton:

– Is there anything that prevents the council from reconsidering the matter?

Senator McKENNA:

– I think that the following express words do so - and a contravention of that subsection does not affect the validity of anything done by the Council.

Senator Gorton:

– But the proposed subsection does not prevent the council from reconsidering it. Surely it means that it is not automatically invalidated.

Senator McKENNA:

– I should think that the words apply to anything that has been done by the council in relation to the original motion pursuant to proposed subsection (3.). It renders possible the committing of a breach, whether innocently or deliberately, and the later discovery of that breach; but, although it is discovered, there is no need to recast the original vote. The Opposition feels that it should instantly be recorded, not that the man is disqualified from membership, but that his vote is to be disregarded in a review of the original resolution. That is the basis of our objection.

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I cannot find in the act any provision for a penalty or anything that would prevent a man from acting in that way. I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who is in charge of the bill, whether there is any such provision in the act or in the law generally. Proposed sub-section (3.) provides that a man shall not act in a certain way, but proposed subsection (4.) seems to take away any necessary consequence of that. I repeat that I should like to know whether there is any provision in the act or in the law generally for the imposition of a penalty- on a man who votes when he has a personal interest.

Senator McKenna:

– Yes, in section 37 (l.)(c).

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) whether the following words in proposed sub-section (4.) mean what 1 take them to mean: -

All questions concerning the application of the last preceding sub-section shall be decided by the Legislative Council . . .

I take them to mean that the Legislative Council, knowing that a certain member has an interest in a contract, can decide to allow him to contravene proposed subsection (3.). In other words, if a man has an indirect but very small interest in a contract and the council does not think that he should be disqualified from discussing it and voting upon it, can the council, despite proposed sub-section (3.), decide that he can discuss the matter and vote upon it? If that is so, I should like the Minister to say whether I am right in assuming that the latter part of proposed sub-section (4.) which reads - . . and a contravention of that subsection does not affect the validity of anything done by the Council- is merely necessarily included so that, should the council allow one of its members to contravene proposed sub-section (3.), its resolution is not automatically, invalidated by the contravention.

I, together with Senator McKenna, would like the Minister to explain whether proposed sub-section (4.) does not really mean that, if proposed sub-section (3.) is contravened, the council’s actions are not automatically invalidated, and that the council is not prevented from reconsidering what it has done when it discovers that one of its members has an interest in the transaction concerned.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Before the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) replies, I should like an opportunity to refer to the proposition that has been advanced by Senator Gorton. I should say that the only question that the Legislative Council is authorized to determine under proposed sub-section (4.) is whether a person is a party to, or has a direct interest in, the contract that is there specified. Once that matter is determined, there is no discretion in. favour of anybody; there is a prohibition on that particular member, once those facts are established, taking part in the discussion or voting upon the matter.

Senator Gorton:

– Why use the word “ application “?

Senator McKENNA:

– Proposed subsection (3.) provides that if a member has an interest, direct or indirect, he shall not vote or discuss. The sub-section comes into operation on a question as to whether he has or has not an interest and whether that interest is direct or indirect. They are the only matters that the council could consider, because proposed sub-section (3.) is mandatory. The prohibition must become effective once a member’s interest is established.. I would say that the only matter that proposed sub-section (4.) permits the council to consider is whether the member has an interest. There are three considerations. The first is: Is he a party to such a contract? Secondly, has he a direct interest in it? Thirdly, has he an indirect interest in it? They are the questions. The application of proposed sub-section (3.) follows automatically once any of those questions is answered in the affirmative. The words “ all questions concerning the application of the last preceding sub-section shall be decided by the Legislative Council “ must relate to one of those three questions.

When a man’s interest is disclosed, the council is not authorized to say, “ That is. only a very little interest. We shall overlook that “. If any amount of interest is disclosed, proposed sub-section (3.) is mandatory. The man may not talk and he may not vote. What would happen is that the man himself would mention the matter or somebody would query him on it. Hemight allege that he had no interest. The matter would be debated and the council, might say, “ We regard him as a person who has no interest in this particular matter, and therefore he may vote “.

Senator Gorton:

– If it were wrong, and somebody outside could later prove that the member did have an interest, what was done by the council would still stand. It would not be invalidated.

Senator McKENNA:

– No, the prohibition would still be there. The sub-section reads -

All questions concerning the. application of the last preceding sub-section shall be decided by the Legislative Council . . .

If it ended there, I should imagine that once the council decided, before the discussion or the vote took place, that a man could discuss or vote, that would dispose of the matter. If his right to speak were determined by the council, that would be the end of the matter. I am not concerned about a case where the council does not authorize before the vote, and the interest is discovered after the vote. I am concerned with the fact that the Government is proposing that a contravention of that proposed sub-section will not affect the validity of anything done by the council. In other words, I am pointing out that a member will get away with a breach of proposed sub-section (3.), whether the breach be innocent or deliberate, pursuant to the proposed sub-section (4.). He gets the advantage of the breach, when we include the words - and a contravention of that sub-section does not affect the validity of anything done by the Council.

I think proposed sub-section (4.) ought to provide that if the preceding sub-section has been contravened, the vote invalidly counted shall be disregarded in determining what has happened on the particular resolution.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Senator Gorton’s suggestion that the council may overlook a- very small interest is entirely wrong. Either the member has an interest, or he has not. There is no half-way house. It is quite clear that if he has an interest, he is out; if he has not, his vote is counted.

Senator Hannaford:

– That is left entirely to the council?

Senator COOPER:

– No. If it is shown that he has an interest, he is out. The council cannot say, “ This is not a substantial interest. We will allow him to discuss the matter and vote “. It is quite clear that if he has any interest, he is out.

Senator McKenna:

– He cannot discuss and he cannot vote.

Senator COOPER:

– No.

Senator McKenna:

– He is not out of the council.

Senator COOPER:

– No. In reply to Senator McKenna, the council has sixteen members who are government nominees.

The addition of the Administrator makes a total of seventeen government nominees. There are twelve other members, of whom three are elected and nine are appointed. Three of these are representatives of the missions. In all instances, the government members have a majority over the others. The government nominees would have the power to go thoroughly into the question whether a member was or was not interested. The matter has to get by that bloc.

Senator McKenna:

– But one of the seventeen might be involved.

Senator COOPER:

– I hardly think so.

Senator McKenna:

– The proposed subsection will apply to him.

Senator COOPER:

– Yes, it will apply to all, but we must look at the matter in the light that these men are to be regarded as honest until we find that they are not honest.

Senator Anderson:

– I do not think that the matter of honesty comes into it. The action might be taken quite innocently.

Senator COOPER:

– The proposed subsection is designed to cover cases where the action is taken innocently. If an ordinance is passed in all good faith and transmitted to the Governor-General, who approves of it, it then becomes the law of the Territory. The proposed provision is to be included so that the law of the Territory cannot be questioned at some later date, perhaps in one year, two years or more. Somebody might then say that such and such a member had no right to vote in regard to the ordinance. If this provision were not included, the ordinance could be challenged in the court. The proposed provision is to prevent any challenge to the law in a court. The ordinance will remain law until it is altered in the ordinary way. The proposed provision is designed really to uphold a decision of the council. The council would be in a predicament if, at some future date, an ordinance, were challenged in a court, some evidence were advanced of which the council knew nothing at the time the ordinance was passed, and it were held that the ordinance was not valid from the time that it was accepted by the Governor-General and became law. The council would have to alter various other laws which stemmed from the Man: ance that was ruled invalid. I am informed; by our own law department that this pro posed provision is designed to prevent such a happening. A law, once passed, will not be upset if somebody, finding that a member of the Legislative Council had an interest, challenges it through the courts.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.: - The explanation given by the Minister has cleared the air for the committee and has been very helpful. I appreciate his point, that a law, once promulgated, assented to either by the Administrator or the Governor-General, and not challenged in this Parliament, should be certain, and that everybody should be able to operate under it. But I point out to him that it would be most unlikely that a decision in the council would swing upon one vote. That is a proposition I think I could affirm.

Senator Gorton:

– It is possible, though.

Senator McKENNA:

– I agree, but it would be a very rare occurrence. It would be most improbable, in any situation such as we are considering, that only one man would cause the trouble, but I agree with the need for. certainty. Supposing it were discovered a year or two after the vote that one vote which should never have been cast had determined, the issue wrongly. Why, when the council discovers that matter or resolves as provided in proposed new sub-section (3.), should not that law cease to operate from the day the council has. so resolved? Why should somebody who . has got away with a breach be entitled, nevertheless, to have the advantage and benefit of his breach? Why should he not be cut off from that advantage the moment it is known?

Let us take the worst case involving only one vote. Let us suppose that the man concerned is associated with a particular contract. He should not vote on that matter, but he does so. Let us suppose that assent is given to the bill by the Administrator or by the Governor-General. A year later, when the man has obtained what profit there is to be made out of the contract, it is discovered that the contract; which is still continuing, should not have been ratified by the council because it should not have counted the man’s vote. Why should not that particular resolution be re-cast immediately?

I believe the Minister is in error in believing that the individual, in such a case, is’ disqualified and all other laws passed would: be vitiated or affected. That is not the case. What the present act does, according to the Minister, is to provide that if a man is interested in a contract and votes for it, he is disqualified. If that were the case, I could see virtue in the Minister’s argument. The Minister is saying, in effect, that no longer would the man be disqualified. All we ask is that a man who is interested in a contract should not vote. He is not disqualified from being a member. Therefore, the whole issue concentrates on the particular contract or service in which the man is interested. It is no wider than that.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– Why one man? There could be four men in collusion.

Senator McKENNA:

– I agree, and that would justify the proposition I have put that, at the earliest moment the council became aware of the matter, it should cut off a continuance of the benefit.

Senator Anderson:

– Would it not do that in any case?

Senator McKENNA:

– Why does the Government, in any event, want to provide that that sub-section should not affect the validity of anything done by the council? The man concerned is not disqualified from membership if he participates in such action. His subsequent actions in relation to other matters will be in order. Am I to understand that that proposition is controverted and the man is not disqualified? Let me clarify this matter for the committee. Section 37 of the Papua and New Guinea Act 1949-1950 states- (1.) A person shall not be qualified to be elected or appointed or to continue as a member of the Legislative Council if -

  1. he, in any way otherwise than as a member, and in common with other members, of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five members -

    1. is concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth or of the Territory; or
    2. participates, or claims to be entitled to participate, in the profit of any such contract or agreement or in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom.

The law as it stands provides that if a man is interested in a contract and is a member of the council, he is disqualified but that is to be repealed. No longer will he be disqualified. That provision has been taken out of the legislation as shown by clause 3. In its place it is provided that if a man has a contract for the supply of goods or services to the Government, he must not discuss or vote on a particular matter associated with that contract. It does not vitiate anything he may do in relation to other laws or transactions of the Territory. He is not to be disqualified and there is not to be a penalty upon him.

I believe the Minister carried his argument too far when he said that other laws flowing from the member concerned might be affected. I put the simple proposition that when the man is discovered to be in breach of the act he should not be allowed to get away with his breach. The moment he is discovered, the council should declare that if the resolution and contract depended on the man’s vote and it had been wrongly cast, it is, from that moment, undone. Surely that is a reasonable proposition, yet the Government has said that, notwithstanding the fact that the man has broken a prohibition against voting on or discussing any matter in which he is interested, the contract stands and the validity of nothing else is affected. That is the way I read the clause.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition has been putting forward an abstract case. The Legislative Council does not deal with actual contracts. It is in a position similar to that of this Parliament in that connexion. Contracts are let by the Contract Board. Admittedly, the council has to find the money to pay for the contract, but even if it were discovered in a year or six months that a particular individual had deliberately kept back from the council the knowledge that he was interested in a particular contract, the council itself would immediately pass another ordinance or could have the ordinance concerned cancelled. It could ask the Governor-General to have the ordinance discontinued, and, in its place, could pass another ordinance to fit the case.

It would be a very rare occurrence for just one vote to affect the situation, because I understand that the Administrator has a casting vote and can use it as he sees fit.

Under the terms of the bill the man concerned has no vote on such a matter, or he should not have one. He will be disqualified from exercising it.

Senator McKenna:

– In a particular matter of contracts?

Senator COOPER:

– In the particular matter in which he is interested. The contract is decided actually by the Contract Board just as is done in Canberra. I have contracts for goods and services valued at thousands of pounds sent to me. I have to rely upon officers of the Repatriation Department to advise me that the contracts are correct and necessary. Similar provisions would apply in Papua and New Guinea. I can quite see that if a Minister were interested in a particular company with which the Government was dealing, he would have to relinquish the interest he had in that company. The department has not rushed into this legislation, but has given to it a lot of thought. The AttorneyGeneral’s Department, which was consulted, thinks that the provision is a right one and is for the benefit of the Territory. It does not leave any loopholes whereby a person can use the Government for his own benefit.

Senator MCCALLUM:
New South Wales

– The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) did not reply to the point I raised, and I should like to make my point again. I will give the Minister an illustration. Some one referred to the disqualification of an honorable senator. There is a provision that if any honorable senator, being so disqualified, sits in the Senate, anybody may sue in a court of competent jurisdiction and obtain £100 a day, if the court so directs, for every day the senator continues to sit. I could not find in this act any penalty or deterrent whatever to prevent a councillor from sitting, and voting on a matter in which he has a personal interest. What I want to know is: Is there something in a previous law governing the Territory that provides such a deterrent?

Senator Cooper:

– There is only provision for disqualification; there is no provision for penalty.

Senator McCALLUM:

– It is not much good without a penalty.

Senator Cooper:

– I am afraid that is the position.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I take it that the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) has not suggested that a man who does vote in relation to a contract in which he is interested is disqualified from continued membership of the council. He stays there, and the one matter that could be queried would be his interest in a particular contract. If that were cancelled as at the date it is found out, automatically there would be no danger to the rest of the laws of the Territory because there would be no other laws stemming out of that particular contract. Why should not that operate?

Senator Cooper:

– The council is making laws. It is not making contracts.

Senator McKENNA:

– Let me read proposed new sub-section (3.) quietly -

A member of the Legislative Council who is a party to, or has a direct or indirect interest in, a contract made by or on behalf of the Common- , wealth under which goods or services are to be supplied to the Commonwealth or the Administration shall not take part in a discussion of a matter, or vote on a question, in the Council where the matter or question relates directly or indirectly to that contract.

We are talking solely about the one particular matter where there is a contract for goods or services to be supplied by the member directly or indirectly to the council. The prohibition is that he shall not vote in the matter. The proposed sub-section (4.) provides that if he does vote, it shall not affect the validity of the contract. My viewpoint is that at the moment the fact is discovered - if it has been suppressed when the vote took place - the vote should be undone by cancelling the man’s recorded vote, the result being determined then without it. The matter is within a very narrow compass.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Determination of questions respecting qualifications or vacancies).

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– The fact that a very short while ago similar legislation was passed in respect of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory is not a sufficient reason why the Senate should automatically pass this measure. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) pointed out that nothing of the nature that this bill seeks to prevent has occurred under the legislation in the Northern Territory or under the legislation at present operating in Papua and New Guinea. I pose this question to him: Does he know of anything unsavoury that has been going on? If he is unable to reply to that question, it means the legislation is being passed merely because something may come up in the future. Honorable senators have to be most punctilious about these things when they are considering them. We are not to pass abill of this nature haphazardly. I stress the fact again that the Commonwealth Parliament has voted £9,000,000 for the services of this Territory and, therefore, when it comes to a matter of deciding the qualifications of the members of the Legislative Council of that Territory, we have to be very careful.

Clause 4 deals with a proposal to amend section 38 of the Papua and New Guinea

Act. I shall read a portion of the proposed section so that honorable senators may understand its importance. It reads -

A question respecting the qualification of a member of the Legislative Council . . may be referred by resolution of the Council to the Supreme Court. . . .

There would need to be certain circumstances. If there is a question of the qualifications of a member of the Legislative Council, the council may determine the matter. If there were a doubt about the qualifications of a person sitting in this chamber, should it be left to the Senate to decide the issue? To my mind, this provision is quite wrong. It should be provided that an application can be made to a tribunal or some other authority. That is already proposed, in part, because proposed new section 38a (1.) provides -

A question respecting the qualification of a member of the Legislative Council . . . may be determined by the Council or may be referred . . to the Supreme Court . . .

Why not make it mandatory for the matter to be referred to the Supreme Court for decision? It would always be a matter of law, not a matter of fact, whether a person was qualified to take a seat in the Legislative Council. I should like the Minister to express his opinion on the matter.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I am very disquieted by this clause because it seems to me that the council has been given powers within a circumscribed ambit that would not be given to this Parliament or to any parliament. In the old days of the British House of Commons, disputed returns were decided by the House itself. Usually, they were decided on party lines, or, if there were not regularly organized parties, on factious or personal lines. The principal has grown up that in fully matured legislative bodies disputed returns and such matters are referred to outside bodies for decision. I cannot see any reason why that should not be done in this instance. Proposed new section 38a provides that the Legislative Council may refer such a matter to the Supreme Court. Why should not the measure provide that the matter shall be referred to the Supreme Court?

I have read this bill carefully and I think there is too much of a disposition to leave everything to the council. A person can do a. wrong thing and incur no penalty, as far as I can see. Everything goes ahead, as regards him personally, and the law generally, just as though he had not done anything wrong. I should like the Minister, if he can, to give the committee a satisfactory explanation. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will have another look at the matter. There is no need for this provision to be rushed through in the next five minutes.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- 1 should like to reinforce the remarks that have been made by Senator McCallum. It does seem to me to call for some sort of explanation as to just what sanction is applied or ought to be applied to a member who, in one way or another, contravenes any of the provisions of this legislation. Proposed new section 38a (1.) provides -

A question respecting the qualification of a member of the Legislative Council not being a question of a disputed election, or of a disputed return . . may be determined by the Council or may be referred by resolution of the Council to the Supreme Court

That leaves to the. council, in deciding the qualifications of respective members, complete power to do either one thing or the other thing. It is a contradiction of the clause that we have just dealt with, saying that all questions shall be decided by the Legislative Council. What are the criteria that the department has in mind as to how the council should make up its mind whether to deal with such a matter itself or to refer, it to the Supreme Court? What lines are laid down for the guidance of the council? What has the department in mind as to the tests that the council should apply in trying to decide whether it will deal with a. matter itself or refer it to the Supreme. Court? In either case, as Senator McCallum has said, apparently the council is not empowered to take any punitive action if it decides that the qualifications of a member are not sufficient but that member has nevertheless taken his place. What can the council do if it decides that an unqualified man has taken a seat on the. council?

Senator Anderson:

– He could have voted every day on various matters.

Senator GORTON:

– As Senator Anderson reminds me, an unqualified person could vote every day on various questions without fear of the consequences even though he knew that he was not qualified; to take his seat. If the matter goes to the Supreme Court to decide, what can the court say except that he was qualified or was not qualified? Has the Supreme Court any right to say that if a man takes up a position on the council, knowing that he is unqualified, either he himself is subject to certain penalties or the legislation in which he took part is invalid and must be reenacted? There do not seem to be any criteria. There is nothing said about what the council should look at in deciding whether it should judge such a matter itself or send, it to the Supreme Court. There seems to be no sanction to apply to a person who takes his place on the council, knowing he is not properly qualified, and votes on matters and perhaps persuades other people to vote in certain ways. I should be very glad if the Minister would answer some of the points that have been raised.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The council is authorized to determine questions affecting the qualifications of a member, but not questions of disputed elections or disputed returns. Why are those items exempted? Are they dealt with by ordinances made pursuant to section 39 of the act? I should be glad if the Minister would furnish the committee with information in that regard.

I agree with the remarks of Senator McCallum and Senator Gorton, who have expressed doubt as to the wisdom of giving the council itself the option of determining matters relating to qualifications or of referring them to the Supreme Court. What are the questions that the council has to consider? First, it has to consider whether a particular man is an officer. That involves questions of fact. Under section 37, it has to consider whether he is an undischarged bankrupt or is insolvent; whether he has been convicted of a offence that is punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer; and whether he has been absent from three consecutive .meetings of the council. That last question should be relatively easy to determine. Sub-section (2.) (b) provides that a person shall not be qualified to continue as a member of the Legislative Council if- except as authorized by Ordinance, he directly or indirectly takes’ or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered in the Council.

Has he been guilty of bribery and corruption? That is certainly not an issue that the council should determine. It is essentially a matter for determination by a court. I would agree that if a question arises regarding the qualifications of a member, it should go directly to the court; it should not be left in the hands of the council itself.

Sitting suspended from. 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– This provision merely follows the same procedure as is laid down for the House of Representatives and the Senate in Australia. It merely gives the Legislative Council the right to determine questions respecting qualifications or vacancies. The Australian Constitution provides that this Parliament shall be responsible for the conduct of its own members. Again, section 203 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act provides -

Any question respecting the qualification of a Senator or of a Member of the House of Representatives or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament may be referred by resolution to the Court of Disputed Returns by the House in which the question arises and the Court of Disputed Returns shall thereupon have jurisdiction to hear and determine the question .

Proposed new section 38a (1.) as outlined in this bill merely says that the Legislative Council may determine these questions or refer them to the court. It has the option. It may deal with them or refer them to the court. Proposed new section 38a (2.) has a somewhat similar provision. It provides as follows: -

When a question is referred to the Supreme Court under the last preceding sub-section, the Administrator, or, if the Administrator is not present at the meeting of the Council at which the reference is made, the member presiding at the meeting in his absence, shall transmit to the Supreme Court a statement of the question upon which the determination of the court is desired together with any proceedings, papers, reports or documents relating to the question in the possession of the Council.

I repeat that this merely follows the practice adopted not only in the parliamentary assemblies of Australia but elsewhere in the free world. By this bill, we are simply following the procedure adopted by this Parliament itself.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I appreciate what the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) has said, but I think he is wrong in seeking an analogy between this Parliament and what I might call the toy parliament of Papua and New Guinea.

Senator Cooper:

– It is only in its embryonic stage.

Senator McKENNA:

– I agree that it is, and that is why I suggest that the adult method that is provided in the statute should not be applied to the infant in question. The Minister has stated the position accurately. Section 47 of the Australian Constitution reads -

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act provides that the Parliament may, by resolution, refer the matter to the High Court, the Court of Disputed Returns. There is a nice legal argument there as to whether the Parliament, having done something about the matter itself, then has power to make any other provision. I do not want to embark upon that one, but it might be argued that the alternative is not open to this Parliament, that, having made a provision, that is the sole provision relating to the determination of an argument about the qualification of members in this chamber. I do not want to embark upon that argument because I think it is not proper to draw a comparison between a completely elected body like this Parliament and one that is almost wholly nominee, as in the case of the Legislative Council. I think it improper that a body which is largely nominee should be determining the question of the qualification of its own members.

Senator Vincent:

– Would not it depend on the inherent constitutional power of the respective legislatures?

Senator McKENNA:

– On that, I should say there is inherent power in a body that has a constitution in writing, like this Parliament. There are the express powers and there are certain implied powers, but the complete charter of the body in Papua and New Guinea rests upon an act which we are now amending. It would have no power whatsoever other than what is conferred by this statute.

Senator Vincent:

– I agree with that, but surely-

Senator McKENNA:

– I think there is no inherent power in the northern body.

Senator Vincent:

– Surely it is presumed from the power that is, by statute, given to it?

Senator McKENNA:

– No. Whatever power this council in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea has must be derived from the terms of the statute that created it.

Senator Vincent:

– Precisely.

Senator McKENNA:

– It could not be got from anywhere else. Therefore, it is not a question of inherent powers; it is a matter of explicit powers laid down in the act.

Senator Vincent:

– They can be explicit and inherent.

Senator McCallum:

– I think that is provided for by section 46 of the original act of 1949, which states -

The Legislative Council may make standing rules and orders in respect of the order and conduct of its business and proceedings.

Senator McKENNA:

– But that is not an inherent power; that is an express power conferred upon it. That goes back to my point that there may be no power in the Territories that is not conferred by statute, and this is the statute. I do not know quite what point Senator Vincent was making, but that is my commentary upon inherent powers in respect of the Legislative Council of Papua and New Guinea. Putting it simply to the Minister, I think a comparison between this Parliament and a toy parliament that is erected for the education of natives and people who are not accustomed to self-government is not a proper comparison. I do not like seeing a body so constituted having the power to determine a matter such as whether one of the members has been guilty of taking a bribe. After all, it comes down, on the terms of the statement, to the point that a man can be disqualified on the ground that he has taken a fee or an honorarium for service rendered in the council. That is a question of fact that might roam over a very wide field. I think it would be offensive to leave to a council so constituted the right to determine a matter of such importance to an individual. It goes very much farther than deter mining whether he is qualified to sit in the parliament; it goes to the very root of his character as an individual and a citizen. I refuse to accept the proposition that that type of thing is appropriate for a council so constituted.

Senator Vincent:

– Are not those powers given to every local authority in Australia?

Senator McKENNA:

– To try people for bribery and corruption? I can assure the honorable senator that they are not.

Senator Vincent:

– I think the honorable senator is wrong.

Senator McKENNA:

– No. I point out to the Minister that I am not putting a suppositious case to him in the matter if I refer him to paragraph 2 of section 37 of. the act of 1949. There are two paragraphs in that sub-section. For the moment I shall pass by paragraph (a) and draw attention to paragraph (b), which provides that a person shall not be qualified to continue as a member of the Legislative Council if -

  1. except as authorized by Ordinance, he directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered in the Council.

In other words, he is supposed to be acting independently in the interests of the administration of the Territory, whereas he is in fact serving the interests of a particular section or person outside the council. Under the principal act that is - a disqualification from membership of the council, and that is a serious matter, but what is even more important to him as an individual is that it impugns his honour. That is not a matter which should be left to a body composed as this one is. I thank the Minister for his comparison which, although interesting, is not convincing to the Opposition.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 858

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1957

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 858

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16th May (vide page 828), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), in his opening remarks, when moving the second reading of this bill, described it as being mainly administrative in character, and added that some of the amendments which it proposes were simply drafting improvements. Those honeyed words of the Minister led me to probe more deeply into the measurethan I otherwise should have done. The Public Service Act has been in operation formany years. I notice that this measure is the thirty-third amendment which various administrations have brought forward since 1922. The Minister’s statement that the measure is mainly administrative in character may be true, but administrative amendments can be very serious. I am afraid that, besides being cumbersome, the amendments contained in this bill are not designed to improve the relations that exist between officers of the Public Service. Indeed,I fear that the bill will make worse an unsatisfactory state of affairs which has existed in the Public Service for a considerable period. Let me say at the outset that I have no doubt that the Minister honestly believed what he said, and that the Public Service Board also believed in the advice it tendered to the Minister. I am saddened by the fact that the Public Service Board is not moving into the field of administration but is largely moving away from it by delegating some of its authority to the various departments. One of the benefits that flow from the existence of the Public Service Board is its completely impartial oversight of administration, employment, recruitment, salaries and all the other things that affect the good of the public servant or of the Public Service. Unfortunately, to a degree, that benefit is being lost because of the handing over of some of the board’s powers.

The Minister, in his second-reading speech, said -

If an officer or employee fails to observe these hours of business-

That is, the hours that are specified from time to time by the department or the board - no deduction can be made from his salary or wage. The action that may be taken in respect of such a breach of duty under the existing provisions comprises the dispensing of the employee’s services or the presenting of a charge under the disciplinary provisions of the act against an officer.

The Minister has failed to tell us why the existing provisions are not adequate.

The Senate will note that reference was made by the Minister to “ an officer or employee “. Under the terms of the Public Service Act, an officer, broadly speaking, is a permanent officer, whereas the term “ employee “ means temporary employee. When I read the bill, I thought the Government was aiming at bringing temporary officers under the special section of the act.

The Minister has failed to convince me thatthe amendments contained in the bill are necessary. Section 55 of the act, which is the disciplinary section at which most public servants shudder, contains four kinds of offences, and I ask honorable senators to point out to me in what way that section is inadequate to deal with late attendances and unauthorized absences of infrequent occurrence. I emphasize the words “ infrequent occurence “. The person who is envisaged in that phrase is not one who wilfully stays away from work or who deliberately comes late day after day. Section 55 (1.) reads -

An officer-

I notice that it does not include the word “ employee “, so evidently the board must have the power to deal with a temporary employee- - (other than an officer in the First or Second Division)-

That is, the “ top brass “ - who -

  1. wilfully disobeys or disregards any lawful order made or given by any person having authority to make or give the order;

I think any reasonable person would assume that that would not be a bad charge to pin on an officer who had committed the kind of offence that the Minister has envisaged in his speech, that is, an unauthorized absence for a quarter of an hour or half a day. If that provision did not fit the bill, we could move on to the succeeding provisions which read -

  1. is negligent or careless in the discharge of his duties; or
  2. is inefficient or incompetent through causes which appear to be within his own control; or

To make the square complete -

  1. commits any breach of the provision of this Act or any regulations thereunder; 1 fail to see how the Minister has convinced the Senate of the need to move past that point in dealing with absences of the kind to which I have referred.

Some of the proposed amendments are difficult to follow. For example, provision is made for the amendment of section 68 of the principal act, which deals with leave of absence and holidays, by deleting subsection (3.) which provides -

When the absence of an officer is not sanctioned, he shall forfeit his pay for each day of such absence.

The Minister has stated that there is no provision for an officer to forfeit pay for a temporary absence. I should have thought that a much more simple way to overcome the difficulty would have been to delete from section68:(3.) the word “ day “ and to insert in lieu thereof the word “ hour “ or the word “ period “. To do as the bill provides is to strike at a principle with which members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee have been concerned quite frequently during the last three or four years, that is, removing powers from principal acts and making them the subject ofregulations. We shall probably see more of it if this kind of legislation is introduced in the future.

It is also proposed that section 97, which deals rather specifically with what the board may do by way of regulation, shall be amended by inserting after paragraph (m) of sub-section (1.) the following paragraph: - (ma) forproviding for forfeiture of salary or pay of officers or employees in respect of periods of absence not authorized by or under this act or the regulations;

Let us examine the kind of absences that might arise. If the absence is for a day or more, the situation is already adequately covered in the act. If the unauthorized absence is for a shorter period of time, the provisions of section 55 are available. I think the Government is sacrificing a vital principle by making the power to deal with that situation the subject of a regulation. I feel that there has been a lack of knowledge on the part of the Government or of the board, because the Government seeks to perpetuate something that we ought to be trying to eliminate from the administration of the Public Service, that is, the handing over of this disciplinary power to a person down the line. The legislation, as amended, will mean that a person who comes late for the first time in his Public Service career will not have a charge levelled against him or be asked to explain his late arrival. All that will happen will be that he will be told, “ We are going to make a deduction from your pay “. That deduction will not amount to very much if he isto lose pay in respect of only ten minutes, a quarter of an hour, or even an hour; but we will be putting that officer or employee in such a position that he will not forgive the department for which he works, or his immediate superior, until the day that he leaves the Public Service. If he has given good service, he expects a little giveandtake. Way is to be made for the petty tyrant - the man who is not trained as a judicial officer and who is not prepared to levy charges against employees. He is to be given powers under regulations that can be altered from time to time, almost without the scrutiny of this Parliament. This will further damage Public Service morale, which is already deteriorating.

The Government has presented these amendments in a very cumbersome manner, although the Minister has said that they are designed to overcome cumbersome sections of the act. If something is to be removed from the act, surely the Government should include a provision to protect a person who, after years of service, suddenly commits the minor offence of returning late to work one day. It is all very well for persons to say that such things as I have mentioned do not happen. The fact is that they do happen. I have personal knowledge of their happening. Power is to be placed in the hands of people who should never have it.

The Clerk has already distributed, or will distribute, an amendment which I intend to move at the committee stage. It deals with clause 11 of the bill, in relation to fines. In the Public Service an officer has the power to impose a fine of Ss. for minor offences. That amount is to be increased to 10s. I suppose there is not a great deal to quarrel with in that respect. If an amount, of Ss. was fair enough when that provision was made, 10s. would be a reasonable amount to-day. The penalty for other offences is to be extended from £5 to £20. Broadly, there are three types of offences. The first is one for which the officer may be fined 10s. This is not to be recorded against him for more than two years. Particulars are kept in a book, not on the personal file. A fine of £2 is recorded on an officer’s personal card, and in relation to it he has no right of appeal. When an officer is fined more than £2, he may appeal and an ad hoc body is set up to examine his case. A case must be presented against him and he has a chance of defending himself. A fine in excess of £2, if it stands, is recorded permanently against him.

On a previous occasion in the Senate, we moved for the right of appeal to be granted in cases where the amount of the fine was less than £2. If the provisions were used in the spirit in which they were originally included in the act, probably there would be no quarrel with them. Theoretically, if a telegraph messenger did not oil his bicycle when he was told to do so, in order to show him that he was subject to discipline and that such disobedience was not regarded in the same way as disobeying his mother or father, he could be fined 3s. or 4s. That would be fair enough. Later on, if he committed a more serious offence, but not so serious as to warrant a fine in excess of £2, he could be fined an amount less than £2, and perhaps the circumstances would not warrant the right of appeal. But the moment he commits a more serious offence, he should have the rights that British people like to have - the right of having a case presented against him and the right of being faced by his accusers.

Unfortunately, in practice, the provisions do not work that way at all. Fixing anything more than £2 as the fine against which an appeal may be made serves to provide a coward’s castle for the person who is levying the charge. It is common knowledge to anybody who has worked in the Public Service for any length of time that the person who is to mete out the punishment says to himself, “ If I fine this man £3, I shall have to present a case against him. I shall have to say acrimonious things in front of other officers. I am not a trained advocate. I am not here to do this sort of work. I have a department to administer. I shall fine him only £2. Then I shall sit as the judge and I shall not have to present a charge against him and provide witnesses and he has no right of appeal “.

If only the fine of £2 were involved, there might not be any quarrel with that. But would any ‘ reasonable person sitting here to-night choose for appointment to a position a man who had been fined, perhaps, on five occasions, in preference to any one of a dozen other applicants with clean records? In those circumstances, the evidence in support of the charges and the cases in rebuttal would not be available, because no evidence was presented and the officer never had the chance to answer the charge. The effect is something more than merely fining him £2. An entry is made on his personal card, which stands out in red ink until the day he leaves the Public Service. Indeed, if one likes to dig back in the records, one will find that it stands there forever. The penalty may be not £2, but thousands of pounds by the time he retires. A month or two months after being fined he might be an applicant for appointment to a position for which the salary is £300 a year more, but he remains at his present level. Two years later, had it not been for the fine, he might have obtained a promotion which was worth £500 a year to him. Because of cowardice on the part of his superior officer in not presenting a case against him on which he could lodge an appeal, the officer might be damned for the whole of his Public Service career.

The Public Service organizations have opposed for years the secret report and the pencilled note on the file which officers are never allowed to see. These notes are permanently on a card which is referred to at every point of the officer’s career. Too great a power is being put into the hands of persons who are not trained to use it. They are not trained to make judicial decisions. Human nature is such that some persons are petty enough to take advantage of such provisions when they get their knives into others.

I sincerely hope that the Minister will not say merely that this is a flight of fancy. It is not. If he has a talk with any of his advisers he will learn that it is the type of thing that happens time and time again. If he has any doubts about it, I invite him to look through Public Service records and see how many fines of £2 are recorded. If he digs into the history of some of these cases, he will see that some of the officers should have been charged with more serious offences and given the opportunity to defend themselves.

From both sides we have heard statements that the proposed amendments are just to tidy up one or two things in the Public Service Act. Maybe this has been said with all the goodwill in the world. But if this action is taken it will further damage the morale of the Public Service. The objectives could have been achieved much more simply. Even at this verylate stage, the Minister should examine the criticisms that have been made and will be made here. The very points which I have made were raised in another place.

I have referred to late attendance. At this stage some protection should be given to those persons who will devote the whole of their lives to the Public Service. Temporary officers could be covered merely by the inclusion of two words. Absences of less than a day could be dealt with by the use of the word “ period “ or “hour” in place of “day”. The proposed amendments are cumbersome. From an administrative point of view, they will not improve the functioning or working conditions of the Public Service. Even now, the Government should seek more conferences with its officers and withdraw the bill to have it re-drafted in the way that I have suggested.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I rise to take part in this debate for several reasons. The first is that it covers an important bill. Any measure that is connected with the Public Service is important. First, I want to refer to the main portion of Senator Willesee’s speech and to the theme of the Labour Opposition to the amending legislation introduced in 1954. I want to explain frankly my views on the provision that there should be no appeal in the Public Service against fines imposed of less than £2.

I have read the report of the debate that took place in another place in 1954, and I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in this chamber propose an amendment designed to provide for the right of appeal against all fines. It is most amazing to me that I and my colleagues on this side of the chamber have not been approached or been given any information about any dissatisfaction in the Public Service regarding these provisions in the Public Service Act. I wanted to be informed upon this matter before I voted for the bill in 1954 because I thought it was of great importance. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who was in charge of the debate, refused the plea by the Leader of the Opposition to postpone the debate and the Leader of the Opposition pressed his amendment, which was rejected.

I felt that I could not agree with the Minister’s action and I supported the Labour amendment. That is shown clearly in the “ Hansard “ report of’ the Senate debate on the 28th October, 1954; at page 1119. I stated then -

I think that the Senate would be acting correctly if it suggested that- this matter be delayed; so that all honorable senators- could have an opportunity to consider it. fully.

I pointed out that my purpose was to enable me to consider the amendment. Three years have elapsed. No questions have been asked on this matter and no approach was made by any organization until the bill we are now discussing came before another place.. Then I received a telegram from the secretary of the Tas, manian branch of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association asking me to continue or renew my efforts to secure the right of appeal.

Naturally, I concluded that the officers concerned were not satisfied, so I took a great deal of trouble: - as I should have done - to find out the facts of the case. 1 did so because no case had been put. to me in spite of my plea three years earlier, and I had not been approached by any non-party organization. Therefore, I have made approaches myself to associations, departmental heads and members of the Public Service Board.

The Joint Council established under the act, which consists of fourteen members - seven departmental members elected by the Public Service Board and seven staff officers elected by the public servants - has considered this matter. In April, 1954, the Joint Council removed the subject from its agenda and requested the Public Service Board to give the matter further consideration if the board thought fit to make approaches to the Government. That gives me reason for saying that the members of the council were not very keen to press this matter any further. They were content to let it be dealt with through normal channels. The High Council of Public Service Organizations has also made some approaches on this matter.

I believe the proposal was brought forward again at the November- meeting of the Joint Council, but apparently the same outlook was adopted because’ the members of the council could not reach a unanimous decision. They could not agree to put forward a specific request.. There are many officers in. all ranks of the Public. Service who are not so< keen for this amendment to go- through. It appears that the Public Service Board does not agree with the suggested amendments, and neither does the Cabinet.

The. Opposition sees a chance to continue sniping at the Government about it. What I regret is that, in its sniping at the Government, it is guilty, in my opinion, of trying to. arouse, suspicion in the minds of junior employees against senior officers of the. Public Service. The senior officers who have the right, to fine employees up to £2 without right of appeal are depicted by the. Labour party, before the public and junior public servants; as some sort of Australian Hitters who are vindictive and unfair. What arrant nonsense it is to suggest that an officer in the Australian Public Service should’ have judicial experience before He is vested’ with the right to fine a man £2, and be fair in so doing! The reply to those- who would still press this amendment dealing with petty misdemeanours is surely that we want justice, but not red tape and. delays.

My second point is that the Public Service: Board which delegates the power to those officers who are allowed to enforce the punishments under discussion, has a wide choice of honest Australian public servants. In appointing them, it knows their character, ability and interest. Surely to goodness we have never failed in human nature, and in the Australian way of giving a. fellow a. fair go!

In another place, an honorable member cited an example to support his case. I shall cite it in opposition to the case he. put forward. The Opposition member spoke of a Customs and Excise officer who told a carrier who had been annoying him for some time to get out from behind the counter where he should not have been. The story goes that the carrier objected to being told to get out and the officer “ clocked “ him. He was reported by the carrier and’, he appeared before his boss. The: story is that the boss did not think the man should be fined, but felt that he should.’ be: punished. If he had fined the man under £2, he knew the man would have no right of appeal. It was stated in support of this amendment that the officer said, in effect, “ I will fine this man £3, he will appeal and be let off. He will then be happy.” Does that not show the Opposition that this senior public servant was not biased but was carrying out his duty in a proper way? it is interesting to note that the laws of the various States also limit the right of appeal in some cases. I do not believe that the case put forward by the Opposition is soundly based. Senator Willesee implied that a man could be fined again and again to the limit of £2 without right of appeal. The senior officers concerned who mete out punishment have to submit a monthly report. Surely, that is a safeguard against vindictive action. Surely the fellow himself, if he thinks he is being got at by some supposedly vindictive senior officer, can write to the Public Service Board and say, “Will you have a look at the monthly report and see how I am being got at in comparison with others “. I believe there are sufficient safeguards and that there has not been sufficient expression of a desire for the Opposition’s amendment. No uniform thought exists within the Public Service with respect to it and therefore this Parliament would be wrong to support the Opposition’s proposed amendment at the present time. When I make that statement, I do not mean that for ever and a day there should be no appeal, but we in this Parliament need to know more of the facts, for and against, from within the Public Service itself. We must not forget we are dealing with an act of parliament that deals with the control of over 108,000 men and women in Australia.

Other honorable senators who are better versed in law than I am will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that in civil law there is no appeal against such a fine unless it is on a point of law. In regard to section 55, in fairness to the officers who have to administer it, I believe that what are minor and what are major offences should be stipulated and not left to the discretion of a person. It would be fairer to the one exercising the discipline and to the person who, for the time being, is being disciplined.

Another point occurs to me. I wonder whether the legal senators can tell us a little more about it. As a result of the Boilermakers case I understand, as a layman, it is laid down that the body exercising executive power conferred by the Constitution cannot at the same time exercise judicial power conferred by the Constitution. Will that decision affect the clauses that we are debating in this bill?

As a result of my discussions with employees, senior officers, fellow members of Parliament - and particularly the honorable member for Bruce (Mr. Snedden) in another place who in a short time in this Parliament appears to have studied this act most thoroughly - I desire to commend the Parliamentary draftsman for enumerating the divisions of the new act far more clearly than they were enumerated in the original act. In the original act, they were just specified as divisions A, B, and C, but in the new legislation they are so set out that one quickly sees that Division 1 covers sections 23 to 26, and the sections are enumerated in brackets. That is a great assistance to one studying an act like this, which contains some 97 sections and covers 83 pages. It is interesting to note that between section 81 and section 82, there are 33 sections from 81a to 81zL. I believe an attempt should be made by the officers concerned to try to tidy up this act a little more. It is important that it should be clarified.

I finally make a special appeal to the Government. This is the first opportunity I have had to do so since I returned from America. During that visit, I had the opportunity of seeing how our public servants worked abroad, and the conditions under which they worked, and of discovering some of the rights and amenities that should be given to them. I tell not the tale of one person; I tell only of things I have gathered by questioning, and from studying and finding out what other countries do in respect of the same type of persons overseas. In America the costliest thing other than pleasure is illness. The Australian abroad, particularly a public servant with a family, cannot afford to be ill. If he, his wife, or his children suffer ill health while they are abroad he is in great danger of bankruptcy. He may have a lot of money at home, but that money is not in dollars and the cost of medical services is terrific when judged on the standard of pay received by public servants abroad. In our medical benefits scheme I think we should adopt a new approach in relation to these people. The Government should provide a certain percentage of the cost of medicine, hospitalization and doctors.

The United Kingdom Government, I understand, meets all the costs of these services. Of course, it has a free health scheme, with which I do not agree. However, I think Australia should go some of the way. The New Zealand Government, which has a more sensible approach to this matter, similar to our own, provides, I understand, two-thirds of the costs of these things for its public servants. I ask the Government most sincerely to study this matter. I believe, knowing that America suffers from inflation more than Australia does, we must pay attention to the requirements of our public servants overseas.

There is also the matter of rent allowance. I do not suppose one Australian public servant in America can obtain a home or an apartment and pay the rent out of the allowance he receives from the Government. His allowance for rent should be based on the cost he has to meet. I believe also that the allowance paid for each child should be based on the everincreasing costs in America. Then again, a public servant is frequently transferred from one overseas country to another. He may be shifted from a tropical climate to the winter of New York, or from the winter of New York to the summer of some other country. Special provision in the way of an extra clothing allowance should be immediately made available to him so that he can buy the new wardrobe which he must have. He cannot obtain it in any other way. He cannot write home for it. In the case of an officer who, with his family, is transferred overseas for a three or four years’ posting there should be a provision whereby a loan, within a specified limit, is made to enable him to buy his furniture, a refrigerator and, if necessary, a motor car. He cannot take that money with him in dollars and on his own salary he would have to wait until half-way through his term of service, or even longer, before he could save up to pay for these things unless he is prepared to get into the hands of the American money lenders or hire-purchase people. All of us know that hire-purchase people, once they get a per son in, charge him terrific interest rates. These loans should be provided by the Australian Government, the repayments being automatically deducted from the salary of the officer on the same basis as superannuation, &c. We are a leading country and we should not expect our public servants - I am speaking in respect of America only - to have to act almost like paupers abroad because we do not give them due consideration.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I shall detain the Senate for only a few minutes on this bill. Like others, I have been impressed by the fact that there appears to be no serious opposition to it from the Public Service organizations, which are usually very watchful where the interests of their members are concerned. I noticed that when we had a Public Service bill before the Parliament some months ago, all parties appeared to be lobbied and the views of the organizations were placed before them.

Believing that when we are considering a bill of this nature, the views of the employees should be given consideration, I contacted a gentleman of some eminence in Public Service association affairs, who informed me that there is no serious opposition, as far as he can see, ‘in the Public Service organizations to the general principles of this bill. He told me that certain sections of employees will probably be better off, because it would be better for them to be dealt with by fine than in other ways. For that reason, generally speaking, I approve the principles contained in the bill, except in one respect. I shall certainly vote for any amendment which would give an employee who is dealt with by fine the right of appeal. I appreciate the eloquent arguments that have been advanced by Senator Marriott, who has put us in debt to him for the careful consideration he has given this matter, and I realize, as he does, that when the Public Service Board selects men for high positions, or for reasonably high positions, in the Public Service, it selects them on the basis of character, ability and fairness. But whilst we look for even higher qualities than those in our judges, we still grant people a right of appeal from their decisions. I have been a public servant and I know that most of those who occupy positions of eminence in the Public Service are men of high character, but I know also that occasionally we get a rigid bureaucrat. Because it does happen that, at times, public servants in inferior positions are dealt with unfairly by the, fortunately, very rare rigid bureaucrat, I will support any amendment designed to give a right of appeal to a public servant who is fined for any offence of the kind referred to in the bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I, too, shall be very brief. I rise particularly to comment upon two of the aspects touched on by Senator Marriott. I understood the honorable Senator to say, as I entered the chamber, that he had a sense of grievance against the public service bodies which, in the intervening three years, had not communicated with him on this matter. That is a matter between the honorable senator and the organizations concerned, but I hope he will not allow that sense of grievance to influence his judgment on whether there should be a complete right of appeal.

The second matter to which he referred was the suggestion that the amendment would cast a slur on the many worthy permanent heads and chief officers in the service. I want to assure him that” that is the last thought in the mind of the Opposition. Most of us have had experience of senior officers of the service and we know their worth, their character and their fairmindedness. But our proposal that there shall be an appeal from’ their decisions is no different, in effect, from a parliament making a law against crime - be it murder or a crime of lesser degree. The mere fact that a law exists in the community proscribing murder does not mean that everybody is looked upon as a murderer. The proscription is for the rare cases.

As Senator McManus has just indicated this, too, is for the rare cases. The cases will be quite rare because there are sanctions to discourage frivolous appeals. A person making a frivolous appeal may be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings, and on appeal the penalty may be increased or reduced. I think the Government and the board are wrong in principle. The position is that in the case of a minor offence for which a man is fined up to 5s. by somebody other than the chief officer, he has a right of appeal to the chief officer. If he is fined from 5s. Id. to £2, there is no appeal. Can anybody see the justice of permitting an appeal if he moves into the next category and is fined £2 0s. Id.? Is there any principle of justice in that? I think Senator Marriott approached this subject objectively, but I ask the Senate: On what principle of justice or fair play can a line be drawn between an appeal and no appeal when a penny can make all the difference? On what principle can that be justified?

The honorable senator referred to the Joint Council as a body that did not agree on this reform. I think I heard him indicate the composition of the council. There are six persons nominated by the departmental heads, at the request of the Public Service Board, together with the board’s representative. That makes seven. There are also seven representatives from the organizations. The Joint Council is an employeremployee body, evenly divided. It would be the rarest thing in the world if it got complete unanimity.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– They are all employees of the Government.

Senator McKENNA:

– That may be, but they are acting for entirely different interests and they are appointed for entirely different purposes. It is, in effect, just an employer-employee organization. But I impress upon the Senate that the Public Service organizations have lost none of their zest. I have received telegrams from the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and from the secretary of the High Council of Public Service Organizations, urging that the Opposition persevere with the case it put up on this question of appeals in the latter part of 1954. It is regrettable that we were given by the Minister who was at the table then an assurance that the matter would be considered by the Joint Council the following month. I am not blaming the Minister. That, no doubt, was what he understood. However, I kept pressing the matter in correspondence with the Prime Minister and I was informed a few months later, in response to very persistent inquiries -

It appears the information conveyed to you by the Minister during the debate in the Senate on 28th October is not strictly accurate. The advice that the Minister intended to give was that the question of the right of appeal against all disciplinary decisions had been-

Not “ would be “ - discussed, by the Joint Council of Public Service Organizations.

I do not attribute bad faith to the Minister. While he was at the table he probably either misheard what was said to him or was misinformed. It is one or the other. But I was greatly disappointed at having dropped the fight on that occasion on receipt of an assurance that was not carried out. The fact that the assurance was based on a misunderstanding does not alter the fact that it was inaccurate and led the Opposition off the trail at that time.

I think that the Government would be well advised, when we reach this matter in the committee, to meet the Opposition on it. I expect support from those on the Government side for a proposition which clearly provides for the rare case of injustice. That is all that is asked. There need be no fear of a multiplicity of appeals, for the two reasons I have given - fear of an increase of the penalty and fear of being obliged to pay the whole of the costs of the appeal.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I have one or two short comments to offer on the question of whether there should be the right of appeal. The argument advanced by Senator Willesee was that no matter how small the penalty imposed, a conviction for an offence goes on record. That of course is the highest level at which the argument to justify a right of appeal can. be based. But we are inclined when we look at the Principal Act and see the rather small maximum penalty that may be imposed - £5 - and then the level at which an appeal does not lie - £2 - to regard the whole matter anyhow as rather unimportant because of the comparatively small sums of money which are involved. The submission I am making is that if the maximum fine that can be imposed by a chief officer was £100, then the limit to which an appeal would not lie would be two-fifths of that, or £40. I suggest that no honorable senator would consider that justice had been done to any officer who was fined almost £40 and denied his right of appeal. In other words, the relationship between £40 and £100 is exactly the same proportion as that between £2 and £5, smaller though these other sums are. The point is that a person may be fined two-fifths of the maximum penalty - £2 out of £5, or just under it - and have no right of appeal, but no honorable senator would consider that justice was being done if, the same proportion being observed, a man was fined £40 where the maximum able to be imposed was £100, and if at the same time he was deprived of his right of appeal. So I submit that in our consideration of this matter, one aspect that should receive the attention of the Minister for National Development is the point that the smallness of the maximum penalty that might be imposed by way of fine tends to reduce in our minds the importance or significance of the matter.

The second point is that the amount beyond which an appeal lies - £2 - might again distract our minds from the fact that it is two-fifths of the maximum penalty that may be imposed, low and all as that maximum may be.

Then again, a fortiori, there is the argument suggested by Senator Willesee that in any case it is not the penalty, it is the conviction of an offence, the recording of an offence, which goes on his file. There may be a series of them, cumulative in effect, although not in money, which may gravely prejudice, in the ultimate, his Public Service career.

The other point I wish to make relates to clause 7 of the bill, the proposed amendment to section 26 dealing with the definition of the powers of the chief officer. I shall be pleased if the Minister, when he is replying, either in committee or to the second-reading debate, would be good enough to indicate to me just what is the purpose of the amendment. I raise the question because a case did occur in Queensland some time ago where the chief officer of a department, by the nature of the activities of his department, could come into possession of information relating tohis own officers and could use information given him under an altogether different act, and for a different purpose, to discipline those officers as members of the Public Service.

I think counsel’s opinion was taken on the point as to which of the two statutes would prevail, and it was suggested that the statute under which the department was particularly functioning, requiring recognition of the greatest confidence, would prevail over the Public Service Act. In view of that, I am somewhat concerned as to whether there is in this proposed amendment some re-definition of the powers of chief officers that might have the effect which counsel said was not operating between the two statutes in that case; in other words, whether a chief officer, under the new definition, might be able to use information coming to him in the course of the acts he was administering to discipline officers who were within his control under the Public Service Act.

If the case sounds a bit confused because I put it this way, it is because I do not want to mention the name of the department concerned. I think the Minister will understand. It would have been much simpler to explain if I mentioned the department, but I prefer not to do so. I should be pleased if the Minister would be good enough to indicate whether there is any extension of the powers of chief officers that might have the effect which I fear.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Definitions).

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP

– This clause contains a new definition of “ Chief Officer “ and I can see nothing in the instructions given to me which bears on the point that was raised by Senator Byrne. On the instructions that are given to me, the definition of “ Chief Officer “ which is to be contained in section 7 is restricted. Under it a chief officer of a department is empowered to exercise and perform powers, authorities and duties in relation to an officer or employee of that department within the part of the Commonwealth in which that officer or employee is employed. The new definition does not contain the geographical limitation, nor does it restrict his jurisdiction to an officer occupying an office in his department, or a temporary employee engaged by his department. It is designed to ensure that the provisions of the act shall apply to officers who are serving overseas as well as to officers serving within Australia.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– It is really an extension of the power of chief officers over a wider field of personnel, but not an extension of the ambit of their powers?

Senator SPOONER:

– That is so.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Delegation by Board).

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I wonder whether the Minister can explain this amendment. I note that the original act provides, under the heading “ Delegation by Board,” that the board may, by writing under the hand of each member of the board, do certain things, and it. proceeds then to deal with the delegation of powers. I notice that the words “ under the hand of each member of the board “ are omitted and I am wondering what significance attaches to that omission. I do not understand why they are omitted or how their omission strengthens the act. Frankly, I am one of those who believe that we do not want a board of people trying to administer departments. I think that at some point the responsibility must be fixed, that some person has to make the decision. Being a. believer in the unicameral system of government, I suppose that I am only being consistent, but I am wondering what point there is in having a board of three. Until now, the Government has insisted that the instrument be signed by the three members of the board. What is the point in altering it at this stage, and in what way does it expedite the work of the department?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– Under the present section, delegation cannot be made to an officer outside the Commonwealth or its territories. It has been found necessary and expedient for the board to delegate certain of its powers or functions to officers in overseas posts. That is the substance of the proposed amendment.

Senator Willesee:

– Is not that contained in the original act? Where is the original act lacking?

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– May the instrument of delegation now be signed by only one member of the board, or must it be signed by all members?

Senator SPOONER:

– The present section prescribes that the delegation shall be made in writing under the hand of each member of the board. Section 11 (8a.) of the principal act provided -

Any two members of the Board shall form a quorum, and, subject to the next succeeding subsection, shall have all the powers and authority conferred upon the Board by this act.

The succeeding sub-section referred to by the honorable senator deals with the procedure that is followed when two members differ in opinion on any matter. Section 16 is inconsistent with section 11 (8a) in that it requires a delegation under the hand of each member of the board. It is desirable and thought sufficient that two members of the board should be able to delegate the board’s power, subject, of course, to the provisions of section 11 where they are applicable. The new sub-section requires the delegation to be in writing, but it is not mandatory to have a delegation signed by all members of the board. Proposed new sub-section 2 preserves a delegation made by the board and in force immediately before the commencement of the new subsection.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– At present there is one provision requiring three members of the board to sign a delegation, and another which authorizes two members of the board to form a quorum. Now we come to the position where any one member may sign. Would it not be mandatory for the chairman, or, in his absence, the next senior member of the board, to sign the delegated power?

Senator Spooner:

– The delegation must be in writing and be signed by each member of the board.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– If only two members of the board are present the determination shall be postponed until a full meeting of the board.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Creation, Ac., of offices).

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I am interested in the proposed amendment of section 29 which deals with the reclassification of positions, and now extends the act to single positions of a special kind which the board desires to reclassify. If the amendment is agreed to, it will authorize the board merely to declare that such a position does not become vacant, and that the person occupying it shall move up in classification. Generally, when positions are reclassified the positions are declared vacant, and the officers holding them must re-apply for them. The act already contains a special provision that, in certain cases, re-application in such circumstances can. be dispensed with. This clause deals with such positions. Where there is one person occupying a special position the board will have the power to declare that the position has not been rendered vacant by reason of its reclassification. I am concerned about the effect of this provision on the morale of the Public Service.

Section 47 of the Public Service Act gives power to the board to appoint a person from outside the Public Service to a particular job, provided that it certifies that there is no competent person in the Public Service available to fill the position. Appointments under that section have always been the cause of dissatisfaction amongst permanent officers of the Public Service. That is readily understandable. I am concerned at the possibility of injustice being done to permanent officers under this provision. For instance, a person from outside the service may be appointed under section 47 to a low-paid job, but under the radical powers conferred by this provision, the board may reclassify the position without declaring the position vacant, in which event other officers in the department would have no opportunity to apply for it, and would have no right of appeal. I mention in this connexion that there is provision for a right of appeal in the act, but if this bill becomes law, the right of appeal will, in some instances, be denied to permanent officers of the Public Service. It could mean that a person appointed from outside the Public Service would, within a few months of his appointment, receive a substantial increase merely by his position being reclassified, whilst permanent officers of the department who had served in it for many years would be denied the right not only to apply for the job, but also to appeal against the action taken.

Senator SPOONER (New South Wales - Minister for National Development) handed to me in connexion with a bill such as this strengthens my belief in private enterprise. However, the substance of the notes before me is that there are a number of individual offices in departments which are the only one of their particular designation and classification in the service. Where the board alters the classification of one of those offices, section 29 (3.) of the principal act applies, and the position is deemed to be vacant. The vacant position can be filled by the transfer of another officer or by the promotion of an officer. The Attorney-General’s Department has advised the board that the provisions of subsection (4.) cannot apply where the board alters the classification of an office with a singular designation and classification. That is where we start. This position requires the board to seek special legislation in certain circumstances. The amendment made by this clause enables the board to alter the classification of such an office, and to direct, as provided for in section 29 (4.), that sub-section (3.) shall not apply. That means that the office shall not be deemed to be vacant. The new provision, however, can be utilized only when the alteration in the classification of an office of singular designation and classification is related to an alteration in respect of which a notice is, or has been, published under sub-section (4.). The board will not have the power to dispense with the provisions of subsection (3.) where it is not related to an alteration of other offices. The board’s intention in any event is only to use the subsection where there has been a general review of salaries, or of a class of offices related to a singular office.

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that a singular office could not be altered on its own, but would have to be a part of a general reclassification of a department. Is it possible for him to do so?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

, - In a technical matter of this kind I am not prepared to give the assurance asked for. All I can do at the moment is to repeat that the board’s intention, in any event, is only to use the sub-section where there has been a general review of salaries, or of the salaries of a class of offices related to a singular office. In my innocence, I place on that statement supplied to me by the board the same interpretation as Senator Willesee does.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Minister’s statement gives me some assurance, but, after all, he refers only to the stated intention of the board. There is nothing mandatory about it. Although I do not press the point, I suggest that the Minister give my remarks relating to section 47, under which appointments from outside the service can be made, his earnest consideration. It is a serious matter to permanent officers of the Public Service. Persons enter the Public Service not so much because they are fortune-hunters as because they are attracted by the permanency of their employment. If however, all chances of promotion are cut off because persons from outside the service are brought in over their heads, their expectations cannot be realized, and they resent what is done. As I said earlier, there have already been 33 amendments of the act since 1922, so that another amendment is not unlikely. In the event of it being deemed desirable to bring in further amendments, I suggest that this matter be given very careful consideration.

I should like to see a time limit fixed. If a person was appointed to a department just a short time before there was a general re-classification, the right of appeal would be lost to other officers, and they would feel aggrieved. My remarks have been directed towards strengthening the morale of such people and to letting them feel that they are having what Australians call a fair go. I shall not press the matter any further. I merely suggest that at some future time the Minister might look at the matter.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 -

Section fifty-five of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words “ Five shillings “ and inserting in their stead the words “ Ten shillings “; and

by omitting from sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (d) of sub-section (3.) the words “ Five pounds “ and inserting in their stead the words “ Twenty pounds “.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– This clause seeks to amend section 55 of the act by providing for an increase of the amount of the fines from 5s. to 10s. and from £5 to £20. I move -

That clause 11 be amended by inserting at the end of the clause the following paragraph: - “ (c) by omitting from paragraph (d) of subsection (3.) the words ‘ if the punishment so imposed or recommended by the Chief Officer be other than a fine not exceeding two pounds or if, in the case of an officer who has been deprived of his salary during suspension, the amount of the fine imposed, together with the amount of salary of which he has been deprived exceeds Two pounds,’.”.

That amendment, which seems to be complicated, merely seeks to take from the existing act words which allow for what I suppose is the most controversial point of this bill.

I do not blame people for becoming somewhat confused when they start to deal with this question. Senator Marriott made an honest effort to inform his mind on it, but he did not quote very strong evidence in support of his argument. The Australian Postal Workers Union, which is by far the largest union involved in the Public Service, is not a member of the High Council. The members of that union have suffered mostly from the effects of section 55. The fourth division officers, who are the lower paid officers, are members of that union. That union principally is concerned with shift workers. Their conditions of work make it much easier to commit an offence which might result in the laying of a charge under section 55. That group of people includes mechanics and linemen who are out in the bush on their own and who are not subject to direct supervision. There is no shadow of doubt in the minds of members of the Australian Postal Workers Union about what they want. A typist or a clerk who works a regular shift from 9 a.m. till 5 p.m. and who works with a crowd of people where absences are noticed is not so interested in this section.

It might be said that there is not a lot of agitation about the application of this section. The number of officers who have come up against this section would be -infinitesimal, but people who have acted as advocates for or advisers to officers who have been charged under it are aware of its iniquitous effect.

I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that have been advanced to-night, but I should like to refer to one other point that was raised by Senator Marriott. People are inclined to think that because the amount of the fine is only £2, the misdemeanour is only a small one. On the contrary, it might be a very serious misdemeanour and one in relation to which, if the accusing officer confronted the person charged with the evidence, the fine would be in excess of £2. Senator Marriott eventually got to the point, because at the end of his remarks he said that he would be in favour of prescribing what should be regarded as major misdemeanours and what should be regarded as minor misdemeanours. If that were done, the accusing officer would be pinned down. That is the very thing that we want done. If the accusing officer were pinned down to saying that the charge fell within the category of major misdemeanours, the person accused would have a right of appeal.

I regret that the proposal submitted by the Opposition is not receiving greater support. Senator McKenna has asked the Government what it has against the proposal. An examination of the reports that are forwarded to the Public Service Board from all over Australia will disclose that these cases do not occur every day. Il would not be necessary to set up a special body of people to handle them. A person who was guilty would not appeal, because he would be confronted by the fact that the board might increase the fine. Although it was not I who advised the persons concerned to appeal, I have known of cases in which the fine has been raised. Appeals will be lodged only by persons who feel that they have suffered from an injustice. If the proposal I have advanced is agreed to as a safety valve, and if persons who feel they have suffered from an injustice are allowed to get the matter off their chests, they will be much happier and much more contented than if they are stood over and arbitrarily fined £2. I am reminded of the Mikado who said, “ Decision first, evidence later “.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– The matter that has been raised by Senator Willesee is the main item in dispute. That dispute between the Government and the Opposition is of very long standing; the Opposition has been pressing for such an amendment for four or five years. When I say that the Government regrets that it is not willing to accept the amendment, I do so against a background of much consideration by the Public Service Board, discussions between the board and the Government, and the recommendations of the board to the Government.

I very much doubt whether I can reproduce all the arguments that have influenced the Government in its final decision. It is difficult to recollect at short notice all the points that have been raised over a long period of years. One of the principles involved is whether persons in positions of authority should have some area of discretion in which their decisions shall not be subject to appeal and to review so that the machinery of administration shall not become clogged. The position now is that the chief officer can delegate to one of his under officers power to deal with very minor indiscretions, and the person charged may appeal to the chief officer.

Then there is the other circumstance, in which the chief officer inflicts a penalty in excess of £2. His decision is subject to appeal. I do not see anything illogical in that. Authority over a great volume of trivial transactions is passed to the chief officer, but the Opposition says that according to all the ideals of justice there should be an opportunity to appeal against every decision.

To sum up, this is one of those cases in which a very good theoretical argument may be advanced in favour of appeals, but in practice I do not see anything wrong with vesting those disciplinary powers in the chief officer. After all, as I understand it, chief officers are the permanent heads of departments. It is said, of course, that a man may be victimized by being fined over and over, again.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– The chief officer would not be the permanent head. He would be the local head.

Senator SPOONER:

– The two terms, “ chief officer “ and “ permanent head “, are not interchangeable, but an appreciable number of permanent heads are chief officers.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– A great number of them would not be. Take the decentralized departments, such as the Department of Works and the Taxation Branch in Queensland.

Senator SPOONER:

– The honorable senator is saying that the majority of chief officers are not permanent heads?

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Yes.

Senator SPOONER:

– But am I not correct in saying that most permanent heads would be chief officers?

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Yes.

Senator SPOONER:

– The head of a d’e>partment in each State is probably the chief officer, so we are dealing with men who are’ truly the cream of the Public Service. Isay, with respect to those who may hold the opposite view, that we exaggerate the difficulty somewhat if we say that men in that category victimize employees by fining them over and over again an amount which is just small enough to avoid giving the right of appeal. The officer concerned has to report to the board once a month. He has to keep the board acquainted of the disciplinary action he has taken.

Senator Sheehan:

– He might get promotion if he carries that on for some time.

Senator SPOONER:

– Knowing the Public Service as I do, I think that a chief officer who did a thing like that and rt ported on it month by month would lose a lot in status and standing in the eyes of his colleagues. When his turn for promotion came, he would pay bitterly for having taken such an attitude. Without being able to put my finger on the appropriate provision in the Public Service Regulations, I am confident that the Public Service Board would find a procedure which would enable that position to be corrected without disadvantage to the employees concerned.

I finish where I started. This has been a wide field of argument that has been traversed for four or five years. I do not for one moment suggest that I have put all the arguments in reply. The main argument is that this is not a casual decision, nor a decision that has not been well considered. It was the subject of a good deal of consideration by the Public Service Board and by the Government before an alteration along the lines suggested was refused to those who applied for it.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) spoke of overstating the position, and. then, I think, fell into that error himself. Nobody has suggested that a person will be fined every month. That is overdrawing the picture. A public servant spends 40 or 45 years of his industrial life in the service. It is sufficient if he is fined only three times in ten years. The entries are made on his card, and the effect is not that he is being fined only £2 on each occasion; it is much worse. I do not want the Minister to repeat the example of a man being fined month after month.

The Minister is falling into error when he imagines that all of the facts of each case are available to a chief officer. Let us take the position of a postal employee who is in the outback. He is charged, but the chief officer never sees him. All he gets is a report from the local postmaster, who may or may not provide the chief officer with an explanation from the officer concerned. The officer concerned may never have been asked for an explanation. As everybody who is familiar with the Public Service knows, to start off against an adverse report from an officer of any status is like trying to give that impossible 10 yards start in 100 yards. The chief officer, as Senator Byrne informed the Minister, is not always completely in touch with particular cases. I have referred to remote localities where there is no possible way of even seeking an interview with a senior officer. Those are the very circumstances in which a right of appeal is needed.

The Minister spoke about cluttering up the administration. I think that I dealt with that aspect in moving the amendment. Records would be readily available from the Public Service Board. I cannot see how adoption of the amendment would lead to a cluttering up of administration. The number of appeals lodged in major cases is very small, and allowing appeals in relation to lesser penalties would not increase the volume very much. Every person will not appeal, but he should have the right to do so. The Minister has rehashed the arguments against our proposal. I do not blame him for that. He frankly admits that he has forgotten some of the arguments that were advanced. I ask the Minister fairly: What has the Public Service Board to lose? Surely the Government and the board can appreciate the advantages which would result from the adoption of the amendment. Let the

Minister tell me what there is to lose by accepting it.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– There is one important matter to be considered in relation to fines and punishments. I appreciate that there is a line of demarcation between major and minor offences in the Public Service and government instrumentalities, but a most serious injustice can be done by the imposition of a minor penalty, without the right of appeal, if an officer or employee has his record endorsed with particulars of an offence. That is likely to militate against his advancement. It may be said at the time that the officer is treated leniently by being fined only £2, but on his history card is put an entry which is likely to endanger his prospects of promotion. Naturally, such an officer wants to appeal, not because of the imposition of a fine of £2, but because of the serious damage which will be done to him during the whole of his service. We know of occasions when employees have asked for the imposition of a fine commensurate with a major offence so that they may have the right of appeal. The main point is the elimination from the history card of the record of the fine. If the Government proposes to retain the provision that there shall be no appeal against a small fine for what might be called a minor offence, it should provide that the offence should not be recorded. Then the record would not militate against the officer who had been fined. A minor offence should not be recorded on an officer’s history card. If a man is fined £20 at least he can appeal and, if successful, have the record erased, but if he is fined only £2, he has no appeal and the offence is recorded against him.

No union or organization representing the officers wants to appeal against fines of 5s., 10s. or £2. Such appeals are expensive for the union. If the offences are only minor misdemeanors, the fine should end the affair. The officer, having paid his fine, should not have the offence held against him later to prejudice him in the service. If the offence is serious enough to be recorded on the card, he should have the right of appeal.

That is the crux of the argument that is supported by my organization which represents persons who believe they have a grievance. An officer who hears a case might say, “This case is a bit rickety and I am not prepared to impose a heavy fine. I will fine the man £2 “. In such cases, the offence operates against the man concerned for life.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Willesee’s amendment) be added.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 28 - by leave - taken together.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I wish to refer to clause 14, which relates to leave of absence for recreation. This clause provides for the amendment of section 68 of the principal act by omitting sub-section (3.). The principal act provides that when an officer is absent without sanction, he shall forfeit his pay for each day of absence. All the Government proposes to do is to remove that provision. It will then be robbed of that power under the act and will put into the regulations a power to make regulations to cover the temporary absence of officers. First, I object to that provision in the bill because it will remove something from the act and replace it with a regulatory power. I think it is bad in principle, because the act should be the strong section of administration. Therefore, I object on the ground of principle, and I should like the Minister, if he can, to explain to me what he is gaining by the alteration. The effect will be to hand down this delegated power right along the line into every hamlet and glen wherever the Public Service is operating in Australia. In spite of the great admiration I have for public servants, I think we will find that petty tyrants will use pin-pricking incidents to make charges against, and punish their subordinates.

The Government is taking out of the parent act a strong and definite provision which could be used to deal with an offender for a day’s absence. The Government is replacing that provision. I do not know what it is gaining by taking power by regulation. It will only lead to a lot of shilly-shallying.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I am concerned with clause 21, which relates to temporary employment. I have in my hand the thirty-second report of the Public Service Board. On page 23 of that report, the number of permanent and temporary officers in the Public Service is given. It seems to me that some sort of effort ought to be made to give permanency to a greater number. For the year ended 30th June, 1956, the number of permanent officers was 85,260, and the number of temporary officers was 68,340. I recognize that, in the Department of Works and to some degree the Postmaster-General’s Department, there would be a fair amount of coming and going, but when we glance through the figures for the other departments, we see that the numbers classed as temporary and exempt are so large that none of us can feel proud that we are keeping so many persons in suspense, as it were.

When a man is over 30 or 35 years of age, he desires to have some sense of security. I have not an intimate knowledge of the departments, but no one could convince me that, out of a total of 153,600 employees in the Commonwealth service, 68,340 should be on the temporary list. I ask the board, through the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to have a look at the position in order to ascertain whether more temporary employees should be given permanent positions so that they can have that security which we all desire in life. As I have said, no doubt other honorable senators have a more intimate knowledge of these matters, but I do not think that one-quarter of the total number of Commonwealth public servants should lack the security that I would desire if I were one of them.

Clauses agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Spooner) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

.- I do not know whether I am in order at this stage in asking the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to comment on the matter raised by Senator Willesee in committee and tell the Senate the reason for deleting the specific provision from the act with a view to allowing the matter to be handled by regulation. I am not raising this as a casual query. It is an important matter, and I am wondering whether the Minister has been advised on it and whether he can indicate just why the sub-section has been taken out of the statute and the same power conferred by regulation.

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP

– in reply - Section 68 of the act makes provision for the granting of leave of absence for recreation. Sub-section (3.) of this section provides that when the absence of an officer is not sanctioned, he shall forfeit his pay for each day of such absence. The parliamentary draftsman has queried the placing of such a provision in this section. Sub-section (2.) provides that regulations may be made to provide for the reduction, by reason of a period of absence, of recreation which may be granted to an officer. It is considered that sub-section (2.) is sufficient for the reduction of leave in respect of any absence from duty.

A new provision is to be inserted in section 97 to enable the board to make regulations providing for the forfeiture of salary or pay of officers or employees in respect of any period of absence not authorized by the act or regulation. This amendment is effected by clause 24 of the bill. Regulations may be made under this new provision to cover the same matter provided for in section 68 (3.).

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– The Minister is taking the provision out of the statute?

Senator SPOONER:

– Accordingly, subsection (3.) is omitted from the act. The main reason is that as the act now stands it is obligatory upon the chief officer, in the circumstances that arise, to make the deduction, whereas in the actual working of the service there are many occasions on which it would be unfair automatically to make that deduction. So, it is contemplated by regulation to set up some set of circumstances which would give the chief officer discretion not to make the deduction, to make the deduction pro rata, or to lay down some formula or arrangement which would enable the circumstances to be dealt with equitably.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 874

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till to-morrow at 11 a.m.

page 874

ADJOURNMENT

” Hansard “ Report.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– I shall not delay the Senate for long. In reading the “ Hansard “ report of my speech on 14th May during the second-reading debate on the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill 1957, I have noticed that the composition of the Sulphur Development Committee that was established in 1951 is referred to in the present tense. Unfortunately, I did not revise the typescript of my speech. The chairman of that committee was Mr. Cochrane, who has been dead for nearly three years. Mr. Gazes, of the British Phosphate Commission, sat on the committee for only a couple of years. Mr. Nette, who was connected with the preparations for the Olympic Games last year, has now retired. Mr. Bulcock has been out of Australia for many years, and Mr. Duggan is not now a member of the committee. I should not like it to be thought that I meant that a committee composed of those gentlemen is at present in operation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.12 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 May 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1957/19570520_senate_22_s10/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant